Do you believe in God?

[Dennisch]

You're reading into it what you choose to.

He is infinite and there's nothing anyone can do to change that fact - can be one way to read "unchanging". He will always be who He is, is another, etc.

then it would require an actual infinite, which as I've described is absurd/impossible.

And therefor god is absurd/impossible.

We're done. Close the thread.

.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

You're reading into it what you choose to.

Are you not doing the same, but on the other side of the spectrum?

 

[Doth1s]

I stopped believing in God when I was five, which was the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Sach]

So in other words, we have a Universal consciousness that we DON'T have to call God, and whose ATTRIBUTES we are completely unaware of.

Do you realize you've just denied the existence of God and have stated that there doesn't have to be one? If we don't have to call such Universal Consciousness "God", and since we can't attribute anything to it, then what purpose is there to arguing about it?

It really seems like you all pick things apart constantly to suit your own purposes, not for the sake of the truth which you claim to hold onto so logically. Any intelligent person can see that Tank is clearly demonstrating that free will exists. He's saying that God is always there, but you don't have to acknowledge Him. That makes Him no less God. Come on man.

Uh. Why?


You have a basic misunderstanding of infinity. And of Time. Outside of the Universe, Time is irrelevant. There is no such thing as seconds, hours, days, years or megayears outside the Universe. Time is a construct of the nature of the Universe, so whether it takes an infinite amount of time or infinity minus one before the Universe begins is meaningless. Outside of the Universe, Time doesn't exist.

Again, same thing. What exists outside of the universe...?

But... Time isn't infinite.

Prove this.

Yes, you can. Vacuum energy. Virtual particles spontaneously generate out of "vacuum" all the time. The kicker is that eventually, the energy taken from these particles cancel out to zero.

The Universe itself meets the needs of this equation. At the end point of entropy, when all the stars have died out, all the black holes have evaporated due to proton decay (enabled by virtual particles spontaneously generating near black holes), and all particles in the Universe have likewise evaporated, the total energy sum of the Universe will be zero.

The Universe ain't a free lunch. 0 (beginnning) = 0 (ending). We're just that instantaneous bit of something living on the equals sign.

And TANSTAAFL contradicts the idea of God. If you can't get something from nothing, where do you get God from?

Do you realize how confidently you claim to assuredly know a scenario based upon countless 'innocent until proven guilty' hypotheses?

Doesn't affect me in the slightest. The presence or absence of free will has no effect on the presence or absence of God.

We agree then.

 

[Sach]

So let me sum up your argument then...

That's not my argument. I gave an example of how one might interpret the phrase that "God is unchanging". But nice GIF.

I stopped believing in God when I was five, which was the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Good one.



Edit: missed this one

And TANSTAAFL contradicts the idea of God. If you can't get something from nothing, where do you get God from?

Do you not understand that if God needed anything to be created He would cease to be God? And once again you are attempting to limit a God to the laws of science.

 

[Dennisch]

Sach, you missed another one.

Clickie

 

[Sach]

Sach, you missed another one.

Clickie

You've shown nothing, except that if you can't have it explained in a way that works for you it gets written off.


Dennish has spoken... close the thread.


God is 'absurd' because we aren't on that level.

 

[Azuremen]

Sach, your entire argument is seriously what I posted.

Or, basically, God exists because God must exist. Like saying 1 is 1 because.

Or

God = God
1 = 1

Those aren't acceptable proofs of anything, or valid formats in logic or arguments.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Do you not understand that if God needed anything to be created He would cease to be God? And once again you are attempting to limit a God to the laws of science.

But why is it that the answer has to be God? Like I've been saying this whole time, if you realize that God was early man's explanation (invention, creation, whatever you would like to call it) to what he could not understand—most of which now has been explained with science, thus giving further doubt to the existence of any god—then you would see that it is within reason to say that there is no god, of any sort, at all.

 

[TankAss95]

God is immutable, yet, according to the Bible, he can and does change his mind?

Anger is a sign of mutability.

Forgiveness is a sign of mutability.

Remorse is a sign of mutability. (After the flood)

The nature of God changes from the Old Testament to the New. (once monolithic, now a trinity).

Doesn't say anything about the existence of God. If God is a perfect state, then there is no reason why God cannot be personal and immutable. The whole point of immutability is that something does not change from a > b. if God is immutable, and he has created something which holds an ultimate purpose, then I can't see why this would invalidate his immutability.

If anything, God has proven pretty mutable. Thus, to call the Christian God immutable, if he exists, is a fallacy.

If someone is Immutable he is trustworthy and absolutely reliable. Look at the context of the Old Testament, and look at Molinism.

The only immutable thing is nothing. Immutable and unchangeable things don't move, don't exert effort and don't care.

Well, according to you, given that the universe is eternal then perhaps 0 doesn't exist! Again, look at the attributes to God. Your claiming that immutability is incompatible with personality. If a being is perfectly good, then I can see no reason why the two are incompatible.

Arguing with my six year old is frustrating.

Seriously am I that bad? Perhaps I should stop. Thinking about it, I'm not that much older than six anyway (16).

You're frustrating to argue with simply because you repeat the same things over and over again and refuse to defend your arguments properly.

I have limited knowledge. I'm not omniscient. Many of these argument can go into really deep philosophical discussions that I'm not adequate to go into. Have a look here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7087
Content relative to the discussion, but sadly I can't deal with objections or understand vital concepts.

This is the Opinions forum, after all, and the quality of an opinion is only as good as its supporting arguments.

Fine then. I'll stop.

So in other words, we have a Universal consciousness that we DON'T have to call God, and whose ATTRIBUTES we are completely unaware of.

?
We are at the situation in discussion that we have identified an absolute beginning, and face philosophical complications. Look back a rejection that the outcome may not be God but something else. I was using (x) as a placeholder until we could establish more knowledge about the situation, and possibilities. I believe the outcome is that many of the attributes can be found in the Kalam Cosmological argument which I brought up.

Do you realize you've just denied the existence of God and have stated that there doesn't have to be one? If we don't have to call such Universal Consciousness "God", and since we can't attribute anything to it, then what purpose is there to arguing about it?

No.

All you're presuming is that there's an uncaused cause. Presumption =/= Truth.

I am presuming that something can't come from nothing. I have given a reason why I believe there is an uncaused cause (because infinite regress is implausible).

You have a basic misunderstanding of infinity. And of Time. Outside of the Universe, Time is irrelevant. There is no such thing as seconds, hours, days, years or megayears outside the Universe. Time is a construct of the nature of the Universe, so whether it takes an infinite amount of time or infinity minus one before the Universe begins is meaningless.

Time is the measure between the reaction between events. No events=no time. Infinite events=infinite time. Infinite minus 1 is infinite. Infinite minus 1000 is infinite. Infinite plus infinite is infinite.
Infinite seems to be a well understood subject in mathematics. It seems pretty simple, it's when you get to the sets of infinite when I am lost.

But... Time isn't infinite. It does have an absolute beginning. Which was... take a wild guess... yup. The beginning of the Universe.

Super!

Which, from the turtles analogy, is just the lowest turtle we can see.

I can't see why one might call someone immoral for refusing to accept an infinite regress of events. God seems rational to me.

Translation: The pursuit of knowledge is too difficult, so I declare that this is as far as knowledge goes. That's pretty self-serving, don't you think?

So it's irrational to believe in something in which you are sure holds the best explanation?

Yes, you can. Vacuum energy. Virtual particles spontaneously generate out of "vacuum" all the time. The kicker is that eventually, the energy taken from these particles cancel out to zero.

In physics, nothing is usually referred to as the quantum vacuum, but not in philosophy. And I think it has been shown that the quantum vacuum is unstable and therefore is finite an itself requires an absolute beginning?

The Universe itself meets the needs of this equation. At the end point of entropy, when all the stars have died out, all the black holes have evaporated due to proton decay (enabled by virtual particles spontaneously generating near black holes), and all particles in the Universe have likewise evaporated, the total energy sum of the Universe will be zero.

There will still be something.

The Universe ain't a free lunch. 0 (beginnning) = 0 (ending). We're just that instantaneous bit of something living on the equals sign.

-2 + 2 is something, even when the overall value is 0. Why? Because we have -2 and 2, two independent entities.

And TANSTAAFL contradicts the idea of God. If you can't get something from nothing, where do you get God from?

An explanation of an explanation doesn't need an explanation. Again, something has to be eternal.

[/QUOTE]Doesn't affect me in the slightest. The presence or absence of free will has no effect on the presence or absence of God.[/QUOTE]

Im done. Any immediate objections of yours then I will respond (at your request) but I cannot argue any further.

 

[Dennisch]

You've shown nothing, except that if you can't have it explained in a way that works for you it gets written off.


Dennish has spoken... close the thread.


God is 'absurd' because we aren't on that level.

Please read back a little more.



3 in a row, top post.

 

[Sach]

Sach, your entire argument is seriously what I posted.

Or, basically, God exists because God must exist. Like saying 1 is 1 because.

Or

God = God
1 = 1

Those aren't acceptable proofs of anything, or valid formats in logic or arguments.

Again, you are attempting to confine a transcendent being within the limitations of your own understanding. And this really gets at the heart of the matter because people ultimately want to have it their own way. If the scenario is <<<<<God>>>>>Universe, etc.>>>>>>God>>>>> then that means it was decided for us subjectively, and we don't like the way that threatens us with acknowledgment, ultimately, or facing the result of not acknowledging God as who He is, the source of all things. Regardless, there will be a day when all will lose that freedom of denying God, but for now this is the result.

I'm not saying I can comprehend the entirety of what the existence of a singular God can mean about everything, but I have at least stepped outside of my faith and everything 'consistent' and thought about what it would mean if it were true.


Example:

If: God >>>> all scientific, mathematical, physics proofs, laws, etc.


... there is a hierarchy there, and at the top is the one pulling the strings. The strings aren't pulling God, etc. It's not hard to understand, and it's in fact perfectly logical that God would therefore contradict the laws of the universe because the laws of the universe do not define God, rather He defines them.

Now, whether you think I am correct or not is irrelevant. The model itself is logical, and in fact rational if existence works this way. Ultimately for all of the condescending and cynical tone that atheists show around here toward believer's lack of rationality, they actually haven't approached the concept of God very objectively themselves.

But why is it that the answer has to be God? Like I've been saying this whole time, if you realize that God was early man's explanation (invention, creation, whatever you would like to call it) to what he could not understand&#8212;most of which now has been explained with science, thus giving further doubt to the existence of any god&#8212;then you would see that it is within reason to say that there is no god, of any sort, at all.

It's perfectly within reason for you to exercise your free will to think this way. Ultimately, your life is not my responsibility, and I have no problems with that because if I had faith for you, you would actually have nothing. This is the reason that God allows things like evil, etc, because love is not a contrast to anything if it exists with no other option. The answer to your question is right in line with biblical teaching, honestly. The answer is God and you don't like it, so your nature toward Him is one of hostility, because you are sinful (As am I. I'm not judging you.). If WE were not sinful we would have no problem with the scenario.

 

[arora]

This thread isn't closed yet? I thought tankass represented all gtp thiests and let us down.

 

[Sach]

Please read back a little more.



3 in a row, top post.

What are you getting at? My comment? Please elaborate. I have already explained that the statement is simply an EXAMPLE of how one could interpret the scripture that Niky is referring to, "God is unchanging...". He's attempting to show it as a contradiction, but it in fact is not. Whether God is subjective or not is irrelevant if He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, etc.

 

[niky]

You're reading into it what you choose to.

He is infinite and there's nothing anyone can do to change that fact - can be one way to read "unchanging". He will always be who He is, is another, etc.

An immutable being never changes his mind or principles. God has changed his principles between the Old and New Testaments. Or did I miss the part where it was okay to kill non-believers before, but not okay now?

It really seems like you all pick things apart constantly to suit your own purposes, not for the sake of the truth which you claim to hold onto so logically. Any intelligent person can see that Tank is clearly demonstrating that free will exists. He's saying that God is always there, but you don't have to acknowledge Him. That makes Him no less God. Come on man.

No, he stated that:

1. There IS a Universal Mind.
2. We DON'T have to use the term GOD to refer to it, but can if we want to.
3. We PRESUME he has these attributes, but we don't really know IF he does.

Which only differs from my argument very little. My version:

1. There MAY be a Universal or Meta-Universal Mind.
2. We DON'T have to use the term GOD to refer to it, but can if we want to.
3. People PRESUME he has certain attributes, but we don't really know IF he does.

Again, same thing. What exists outside of the universe...?

We don't know. We have no way of currently knowing. We may never know. Isn't that wonderful?

Prove this.

Time is a construct of the Universe. It is a property of the Universe. It doesn't matter if there's another version of "Time" in the meta-Universe or multi-verse or whatever other Universe you believe exists out there, "Time" as we know it only occurs in relation to OUR Universe.

Einstein proved that time isn't absolute. It passes more quickly when an object is at rest, it passes much more slowly when an object is moving at an appreciable percentage of light speed (proven... in fact, our GPS networks MUST compensate for time dilation, otherwise they'd be much less accurate than they are now). The direction of Time's arrow may simply be an artifact of our consciousness. It could be that the Universe is slowly contracting into a single mass-point of extremely dense space-time, only we're living it out backwards.

Whether Time is infinite in the sense that events will never stop occuring in the Universe is something we can only theorize* about, but we know that both Time and Space have a definite boundary. Beyond the Universe, there is no Space-Time.

*Time in the Universe only has meaning insofar as events are occuring. In the absence of events occuring or the possibility of events occuring (when the Universe reaches zero and completes the equation), time becomes a meaningless concept.

Do you realize how confidently you claim to assuredly know a scenario based upon countless 'innocent until proven guilty' hypotheses?

I don't claim to know anything. Remember, I don't deny the possibility of the existence of God or something like him.

Besides, I'm not the one who brought up TANSTAAFL. I don't claim that God must have exactly the properties that I assign to him.

The direction of this argument:

Me: I don't know if there is a "God" or something similar. I don't know what properties he has.

TankAss: There IS a God. He MUST have these PROPERTIES.

Me: Why?

TankAss: Without a CREATOR, the Universe CANNOT exist.

Me: Why?

TankAss: Because without a CREATOR, the Universe would have these PROPERTIES, which are absurd and impossible.

Me: But you just said GOD had those same PROPERTIES, is he also absurd and impossible?

We agree then.

Must be getting close to the end of the world...

 

[Sach]

An immutable being never changes his mind or principles. God has changed his principles between the Old and New Testaments. Or did I miss the part where it was okay to kill non-believers before, but not okay now?

Please see my most recent comment. If God is the beginning an the end, subjectivity does not refute his immutability. He will simply continue to be subjective for infinity. Unfortunately, this is uncomfortable for you, because He most certainly is subjective.

 

[nitrorocks]

This thread isn't closed yet? I thought tankass represented all gtp thiests and let us down.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Sach]

Time is a construct of the Universe. It is a property of the Universe. It doesn't matter if there's another version of "Time" in the meta-Universe or multi-verse or whatever other Universe you believe exists out there, "Time" as we know it only occurs in relation to OUR Universe.

Einstein proved that time isn't absolute. It passes more quickly when an object is at rest, it passes much more slowly when an object is moving at an appreciable percentage of light speed (proven... in fact, our GPS networks MUST compensate for time dilation, otherwise they'd be much less accurate than they are now). The direction of Time's arrow may simply be an artifact of our consciousness. It could be that the Universe is slowly contracting into a single mass-point of extremely dense space-time, only we're living it out backwards.

Whether Time is infinite in the sense that events will never stop occuring in the Universe is something we can only theorize* about, but we know that both Time and Space have a definite boundary. Beyond the Universe, there is no Space-Time.

*Time in the Universe only has meaning insofar as events are occuring. In the absence of events occuring or the possibility of events occuring (when the Universe reaches zero and completes the equation), time becomes a meaningless concept.

Sorry, I keep missing stuff.



If this is in fact what you believe to be true about time... and if you other people in this thread who hold Niky's clearly educated background in the sciences in high esteem (as do I) also agree with him...


... then why do you possibly have any issues with a God that has always existed? So time is merely a construct and everything about it could actually be something else... but yet time is the reason for God always existing being an absurd concept??

 

[Exorcet]

Again, you are attempting to confine a transcendent being within the limitations of your own understanding. And this really gets at the heart of the matter because people ultimately want to have it their own way. If the scenario is <<<<<God>>>>>Universe, etc.>>>>>>God>>>>> then that means it was decided for us subjectively, and we don't like the way that threatens us with acknowledgment, ultimately, or facing the result of not acknowledging God as who He is, the source of all things. Regardless, there will be a day when all will lose that freedom of denying God, but for now this is the result.

I'm not saying I can comprehend the entirety of what the existence of a singular God can mean about everything, but I have at least stepped outside of my faith and everything 'consistent' and thought about what it would mean if it were true.


Example:

If: God >>>> all scientific, mathematical, physics proofs, laws, etc.


... there is a hierarchy there, and at the top is the one pulling the strings. The strings aren't pulling God, etc. It's not hard to understand, and it's in fact perfectly logical that God would therefore contradict the laws of the universe because the laws of the universe do not define God, rather He defines them.

Now, whether you think I am correct or not is irrelevant. The model itself is logical, and in fact rational if existence works this way. Ultimately for all of the condescending and cynical tone that atheists show around here toward believer's lack of rationality, they actually haven't approached the concept of God very objectively themselves.







It's perfectly within reason for you to exercise your free will to think this way. Ultimately, your life is not my responsibility, and I have no problems with that because if I had faith for you, you would actually have nothing. This is the reason that God allows things like evil, etc, because love is not a contrast to anything if it exists with no other option. The answer to your question is right in line with biblical teaching, honestly. The answer is God and you don't like it, so your nature toward Him is one of hostility, because you are sinful (As am I. I'm not judging you.). If WE were not sinful we would have no problem with the scenario.

I can't make any sense out of this. What is there to oppose with God? If all he can do is make us happy and what not, why would I not want to acknowledge him. Actually, that doesn't even matter, because no matter what I want, if he's there, he's there. That's how everything works. I don't go around ignoring laws and steal cars I like just because the laws prevent me from enjoying immediate gratification. I simply accept that if I want a 6 figure car, I need to make 6 figure money. God is no different.

I don't accept God and it's not because doing so would spoil my day. I don't accept God because there is no reason to (lack of evidence).

Sorry, I keep missing stuff.



If this is in fact what you believe to be true about time... and if you other people in this thread who hold Niky's clearly educated background in the sciences in high esteem (as do I) also agree with him...


... then why do you possibly have any issues with a God that has always existed? So time is merely a construct and everything about it could actually be something else... but yet time is the reason for God always existing being an absurd concept??

The reason that an ever existing God is absurd is because Tankass claims that an ever existing universe is absurd. You can't be open to one without being open to the other. Tankass refuses to do this.

No one denies that God might exist. We don't know.

However, most are being logical. If God has all these amazing properties, what stops other stuff from having them?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

It's perfectly within reason for you to exercise your free will to think this way. Ultimately, your life is not my responsibility, and I have no problems with that because if I had faith for you, you would actually have nothing. This is the reason that God allows things like evil, etc, because love is not a contrast to anything if it exists with no other option. The answer to your question is right in line with biblical teaching, honestly. The answer is God and you don't like it, so your nature toward Him is one of hostility, because you are sinful (As am I. I'm not judging you.). If WE were not sinful we would have no problem with the scenario.

If the answer were God I would be fine with it. But in order for the answer to be God (to me) there needs to be proof of God. We are creatures that work based on what is logical to us (and I know that you will just say that God works in ways that are not logical to us, but just hear me out, because I will address this). We need proof in order to determine what is correct. That's why when I think of the idea of God, I think of it as wrong. There is simply no solid proof of any god whatsoever. This is where faith comes in. We are told that we are to have faith that God exists, and that if we try to question that faith with logic (as they contradict each other), that it is just because we have free will, because God allows us. That way religion has something to respond with if someone where to say "well if God wanted us to worship him, why wouldn't he just present himself to us?" The response is "God wants us to have faith in his existence, and for us to follow his teachings in the faith that he exists." This response is meant to cancel out any arguments that point out the lack of evidence of God. But it is in no way actually helping the argument for God, as all it is doing is saying "you cannot prove we are wrong, so we are right". It all just seems unlikely to me that God really is the explanation for the universe, or at least any God that has ever been explained to me.

Again I apologize for anything that is poorly worded, I try my best. And in no way do I mean to be disrespectful with anything I say. I love having discussions on critical topics because it lets me think freely, and well, critically. It really is a great feeling.

 

[niky]

then why do you possibly have any issues with a God that has always existed? So time is merely a construct and everything about it could actually be something else... but yet time is the reason for God always existing being an absurd concept??

Like Exocet says: I do not deny nor confirm the existence of God... that was merely in response to TankAss's assertion that God is Eternal, but the Universe or Meta-Universe cannot be. And as regards the nature of time.

Doesn't say anything about the existence of God. If God is a perfect state, then there is no reason why God cannot be personal and immutable. The whole point of immutability is that something does not change from a > b. if God is immutable, and he has created something which holds an ultimate purpose, then I can't see why this would invalidate his immutability.

If someone is Immutable he is trustworthy and absolutely reliable. Look at the context of the Old Testament, and look at Molinism.

An immutable and perfectly good being doesn't change his mind, but only does and thinks good things from the very start. A perfectly good being doesn't make mistakes. Doesn't needlessly cause suffering. Doesn't have to "test" people. Why make imperfect beings if you are perfect? If you are perfect, why would your angels, who reflect your perfection, rebel against you? Remember: God didn't create hell from the beginning. He created it to banish Lucifer to hell because Lucifer defied him. A perfect being would create nothing but perfect beings to serve him. But of course, a perfect being would not have to create servants, in the first place.

Well, according to you, given that the universe is eternal then perhaps 0 doesn't exist! Again, look at the attributes to God. Your claiming that immutability is incompatible with personality. If a being is perfectly good, then I can see no reason why the two are incompatible.

I didn't say the Universe was eternal. I just pointed out that the Universe does have a definite beginning and ending. 0 = 0.

Seriously am I that bad? Perhaps I should stop. Thinking about it, I'm not that much older than six anyway (16).

I have limited knowledge. I'm not omniscient. Many of these argument can go into really deep philosophical discussions that I'm not adequate to go into. Have a look here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7087
Content relative to the discussion, but sadly I can't deal with objections or understand vital concepts.

Fine then. I'll stop.

I admire your enthusiasm, but the problem here is you're trying to make others do their thinking for you (using quotations) without studying the subject in-depth in order to fashion a more convincing argument for the presence of God. (Again, see previous post: I neither deny nor claim that he exists).

?
We are at the situation in discussion that we have identified an absolute beginning, and face philosophical complications. Look back a rejection that the outcome may not be God but something else. I was using (x) as a placeholder until we could establish more knowledge about the situation, and possibilities. I believe the outcome is that many of the attributes can be found in the Kalam Cosmological argument which I brought up.

The situation is that you assume an absolute beginning. Again, Presumption =/= Truth.

I am presuming that something can't come from nothing. I have given a reason why I believe there is an uncaused cause (because infinite regress is implausible).

Infinite Regress seems implausible to you. There is no proof as to whether infinite regress is either plausible or implausible, because as we keep going deeper into the Universe, we find deeper and deeper layers. Currently, we're stuck at quarks, because they appear to be absolute points in space-time, but there are various theories about what they are made of.

I can't see why one might call someone immoral for refusing to accept an infinite regress of events. God seems rational to me.

Did I call you immoral? Prejudiced, maybe, against things and concepts you don't like, but not immoral.

So it's irrational to believe in something in which you are sure holds the best explanation?

The question is: why are you sure, in the absence of any objective proof, that this is the explanation?

In physics, nothing is usually referred to as the quantum vacuum, but not in philosophy. And I think it has been shown that the quantum vacuum is unstable and therefore is finite an itself requires an absolute beginning?

Which is... what? How?

There will still be something.

Which is... what?

-2 + 2 is something, even when the overall value is 0. Why? Because we have -2 and 2, two independent entities.

Prove that the Universe started from a value of -2.

An explanation of an explanation doesn't need an explanation. Again, something has to be eternal.

No. Your explanation is that you can't get something from nothing. Here's the question: Where do you get God from? Just saying he's eternal doesn't cut it. Why is he Eternal? And if he's Eternal, why does the Universe have a beginning?

Your objection from a few posts back stated that you feel the need for a prime mover, because, to you, rationally, the possibility of infinite time means that there was possibly infinite time before the Universe was created. Which seems implausible to you.

If God is eternal, then God existed for infinite time (or timelike interval) before the Universe began. In other words, there was infinite time before the Universe was created. Which seems implausible to you, without God.

Your arguments both for and against have the same outcome. Only somehow, the existence of God makes it more believable.

Im done. Any immediate objections of yours then I will respond (at your request) but I cannot argue any further.

I'm sorry. I'm just not interested in the topic of free will versus God.

A being with infinite knowledge of what is right and the compulsion to only do what is right can be safely regarded has having no free will. Because he will only do what is right. Right away. Which ties in perfectly to the start of this post. A perfect God with perfect knowledge would not have to interfere with his Creation at all, but he would ensure it would be perfect from the very beginning, so that even with free will, people would not have a reason to do evil, and evil things would not occur.

 

[Sach]

If the answer were God I would be fine with it. But in order for the answer to be God (to me) there needs to be proof of God. We are creatures that work based on what is logical to us...

Not at all. In fact, we destroy ourselves which is completely the opposite. Do a YouTube search for people having bad acid and MDMA trips... they all willingly did this. More specifically check out people having really bad trips on salvia, which only lasts a few minutes. They're terrified for 5-10 minutes then they come back to their 'logical' senses and repeat the whole thing all over again.

We're addicted to everything - money, food, drugs, vanity, etc. Logic itself is completely the opposite, and if it's true that everything is boiled down to some evolutionary survival mechanism then we are failures because we are then cognizant to the process itself and yet meet our demise by our own illogical and irrational choices.

(and I know that you will just say that God works in ways that are not logical to us, but just hear me out, because I will address this). We need proof in order to determine what is correct. That's why when I think of the idea of God, I think of it as wrong. There is simply no solid proof of any god whatsoever. This is where faith comes in. We are told that we are to have faith that God exists, and that if we try to question that faith with logic (as they contradict each other), that it is just because we have free will, because God allows us.

Okay first, my faith does not work that way. I have proof, and a lot of it. The problem everyone has with my proof is that it's subjective. But again, here's atheist's lack of logic at play...

The existence of God, since the beginning of mankind, has been more than a scientific pursuit... it has always involved the human spirit. Spiritual matters are inherently subjective, so to write off spiritual proof simply because it exists exactly as it should within that medium is illogical. It's not absurd that proof of God exists this way, it's just how it works. I've said this many times here.

That way religion has something to respond with if someone where to say "well if God wanted us to worship him, why wouldn't he just present himself to us?" The response is "God wants us to have faith in his existence, and for us to follow his teachings in the faith that he exists." This response is meant to cancel out any arguments that point out the lack of evidence of God. But it is in no way actually helping the argument for God, as all it is doing is saying "you cannot prove we are wrong, so we are right"

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here from human beings that rests again in the fact that we think nothing can exist beyond our own reasoning. God does not need you to present a strong argument on His behalf for Him to exist. History has shown this. How many Christians have committed atrocious acts and attributed them manipulatively to their faith? That didn't actually do anything at all to discredit God's character. It was reflective of the people themselves, nothing more.

Again, to use something like the Crusades as an argument against the existence of God is irrational, and ironic if done so by a person claiming to tout logic and objectivity.

Again I apologize for anything that is poorly worded, I try my best. And in no way do I mean to be disrespectful with anything I say. I love having discussions on critical topics because it lets me think freely, and well, critically. It really is a great feeling.

Likewise.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm quite curious what you think about my bit on the narcissim of religions prescribing to a God that created everything.

Also, when I read your points, all I can think is "because God," and even your claims to logic are just "well, it is subjective and beyond our logic" which more or less means it isn't logic at all.

See my issue with how I feel you are presenting information.

 

[Sach]

I'm quite curious what you think about my bit on the narcissim of religions prescribing to a God that created everything.

Also, when I read your points, all I can think is "because God," and even your claims to logic are just "well, it is subjective and beyond our logic" which more or less means it isn't logic at all.

See my issue with how I feel you are presenting information?

Can you point me toward the first part? I've been away from the forums a bit.

I also have to grade papers here shortly, so...





As to the bolded question, I feel that I've acknowledged in just about every reply that I am fully aware of the perceptions associated with the scenario I am proposing. Again, I do have faith, but I also step outside of my own box and look at the big picture of me in the world among all of these perceptions, etc.






To answer your question somewhat further... well I'm not possibly capable of comprehending God to give a remotely conclusive answer to you, so don't expect it, but here goes...

Something like the concept of true and false, a very basic mathematical principle that has led ultimately to the affirmation of everything we understand through mathematics... points toward the existence of just one God, as I see it.

What do people always say (Christians) about God? "God is the truth and the way..." right?

Truth is a one-sided street. One plus one does not equal 3, it equals 2... always, because that is a mathematical truth. Therefore the concept of truth presents itself as authoritarian. If God is the source of every possible thing in existence, you can basically call Him the truth, because there is nothing without Him, not even the concept of true and false, it all points back to Him, every possible concept you can imagine. Therefore this basic mathematical principle can be regarded as evidence when arguing for a singular God.


The concept of truth itself can be quite interesting and paradoxical.

 

[niky]

The lack of logical thought processes in relation to most things humans do is pretty telling.

People do things that they inherently "feel" they ought to be doing. Whether it's chopping down rainforests, killing Jews, executing the intellectual elite to make way for the new, glorious communist ideal or developing an atomic explosive (in the name of Science!)

People should first analyze their actions via logic, work out the ramifications, and then do what is right. Doesn't quite work out that way.

Humans instead do things that are completely illogical, then use logic to justify their decisions.

This is not a comment on whether the idea of "God" is itself logical or not (remember... fence sitter!), but the quality of an argument is in whether it works from the top down or the bottom up. Evidence first or Conclusion first.

 

[Sach]

The lack of logical thought processes in relation to most things humans do is pretty telling.

People do things that they inherently "feel" they ought to be doing. Whether it's chopping down rainforests, killing Jews, executing the intellectual elite to make way for the new, glorious communist ideal or developing an atomic explosive (in the name of Science!)

I just can't possibly accept that you believe these examples are truly what people thought was the moral thing to do. It has been well-documented that the inventor of the H-Bomb was at odds with himself over its destructive prowess.

 

[niky]

I just can't possibly accept that you believe these examples are truly what people thought was the moral thing to do. It has been well-documented that the inventor of the H-Bomb was at odds with himself over its destructive prowess.

Only because he was smart enough to realize the implications. His superiors... not really. For them, weapons development was merely the logical thing to do.

A slash-and-burn farmer will think nothing of clearing acres of rainforest to support himself and his family when he could do that equally well (or better, in fact) by using sustainable farming menthods.

Killing Jews: Sadly, yes... yes I do. As discussed: If it's culturally acceptable, people will do anything without a second thought. Mutilating your children by piercing their ears or cutting off the tips of their sex organs? Perfectly logical reasons to do that, I'm sure. Note: didn't have my daughter's ears pierced. I wanted it to be her decision. If we ever have a son... hmmm... circumcision... I want it to be his decision... as an adult. I used to believe in the mantra that it's for health reasons... but many of my friends weren't circumcised before they were adults, and none of their bananas rotted and fell off the tree...

People will do perfectly horrible things and rationalize them away afterwards as the right thing to do... or blame it on their leaders. Or blame it on being "hypnotized" or "brainwashed".

It's this inherent gullibility and willingness to abandon logical thought for quick rationalization that makes Ponzi schemes so easy. People will rationalize reasons why it's a good idea to trust a guy whose background you don't know when he says he can double your money in just a few days.

----

Note: This had nothing to do with your post immediately previous, only a rumination on your refutation that people don't always do the logical thing. Which I agree with. People hardly ever do the logical thing. Even when they're doing it for the right reasons!

 

[Sach]

Only because he was smart enough to realize the implications. His superiors... not really. For them, weapons development was merely the logical thing to do.

A slash-and-burn farmer will think nothing of clearing acres of rainforest to support himself and his family when he could do that equally well (or better, in fact) by using sustainable farming menthods.

Okay, I disagree with you again, but that's actually irrelevant as I'll explain in a second.

Politicians are not neanderthals (grabs head, runs for cover...), they may weigh the same moral sense of obligation differently because of the line of work they are in, but they still know right from wrong. If our country were invaded, I may kill someone to defend my family, but it is still not morally right to do so, etc. "Drastic times call for..."


And this is beyond the point anyway, which is that you are essentially claiming to be able to read these peoples' hearts and minds. That's a case of subjectivity if there ever was one. It's important for you to realize that you are using these examples to formulate your own definition of where morality comes from, but you are doing so completely on subjective speculation, so there's no real reason to criticize or write off any one who you think is subjectively drawing their morality from experiences with God.

If it's culturally acceptable, people will do anything without a second thought.

Yes, we are sinful and therefore are not inclined to exercise moral restraint when given free roam. That does not mean that morality is not still a calling upon our lives. We're just ignoring it. This is an example of your model... consequences <> source evidence, etc.

Mutilating your children by piercing their ears or cutting off the tips of their sex organs? Perfectly logical reasons to do that, I'm sure. Note: didn't have my daughter's ears pierced.

Actually it's not logical, and that's why any anthropologist will tell you that Americans piercing their ears or getting tattoos is in fact self-mutilation. Again, you're doing nothing more than looking at the behavior of people, who have a choice whether to abide by moral standards or not. People's behavior does not affect the existence of morality. If I jump off the St. Louis Arch, I'll go spat no matter... etc.

but many of my friends weren't circumcised before they were adults, and none of their bananas rotted and fell off the tree...

Nor does the bible say that anything would happen as a result of not being circumcised.

People will do perfectly horrible things and rationalize them away afterwards as the right thing to do... or blame it on their leaders. Or blame it on being "hypnotized" or "brainwashed".

Again, not an argument against morality, only evidence of freely chosen behavior concerning the moral calling.

People hardly ever do the logical thing. Even when they're doing it for the right reasons!

Yes, I agree with you again. (The world may be ending, very, very soon. )

Please, people, catch the tongue in cheek with that statement...

 

[Azuremen]

[/B]Can you point me toward the first part? I've been away from the forums a bit.

Something like the concept of true and false, a very basic mathematical principle that has led ultimately to the affirmation of everything we understand through mathematics... points toward the existence of just one God, as I see it.

My post from earlier, which was more directed at Tankass.

In mathematics, proofs do exist for 1 = 1, and 1 + 1 = 2. Basic mathematics uses many axioms that are taken for granted, but higher level mathematics ends up proving many concepts that seem self evident.

As for faith as a presentation point, I use to be religious but just found myself growing more and more cynical of it. Too many holes, too many conditions for something that claims to offer salvation for all, but only if they fulfill relatively arbitrary requirements.

Slightly curious as to what you are grading papers for... somewhat want to assume you are a grad student of some sort, but might be wrong

 

[niky]

Politicians are not neanderthals (grabs head, runs for cover...), they may weigh the same moral sense of obligation differently because of the line of work they are in, but they still know right from wrong. If our country were invaded, I may kill someone to defend my family, but it is still not morally right to do so, etc. "Drastic times call for..."

This is in regards to the military. What politicians think... well... the fact that a lot of them feel the need to hide things from people is pretty telling.

And this is beyond the point anyway, which is that you are essentially claiming to be able to read these peoples' hearts and minds. That's a case of subjectivity if there ever was one. It's important for you to realize that you are using these examples to formulate your own definition of where morality comes from, but you are doing so completely on subjective speculation, so there's no real reason to criticize or write off any one who you think is subjectively drawing their morality from experiences with God.

A fair complaint. But earlier in this thread, I recall a claim that everyone possessed an inherent sense of morality, and that it was the same everywhere.

I cannot claim to read people's minds, but from their actions and attitudes towards certain things, it is possible to infer things which they feel are and are not okay. You can also see evidence of remorse. There are people who feel no remorse about their wrongdoings, only remorse due to the fact that they are being punished.

Yes, we are sinful and therefore are not inclined to exercise moral restraint when given free roam. That does not mean that morality is not still a calling upon our lives. We're just ignoring it. This is an example of your model... consequences <> source evidence, etc.

Same difference, you are claiming the existence of an inherent morality or moral sense in others which you cannot demonstrate as being universal.

Actually it's not logical, and that's why any anthropologist will tell you that Americans piercing their ears or getting tattoos is in fact self-mutilation. Again, you're doing nothing more than looking at the behavior of people, who have a choice whether to abide by moral standards or not. People's behavior does not affect the existence of morality. If I jump off the St. Louis Arch, I'll go spat no matter... etc.

Nor does the bible say that anything would happen as a result of not being circumcised.

Didn't mention circumcision in regards to the Bible... while it is being followed in this case due to Hebraic traditions passed down to Christians... the modern rationalization for it is due to health concerns... but proper hygiene already answers those concerns, so the health concerns are mostly rationalization.

Again, not an argument against morality, only evidence of freely chosen behavior concerning the moral calling.

Ah. There's the rub. We have the same evidence, but still come to different conclusions. Because neither of us can read minds.

Yes, I agree with you again. (The world may be ending, very, very soon. )

Please, people, catch the tongue in cheek with that statement...

Don't worry... it isn't December yet...