Jump to content

God as the first cause.


Recommended Posts

Didn't want to reopen such an old thread, but I think Stockholm Syndrome could quite easily be explained as a withdrawal from large amounts of adrenaline and other euphoric chemicals produce while in a life or death experience.

Actually, no. It cannot, and the rest of your post is really invalid, basically speculations on a topic about which you seem not too clear. You were right, though, to question if this thread is the right place to add such comments. It's really not. Please restrict comments on that subject to the thread in place to discuss it. It is off topic here. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would say both.   One could just as well say that the universe was sneezed out of some nose (fits with the expanding universe we see). Maybe you would call that sneezer God.   Or, maybe the univ

No. This is about your claim - not mine. You are trying to avoid the central accusation that you have made an unwarranted assertion with no evidence.  This is just chop-logic. I can use your def

The existence of the universe constitutes evidence for a god. It is most certainly not solid evidence, but it is illogical to declare it not evidence at all.

Posted Images

I still have not come to any examples of evidence, even though I seem to have seen someone here presenting his concept of what is evidence.

 

 

Quote from Yrreg

 

For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence.

 

I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence.

 

 

If you anyone have given two examples of what is evidence after you have given your own self-thought out concept of what is evidence from your stock knowledge of things in the actual objective reality of existing things, then please show in your examples of evidence how evidence brings you to know something before you did not know because you did not have evidence.

 

Otherwise, the most reasonable objection against God, namely, that there is no evidence, is all useless manipulation of concepts and words.

 

 

So, put up your examples of evidence and expatiate on how the evidence in each examples of evidence brings a human being to come to the fact of the existence of something before he did not know about -- i.e., until he came to the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is not something new, the Nyaya school of philosophy existed around 2nd century and deals with logical reasoning.

 

 

(Udayana lived around 10th century.

 

Udayana's Nyayakusumanjali gave the following nine arguments to prove the existence of creative God[5]:

  • Kāryāt (lit. "from effect"): An effect is produced by a cause, and similarly, the universe must also have a cause. Causes (according to Naiyayikas) are of three kinds: Samavayi (in case of the universe, the atoms), Asamavayi (the association of atoms) and Nimitta (which is Ishvara). The active cause of the world must have an absolute knowledge of all the material of creation, and hence it must be God. Hence from the creation, the existence of the Creator is proved.

  • Dhŗtyādéḥ(lit., from support): Just as a material thing falls off without a support, similarly, God is the supporter and bearer of this world, without which the world would not have remained integrated. This universe is hence superintended within God, which proves his existence.

  • Padāt (lit., from word): Every word has the capability to represent a certain object. It is the will of God that a thing should be represented by a certain word. Similarly, no knowledge can come to us of the different things here unless there is a source of this knowledge. The origin of all knowledge should be omniscient and, consequently, omnipotent. Such a being is not to be seen in this universe, and so it must be outside it. This being is God.

 

However, you cannot subscribe God as the first cause for the origin of the universe because the existence of God is not self-evident and hence doesn't constitute as a proof. There is only indirect evidence for God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Mountanman, tell which is an assumption of the two statements below, namely, not founded on any rational basis at all:

 

A. A teapot orbits the sun between earth and Mars.

 

B. God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

I would say both.

 

One could just as well say that the universe was sneezed out of some nose (fits with the expanding universe we see). Maybe you would call that sneezer God.

 

Or, maybe the universe was created due to the uncertainty between time and space at plank scales (which doesn't require a divine being/God).

 

So, unless you have data that determines which of these (or any number of other situations) are true, then you don't have any evidence and thus can not be basing your beliefs on a rational judgement.

 

Okay, to everyone here who is denying that God exists:

 

Please first give your concept of God as you know it to be in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Not a complete list but:

1) All powerful

2) All knowing

3) Perfect Morality

 

Now, if God has all these attributes I can prove (yes as in mathematical proof) that such a being does not exist if we then use evidence that we can see ourselves.

 

Here goes:

Let A be the set of all actions.

Let C be the set of actions "Create any Universe"

Let K be the set of all knowledge.

Let H be set of knowledge "How to create any Universe"

Let S be any suffering.

 

Let [Action]M be the Perfectly Moral Action

Let SU be Unnecessary Suffering

 

As C is a set of actions, it must also exist within the set of all action A

As H is as set of knowledge, it must exist in the set K.

 

Any being that has the property of of being all powerful can perform any action in the set A

Any being that has the property of being all knowing knows everything in the set K

 

Thus the Christian God could be defined as AK[A]M (note this allows God to have the power to do evil, but that He chooses not to do evil). That is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly moral.

 

This means that a perfectly moral God, when creating a universe performs HM.

 

If Unnecessary Suffering is not perfectly moral (eg ASU, then any being that creates a Universe HSU can not be considered perfectly moral (that is God would be Godnot M

 

If our universe is not [H]M, then God can not be AK[A]M.

 

God can create a universe without suffering, as Hnot S is a subest of H and H is a subest of A.

 

This means that any suffering is unnecesary: S = SU where God = AK[A]M.

 

If our universe is [H]S, then God can not be the Christian God.

 

As our universe clearly has suffering, then this logically disproves the Christian God (actually all AK[A]M Gods).

 

For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence.

 

I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence.

Evidence is any data or information that allows you to decide between 2 or more possibilities as being not false.

 

Example 1:

Two scientists are discussing if Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein is correct in the formula for gravity.

Non Evidence: Each drop a ball from a given height and the time it takes both balls to reach the ground match each other.

 

As this does not allow us to determine whether Newton or Einstein is correct, then it is not evidence.

 

Evidence: Astronomers measure the orbit of the planet Mercury. Newton predicts a certain value for the precession of Mercury around the Sun and Einstein predicts a different value. The value that is measured matches the value predicted by Einstein.

 

This is evidence because it allows us to determine which of the two formula are correct.

 

Example 2:

A brother and sister are arguing over who owns a piggy bank (and the money within it).

Non Evidence: They agree that the piggy bank is pink. the sister claims that she owns it because she likes the colour pink. The boy says that He owns it because pigs are pink that it doesn't come in any other colour.

 

This is non evidence because despite the piggy bank being pink, each has a valid reason for it to be pink, thus the observation of the piggy bank being pink does not decide between the two claims.

 

Evidence: The girl says that her name is written on a piece of paper inside the piggy bank, and the boy claims that the piece of paper has his name on it. Upon opening the piggy bank the piece of paper has the boy's name on it.

 

The piece of paper is evidence as it allows them to make a distinction between the claims of each of the siblings.

 

Now, for everyone who wants me to prove that God exists in the actual objective reality of existing things like the nose in our face and the ground where we are standing on, here it is:

 

Before anything else, the concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, which is everything in the universe that is not God.

This is an assumption right here. This is the assumption of the Christian religions, but it is not the assumption of any other religion.

 

When making a claim against atheism, you have to do 2 things:

1) Prove that supernatural entities like Gods exist

2) Prove that it is
your
God and not some other God that really exists.

 

Here, you have done neither. All you have done is restate that you believe that that the universe needed a creator and that it was your god that was that creator (that is actually 2 assumptions).

 

Okay, here are the step by step expatiation of the proof of God's existence in the actual objective realm of existing things.

 

A. You and I we exist.

B. We have a beginning.

C. Before our beginning we did not exist.

D. Using my actual and your actual existing reasoning faculty,

E. We transit to the actual objective existence of God.

F. Why? Because without God we would not be here writing in this forum.

 

For you who deny the existence of God, what is your proof?

As for proof: See above.

 

There is a massive leap between D and E; and F is just the logical fallacy "Begging the question" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ).

 

And, even B is debatable:

The atoms that make me up didn't just pop into existence when I was conceived. These cam from the food my mother ate, and these cam from the environment and so forth. I didn't so much as "Begin", I "Became".

 

But, as your argument requires that we "Began", then if we "Became" then it invalidates your argument.

 

I will just say in closing this message: that the existence of God as per the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe is obvious to the functional reason of man.

As I have proven with formal logic that a God can not be all powerfull, all knowing and perfectly moral if the universe has any suffering. And, because our universe has suffering then the God that created our universe (if any) can not have those 3 properties.

 

That statement is what I call an "obviosity" to the honestly functional reason of man.

Call it what you want, it doesn't make it any more true.

 

If it were true, then there would be no other religions. The fact that there are other religion means that the Christian God can not be something fundamental to the "functional reason of man".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say both.

 

One could just as well say that the universe was sneezed out of some nose (fits with the expanding universe we see). Maybe you would call that sneezer God.

 

Or, maybe the universe was created due to the uncertainty between time and space at plank scales (which doesn't require a divine being/God).

 

So, unless you have data that determines which of these (or any number of other situations) are true, then you don't have any evidence and thus can not be basing your beliefs on a rational judgement.

 

 

Not a complete list but:

1) All powerful

2) All knowing

3) Perfect Morality

 

Now, if God has all these attributes I can prove (yes as in mathematical proof) that such a being does not exist if we then use evidence that we can see ourselves.

 

Here goes:

Let A be the set of all actions.

Let C be the set of actions "Create any Universe"

Let K be the set of all knowledge.

Let H be set of knowledge "How to create any Universe"

Let S be any suffering.

 

Let [Action]M be the Perfectly Moral Action

Let SU be Unnecessary Suffering

 

As C is a set of actions, it must also exist within the set of all action A

As H is as set of knowledge, it must exist in the set K.

 

Any being that has the property of of being all powerful can perform any action in the set A

Any being that has the property of being all knowing knows everything in the set K

 

Thus the Christian God could be defined as AK[A]M (note this allows God to have the power to do evil, but that He chooses not to do evil). That is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly moral.

 

This means that a perfectly moral God, when creating a universe performs HM.

 

If Unnecessary Suffering is not perfectly moral (eg ASU, then any being that creates a Universe HSU can not be considered perfectly moral (that is God would be Godnot M

 

If our universe is not [H]M, then God can not be AK[A]M.

 

God can create a universe without suffering, as Hnot S is a subest of H and H is a subest of A.

 

This means that any suffering is unnecesary: S = SU where God = AK[A]M.

 

If our universe is [H]S, then God can not be the Christian God.

 

As our universe clearly has suffering, then this logically disproves the Christian God (actually all AK[A]M Gods).

 

 

Evidence is any data or information that allows you to decide between 2 or more possibilities as being not false.

 

Example 1:

Two scientists are discussing if Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein is correct in the formula for gravity.

Non Evidence: Each drop a ball from a given height and the time it takes both balls to reach the ground match each other.

 

As this does not allow us to determine whether Newton or Einstein is correct, then it is not evidence.

 

Evidence: Astronomers measure the orbit of the planet Mercury. Newton predicts a certain value for the precession of Mercury around the Sun and Einstein predicts a different value. The value that is measured matches the value predicted by Einstein.

 

This is evidence because it allows us to determine which of the two formula are correct.

 

Example 2:

A brother and sister are arguing over who owns a piggy bank (and the money within it).

Non Evidence: They agree that the piggy bank is pink. the sister claims that she owns it because she likes the colour pink. The boy says that He owns it because pigs are pink that it doesn't come in any other colour.

 

This is non evidence because despite the piggy bank being pink, each has a valid reason for it to be pink, thus the observation of the piggy bank being pink does not decide between the two claims.

 

Evidence: The girl says that her name is written on a piece of paper inside the piggy bank, and the boy claims that the piece of paper has his name on it. Upon opening the piggy bank the piece of paper has the boy's name on it.

 

The piece of paper is evidence as it allows them to make a distinction between the claims of each of the siblings.

 

 

This is an assumption right here. This is the assumption of the Christian religions, but it is not the assumption of any other religion.

 

When making a claim against atheism, you have to do 2 things:

1) Prove that supernatural entities like Gods exist

2) Prove that it is your God and not some other God that really exists.

 

Here, you have done neither. All you have done is restate that you believe that that the universe needed a creator and that it was your god that was that creator (that is actually 2 assumptions).

 

 

As for proof: See above.

 

There is a massive leap between D and E; and F is just the logical fallacy "Begging the question" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ).

 

And, even B is debatable:

The atoms that make me up didn't just pop into existence when I was conceived. These cam from the food my mother ate, and these cam from the environment and so forth. I didn't so much as "Begin", I "Became".

 

But, as your argument requires that we "Began", then if we "Became" then it invalidates your argument.

 

 

As I have proven with formal logic that a God can not be all powerfull, all knowing and perfectly moral if the universe has any suffering. And, because our universe has suffering then the God that created our universe (if any) can not have those 3 properties.

 

 

Call it what you want, it doesn't make it any more true.

 

If it were true, then there would be no other religions. The fact that there are other religion means that the Christian God can not be something fundamental to the "functional reason of man".

 

 

I am absolutely in awe of your argument... I mean it, awesome points and counter points...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Unnecessary Suffering is not perfectly moral (eg ASU, then any being that creates a Universe HSU can not be considered perfectly moral (that is God would be Godnot M

 

If our universe is not [H]M, then God can not be AK[A]M.

 

God can create a universe without suffering, as Hnot S is a subest of H and H is a subest of A.

 

Not that I disagree with your conclusion in any way, but there is a hidden assumption here of the nature of what is necessary (which would entail knowing the purpose of the universe/everything in it).

 

I cannot see how parasites that can only live in an eyeball are in any way necessary or useful, but I am not all knowing.

 

It could be argued that it's analogous to the child who does not understand why he has to work for his pocket money, why he cannot always have candy, or why he received an injection from a needle (the last two aren't so great because the harm/non-good comes from a lack of power).

 

This is essentially the tired old 'God works in mysterious ways' argument -- somewhat absurd if you know anything about parasites or one of the many other sources of horrible senseless suffering -- but I would like to see your rebuttal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree with your conclusion in any way, but there is a hidden assumption here of the nature of what is necessary (which would entail knowing the purpose of the universe/everything in it).

 

I cannot see how parasites that can only live in an eyeball are in any way necessary or useful, but I am not all knowing.

 

It could be argued that it's analogous to the child who does not understand why he has to work for his pocket money, why he cannot always have candy, or why he received an injection from a needle (the last two aren't so great because the harm/non-good comes from a lack of power).

 

This is essentially the tired old 'God works in mysterious ways' argument -- somewhat absurd if you know anything about parasites or one of the many other sources of horrible senseless suffering -- but I would like to see your rebuttal.

When most people think of "All Powerful" they just think "Really Powerful". This is why I used the definition in my argument using set theory.

 

In my argument, A is the set of all actions and AC is the acts that create any universe.

 

In my argument, this means any universe that can be conceived by a being that can conceive of anything. Specifically, this includes a universe that does: anything and everything that God would require from this (or really any universe) universe, but has no suffering.

 

It doesn't matter what the purpose of the universe is, whether or not we have free will, or that God works in mysterious ways. Because and all powerful, all knowing God can make any universe, then this must include a universe that matches any and all requirements and also has no suffering.

 

This is why any and all suffering (in the case of an all powerful, all knowing God) is unnecessary.

 

Of course, if God is not all powerful, or not all knowing, then this might be the best He could do (although, then it comes down to whether He has sufficient power and knowledge to create the morally perfect universe even if He is not all powerful or all knowing). Also, if God is not morally perfect, then this argument fails.

 

However, because the Christian God is supposed to have these 3 properties then it is incompatible with a universe that has suffering. Only 1 of them can be true (in terms of logic, this would be an Xor function: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I still have not come to any examples of evidence, even though I seem to have seen someone here presenting his concept of what is evidence.

 

 

Quote from Yrreg

 

For posters who have given a concept of what is evidence, please give two examples of evidence.

 

I am sorry if you have given two examples, but you must also explain how the two examples you give if any at all I mean of examples, are illustrations and actual instances of what is evidence as per your own concept or adopted from other sources of what is evidence.

 

 

If you anyone have given two examples of what is evidence after you have given your own self-thought out concept of what is evidence from your stock knowledge of things in the actual objective reality of existing things, then please show in your examples of evidence how evidence brings you to know something before you did not know because you did not have evidence.

 

Otherwise, the most reasonable objection against God, namely, that there is no evidence, is all useless manipulation of concepts and words.

 

 

So, put up your examples of evidence and expatiate on how the evidence in each examples of evidence brings a human being to come to the fact of the existence of something before he did not know about -- i.e., until he came to the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

Sorry guys, I have not been active here since the above post.

 

 

Now, you guys want me to put up or shut up.

 

 

Okay, I will just ask you this question, though I have not read your posts since I was last here on March 14, 2012, and today in my place it is April 1, 2012:

 

Has there always been something existing: yes, no?

 

 

You see, to put up something from my part and whether it is really putting up something, depends upon you.

 

I can be putting up already things but you still insist that I am not in regard to the topic of this thread, God as first cause, in which case then you give me some concrete instructions what it is to put up in regard to my thesis that God is the first cause.

 

Otherwise, namely, if you don't give me the concrete instructions, and then you ban me on the ground that I am not putting up, well what can I do but simply and stoically accept being excluded from this forum -- i.e. just resign myself to the brute fact of your exercise of physical power.

 

 

Now, this question I am asking you, Has there always been something existing: yes, no? is one way of putting up to prove that God is the first cause.

 

How does it work?

 

Like this: When you answer either yes or no (or even I don't know), then I will show you that we can work together to analyze your answer, and on the basis of our each one's reasoning faculty working correctly, you will see that it is reasonable that God exists as the first cause of everything that has a beginning.

 

And to not admit that is to be unreasonable.

 

 

Anyway, I am resigned to be banned from this forum, if you people still insist that I am not putting up whatever.

 

 

I will just say before I leave this post because it can be my last one here, namely, that there are as many ways of putting up as human reason can come to the ascertainment of the actual objective reality of something existing outside of concepts and words, and concepts and words should always bring us to the actual objective reality of existing things.

 

A lot of arguments from atheists are just on the level of concepts and words but they don't go to the actual objective reality of existing things.

 

For example, calling God a flying spaghetti monster but not taking the work to find out whether God is really a flying spaghetti monster or He is as taught by Christians the creator of everything that has a beginning.

 

Another way of working only and exclusively on the level of concepts and words, is to insist that the idea of God as the creator of everything with a beginning is an assumption or circular statement, but never taking the time and investment in thinking to examine exactly what is an assumption and how it is circular, in the realm of the actual objective reality of existing things.

 

 

 

Yrreg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a complete list but:

1) All powerful

2) All knowing

3) Perfect Morality

 

Now, if God has all these attributes I can prove (yes as in mathematical proof) that such a being does not exist if we then use evidence that we can see ourselves.

 

Here goes:

Let A be the set of all actions.

Let C be the set of actions "Create any Universe"

Let K be the set of all knowledge.

Let H be set of knowledge "How to create any Universe"

Let S be any suffering.

 

Let [Action]M be the Perfectly Moral Action

Let SU be Unnecessary Suffering

 

As C is a set of actions, it must also exist within the set of all action A

As H is as set of knowledge, it must exist in the set K.

 

Any being that has the property of of being all powerful can perform any action in the set A

Any being that has the property of being all knowing knows everything in the set K

 

Thus the Christian God could be defined as AK[A]M (note this allows God to have the power to do evil, but that He chooses not to do evil). That is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly moral.

 

This means that a perfectly moral God, when creating a universe performs HM.

 

If Unnecessary Suffering is not perfectly moral (eg ASU, then any being that creates a Universe HSU can not be considered perfectly moral (that is God would be Godnot M

 

If our universe is not [H]M, then God can not be AK[A]M.

 

God can create a universe without suffering, as Hnot S is a subest of H and H is a subest of A.

 

This means that any suffering is unnecesary: S = SU where God = AK[A]M.

 

If our universe is [H]S, then God can not be the Christian God.

 

As our universe clearly has suffering, then this logically disproves the Christian God (actually all AK[A]M Gods).

 

You have not considered the possibility of creation of an Universe with both Hns (a universe with necessary suffering to fulfill the works of God) and Hnot S (a universe without any suffering) simultaneously existing in the cosmos.

 

I know there is not much evidence for the latter universe to prove my case but it is a possibility and hence the conclusion from empirical observation is not quite compelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not considered the possibility of creation of an Universe with both Hns (a universe with necessary suffering to fulfill the works of God) and Hnot S (a universe without any suffering) simultaneously existing in the cosmos.

 

I know there is not much evidence for the latter universe to prove my case but it is a possibility and hence the conclusion from empirical observation is not quite compelling.

 

 

You are talking about the suffering of humans.

 

Before anything else, and I don't know what you are proving, let us not talk about the suffering of humans which are you and me.

 

First things first, is there a first cause which Christians identify as God and define as the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning or is not God Himself.

 

That is why I am asking atheists here what is their reply to this question:

 

Has there always been something: yes, no?

 

 

 

Yrreg

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why I am asking atheists here what is their reply to this question:

 

Has there always been something: yes, no?

My reply is that this is a false dichotomy... a flawed choice. Since when is the answer of, "We don't yet know" no longer the most accurate one?

 

I'd much rather stipulate that I do not know than to assert a bullshit answer like goddidit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about the suffering of humans.

 

Before anything else, and I don't know what you are proving, let us not talk about the suffering of humans which are you and me.

 

Ok, we'll get to that after we answer your question and mine...

 

First things first, is there a first cause which Christians identify as God and define as the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning or is not God Himself.

 

Did you make an error in grammar? This is not a coherent question. I'm not trying to be obtuse, please reword this so it makes sense.

 

That is why I am asking atheists here what is their reply to this question:

 

Why would an atheist have the answer to this question?

 

Has there always been something: yes, no?

 

Yrreg

 

 

To answer this question I can with no hesitation answer yes...

 

Oh yeah, I almost forgot my question, if there is a creator of some kind, why does it have to be a god and if it is a god why does it have to be your god?

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply is that this is a false dichotomy... a flawed choice. Since when is the answer of, "We don't yet know" no longer the most accurate one?

 

I'd much rather stipulate that I do not know than to assert a bullshit answer like goddidit.

 

 

Well, it is not enough that you allege my question,"Has there always been something: yes, no?" is founded upon a false dichotomy.

 

Please explain what is a false dichotomy and then show how my question is founded on a false dichotomy; otherwise anyone can just run away from answering a valid question by just declaring that the question is founded on a false dichotomy.

 

 

That is most convenient but it is really a cop-out, just like declaring that I don't know therefore everyone else is not supposed to know either, namely, stop using his mind to think.

 

 

Yrreg

 

Ok, we'll get to that after we answer your question and mine...

 

 

 

Did you make an error in grammar? This is not a coherent question. I'm not trying to be obtuse, please reword this so it makes sense.

 

 

 

Why would an atheist have the answer to this question?

 

 

 

 

To answer this question I can with no hesitation answer yes...

 

Oh yeah, I almost forgot my question, if there is a creator of some kind, why does it have to be a god and if it is a god why does it have to be your god?

 

 

First, of course, before anything else, since you mention about "your god" which I presume you mean the Christian God, then you must go and search Christian sources to come to the correct information about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

Otherwise you might be into any god but not the Christian God.

 

You atheists will be pertinent to focus and concentrate on the Christian God, otherwise you are missing the target that is the only one that matters, namely, the Christian God -- and that is being impertinent.

 

 

Almost all arguments of atheists against gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., so many, are really cop-out strategies, they are avoiding the arena where the action is really to be found, namely, focus and concentrate on the Christian God, and thus first obtain the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

 

 

Yrreg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is not enough that you allege my question,"Has there always been something: yes, no?" is founded upon a false dichotomy.

 

Please explain what is a false dichotomy and then show how my question is founded on a false dichotomy; otherwise anyone can just run away from answering a valid question by just declaring that the question is founded on a false dichotomy.

 

 

That is most convenient but it is really a cop-out, just like declaring that I don't know therefore everyone else is not supposed to know either,

You're creating a dichotomy by limiting the possible answers to yes or no. There are other possible answers (such as "We don't know yet"), so your dichotomy is false. Do you understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, of course, before anything else, since you mention about "your god" which I presume you mean the Christian God, then you must go and search Christian sources to come to the correct information about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

Ok, what are the correct sources to find that information?

 

Otherwise you might be into any god but not the Christian God.

 

I am not into any god, gods or goddesses or anything else supernatural...

 

You atheists will be pertinent to focus and concentrate on the Christian God, otherwise you are missing the target that is the only one that matters, namely, the Christian God -- and that is being impertinent.

 

Again, why is the christian god the only god that matters?

 

Almost all arguments of atheists against gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., so many, are really cop-out strategies, they are avoiding the arena where the action is really to be found, namely, focus and concentrate on the Christian God, and thus first obtain the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

Again, where is that information?

 

What would you say about this?http://www.cosmiccradle.com/big_bang2.html

 

 

Ummm, it's entirely horse feathers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it is not enough that you allege my question,"Has there always been something: yes, no?" is founded upon a false dichotomy.

 

Please explain what is a false dichotomy and then show how my question is founded on a false dichotomy;

Oh... Oh, my. Really? Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, what are the correct sources to find that information?

 

 

 

I am not into any god, gods or goddesses or anything else supernatural...

 

 

 

Again, why is the christian god the only god that matters?

 

 

 

Again, where is that information?

 

 

 

 

Ummm, it's entirely horse feathers?

 

 

Well, since atheists are presumed to be reading people, therefore they must have read about what they insist does not exist, namely, about God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

How can atheists claim to know God does not exist when they don't read about Him: in particular since atheists aim their critique against Christians, it is reasonable on their part and to be taken for granted that they do read about the Christian faith looking into all the materials about God.

 

If you atheists do not know the sources of the Christian faith which you must address yourselves to in order to talk knowedgeably about God as to come to your kind of conclusion that He does not exist, then you should not talk at all but just listen to people who are atheists like yourselves but are knowledgeable -- however better you read yourselves.

 

Now, I want to address myself to atheists who are knowledgeable about the Christian faith and therefore also knowledgeable about the literary sources i.e. storages of the Christian faith, we can have have productive exchange of thoughts.

 

For atheists who want to ask me for sources of the Christian faith, I will not invest time with you.

 

But you go and take time and mental concentration to think about this question:

 

Has there always been something existing? [ No more yes no because you want to use that as a cop-out by alleging erroneously that it is a false dichotomy whatever. ]

 

Go, read about the Christian faith on God after you have worked hard and honestly with your mind on the question, "Has there always been something existing?"

 

 

Now, addressing myself to atheists who take up reading Christian sources on God:

 

Come, let us have useful and productive exchange of thoughts.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

For atheists who resort to the cop-out of I don't know, at least know that that kind of a cop-out is indicative of very sparse and poor stock knowledge of things.

 

And for atheists who resort to dichotomy, tell me what is the opposite of existence?

 

If you can think out the opposite of existence, then you can understand how this question: "Has there always been something existing?" can be intelligently and correctly answered with a yes or a no; and then you can explain why you choose the yes or the no answer, on the basis of your reasonable thinking.

 

I assure you that you will discover the proficiency of your mental assets by dwelling on that question, namely:

 

"Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"

 

 

You see, atheists, a lot of you or almost all of you resort to slogans but are not interested in thinking seriously and correctly, and hurling epithets against God, and also the rhetoric of what appear to you to be baffling questions, like if "God created everything what or who created God?" or "Can God make a rock so huge He cannot carry it?"

 

Or declaiming (the noun is declamation) as though it has any intellectual content, "What is north of the north pole?" whenever you are invited to do serious thinking beyond time and space.

 

 

 

Yrreg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since atheists are presumed to be reading people, therefore they must have read about what they insist does not exist, namely, about God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

 

I have read the bible, more than once cover to cover and many times as little blurbs given to me by my pastor.

 

How can atheists claim to know God does not exist when they don't read about Him: in particular since atheists aim their critique against Christians, it is reasonable on their part and to be taken for granted that they do read about the Christian faith looking into all the materials about God.

 

I get tired of telling Christians what their own holy book actually says, I think i am qualified to discuss this with you.

 

If you atheists do not know the sources of the Christian faith which you must address yourselves to in order to talk knowedgeably about God as to come to your kind of conclusion that He does not exist, then you should not talk at all but just listen to people who are atheists like yourselves but are knowledgeable -- however better you read yourselves.

 

Again, you are assuming something about me that is only not true but it takes quite a bit of gall to assume such a thing on this forum.

 

Now, I want to address myself to atheists who are knowledgeable about the Christian faith and therefore also knowledgeable about the literary sources i.e. storages of the Christian faith, we can have have productive exchange of thoughts.

 

I doubt that but I will still attempt to do so.

 

For atheists who want to ask me for sources of the Christian faith, I will not invest time with you.

 

Of course not but you are dealing with an atheist who is quite familiar with the christian faith...

 

But you go and take time and mental concentration to think about this question:

 

yada yada yada

 

Has there always been something existing? [ No more yes no because you want to use that as a cop-out by alleging erroneously that it is a false dichotomy whatever. ]

 

I say yes, something has always existed...

 

Go, read about the Christian faith on God after you have worked hard and honestly with your mind on the question, "Has there always been something existing?"

 

Again, i have and i say yes something has always existed no matter how you define something and existence...

 

 

Now, addressing myself to atheists who take up reading Christian sources on God:

 

Come, let us have useful and productive exchange of thoughts.

 

 

I am trying to do that but it would be easier to nail an eel to a tree.

 

 

Now, show me some evidence of the existence of not only a god but of your god.... and do not insult me by saying that i insist that god does not exist, i say i do not know if a god exists but I can say i see no positive evidence of a god christian or otherwise... You can trust that i will not ask you a stupid question designed to humiliate the concept of god, I take the concept very seriously, if there is a god i want to know about it and what it wants but it will have to do better than just have faith and believe....

 

If you insult me one more time you can best believe this conversation is over....

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites
How can atheists claim to know God does not exist...

Very few actually do. The vast majority simply say, "There's no good or compelling reason to assume one does. I remain open to evidence, but until you have something that would appeal to a rational and reasonable human being, I'm not inclined to accept the claim that one exists... Let alone the Christian one... as valid."

 

 

Has there always been something existing? [ No more yes no because you want to use that as a cop-out by alleging erroneously that it is a false dichotomy whatever. ]

I am sorry that you don't understand my challenge to your position, but that problem resides with you, not me. Try googling "false dichotomy" or "false choice" if you need to.

 

 

For atheists who resort to the cop-out of I don't know, at least know that that kind of a cop-out is indicative of very sparse and poor stock knowledge of things.

There's no need for this kind of invective, vitriol, and personal attack. I would like to ask you, however, why sharing the only accurate answer to this question is being dismissed as a "cop-out," and why sharing the only accurate answer indicates "sparse and poor knowledge." That seems silly, but I welcome your (sure to be forthcoming) clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need for this kind of invective, vitriol, and personal attack. I would like to ask you, however, why sharing the only accurate answer to this question is being dismissed as a "cop-out," and why sharing the only accurate answer indicates "sparse and poor knowledge." That seems silly, but I welcome your (sure to be forthcoming) clarification.

 

Agreed.

 

"There was a time point at which matter never existed" is a positive assertion.

"There has never been a time point at which matter never existed" is also a positive assertion.

 

Support for a positive assertion requires positive evidence. We have no direct evidence to support either statement.

Insisting that one answer positively to one or the other statement introduces a false dichotomy, as no proof exists for either statement.

 

It would be the same as me asking you if my couch is blue or red and insisting that you provide a positive answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reply is that this is a false dichotomy... a flawed choice. Since when is the answer of, "We don't yet know" no longer the most accurate one?

 

I'd much rather stipulate that I do not know than to assert a bullshit answer like goddidit.

 

 

You're creating a dichotomy by limiting the possible answers to yes or no. There are other possible answers (such as "We don't know yet"), so your dichotomy is false. Do you understand?

 

 

Agreed.

 

"There was a time point at which matter never existed" is a positive assertion.

"There has never been a time point at which matter never existed" is also a positive assertion.

 

Support for a positive assertion requires positive evidence. We have no direct evidence to support either statement.

Insisting that one answer positively to one or the other statement introduces a false dichotomy, as no proof exists for either statement.

 

It would be the same as me asking you if my couch is blue or red and insisting that you provide a positive answer.

 

Is this really a false dichotomy - I understand a false dichotomy as when an argument is made that purports to cover all possibilities but in fact excludes others. If you roll a die but keep it hidden under a cup - the question "Is it a 5 or is it a 6?" is a false dichotomy (it could be 1,2,3, or 4) and is unanswerable (it is still hidden). However, if you toss a fair coin and put your hand down on it - the question "Is it a head or a tail?" is a valid question (ie the dichotomy is not false) but it is still unanswerable (it is still hidden). Just because a question seems to preclude the answer "I do not or cannot know" does not make it a false dichotomy. Arete's sofa question is a perfect example

 

In terms of sofas - "is My sofa red" or "is my sofa not red" is fine; except for the presupposition that Arete has a sofa. If one is true the other must be false and vice versa.

 

"Has there always been something existing: yes, no?"
This is such a deliberately difficultly worded question that it is hardly worth worrying about, but this is bugging me and I would welcome your clarifications or explanation where I have gone wrong. To reword and simplify Arete's rewording

 

"There has never been a time point at which no matter existed"

"There has been a time point at which no matter existed"

these seem to me to be exhaustive - and thus not a false dichotomy - even if completely unanswerable. To move on to the better rewording encompassing continuation

 

"There was a time point at which matter never existed"

"There has never been a time point at which matter never existed"

The complications with time and matter make the question unanswerable but I cannot see why from a logical/discursive viewpoint it is different from

 

"There was a time point at which language had never existed"

"There has never been a time point at which language has never existed"

 

 

To sum up - I think the question is completely unanswerable (ie the answer must be "we cannot and do not know") but it is not a false dichotomy - would appreciate corrections

Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up - I think the question is completely unanswerable (ie the answer must be "we cannot and do not know") but it is not a false dichotomy - would appreciate corrections

 

I guess false dichotomy doesn't perfectly encapsulate the type of fallacy at hand, but it does describe the exclusion of answers in a fashion.

 

For e.g: In the couch example I could have no couch, a couch of a color other than red or blue, or my couch could be red and blue, etc.

 

In the initial proposition, matter could have existed in a fashion not currently understood, as to not fall under our formal definition of "existing", or any other number of intermediates or alternative conditions which are not and unable to be considered in the initial premise. The presented conditions both enforce an answer to an unknowable question and excludes possibilities outside of the a priori set of hypotheses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to see what his evidence was going to be before I explained my answer but i truly think that in a real sense something has always existed. if the universe we know as space time is all there is then it has always existed because there was no existence or a "before" space time to measure. if you think the theories of time existing before the universe are valid as in the ekpyrotic universe then again something has always existed. Nothing cannot exist. existence implies something but I see no reason to connect this with a creator or god or anything else.

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.