1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
beginning.
2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
a cause.
3 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and
Romans 1:20 teach.
4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
complex than i previously thought.
but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
it would have existed before it's existance.
Romans 1:25
25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen.
On Nov 30, 1:01 pm, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> beginning.
No, it cannot. We can figure out what happened after a certain point,
but before that we know nothing.
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> a cause.
Like a god?
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause,
The Universe does not require a cause. Bible quotes are not
appropriate in adult conversations.
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
> no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
You have no proof to back that up with. You forgot to prove your god
exists BEFORE you make any claims about any of it's attributes. Also,
you just broke one of your rules; everything requires a cause.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> complex than i previously thought.
Yes, your simplistic view of difficult scientific theories leads you
away from reality and into the darkness of a religion.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out.
Again, you misunderstand. Is this on purpose?
> So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already.
Yet your god violates that rule. It's energy would have dissipated.
> But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
No one claims the Universe created itself. Your god also violates the
"rule" you just made up.
Again, bible quotes are not appropriate in adult conversations.
we're talking about cause and effect, so then if the universe didnt
have a beginning if it didnt come from the big bang where did it come
from. there was a cause and the effect was teh universe.
On Nov 30, 4:10 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:01 pm, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> > beginning.
> No, it cannot. We can figure out what happened after a certain point,
> but before that we know nothing.
> > 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> > a cause.
> Like a god?
> > 3 The universe therefore requires a cause,
> The Universe does not require a cause. Bible quotes are not
> appropriate in adult conversations.
> > 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
> > no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
> You have no proof to back that up with. You forgot to prove your god
> exists BEFORE you make any claims about any of it's attributes. Also,
> you just broke one of your rules; everything requires a cause.
> > it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> > complex than i previously thought.
> Yes, your simplistic view of difficult scientific theories leads you
> away from reality and into the darkness of a religion.
> > but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> > says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> > the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> > out.
> Again, you misunderstand. Is this on purpose?
> > So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> > forever because that energy would have dissipated already.
> Yet your god violates that rule. It's energy would have dissipated.
> > But at the
> > same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> > it would have existed before it's existance.
> No one claims the Universe created itself. Your god also violates the
> "rule" you just made up.
> Again, bible quotes are not appropriate in adult conversations.
On Nov 30, 1:01 pm, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> beginning.
OK.
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> a cause.
It is unreasonable to believe that a man dies, comes back to life and
rises into the sky.
It is unreasonable to believe that a man spits into a blind man's eyes
(twice), and the blind man starts seeing.
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause,
Why?
> just as Genesis 1:1 and
> Romans 1:20 teach.
They teach?
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time.
Two assertions about another asserted entity. So what?
> Since therefore He has
> no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
Prove it.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> complex than i previously thought.
C'mon Michael, don't hold out on us, you knew very, very little about
those theories, and were simply parroting incorrect claims about them.
"The truth shall set you free", so be honest.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
...and continue to display your ability to parrot more of the same.
> Romans 1:25
> 25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
> Amen.
Peter_W:
"I pray (lol) someone can answer some of the questions ,and find the
scientific evidence (if it exists) or the phenomenon to work or not to
work."
According to St. Thomas Aquinas (I think) God is the first cause and he is himself uncaused. Okay. But even though I am a theist I can appreciate the notion that the universe has always existed and therefore was itself uncaused. While it is contrary to our reason that something could be uncaused, it may be that the universe itself is the sole exception.
On 11/30/07, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a > beginning.
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without > a cause.
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and > Romans 1:20 teach.
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has > no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more > complex than i previously thought.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one > says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but > the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running > out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around > forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the > same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means > it would have existed before it's existance.
> Romans 1:25
> 25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and > served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. > Amen.
-- Keith A. MacNevins Ambassador From Hell Copyright
I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
personal insult/attack. A personal attack is a logical fallacy and
potentially evidence of a weak viewpoint.
Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
science--science especially, since the scientific method is nothing
more than a formalized method of observation with the added touch of a
logical fallacy to kick-start it. In other words, while I love
science, I also realize that it is nothing more than a formalized
dependence on circular reasoning.
Now, here's a suggestion that dangling question:
> We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?
I propose that CONSTANTS do not and can not have a CAUSE. In case
you're not quite sure what I mean, I mean anything and everything that
is not changed by time or dimension. For instance, the number 3 is
just a number, an eternal concept. Really, any absolute is
effectively constant. And in the argument for God, all absolute
knowledge is part of God's intellect, which is also said to be
constant.
So, if you simply MUST do so, you can even think of God (at least
partly) as the collection of all constants--those we have already
discovered, those we have forgotten, those we don't yet know, and
those we never will know. In this way, God not only needs no cause,
but cannot be caused, lest the concept of a constant lose its meaning
and cause the universe back into nonexistence!
Clearly, that's not a formal proof. And if I were to waste my time
writing out a formal proof, it would be subject to the same problem
that any proof has: reliance on its premises. Every premise of every
proof effectively needs to be proven itself. Each of those premises
then needs to be proven, and so on and so forth. To end this
seemingly infinite cycle, one must either find a perfect premise,
resort to assuming each premise is true, or accept the fact that each
premise is most likely just a matter of belief.
To give an example, the statement "the dog is brown" is either assumed
to be true as a definition itself or taken as a matter of belief as
true or false. But, in the latter case, we are resorting to belief,
and continuing on with the argument yields no new definitive
knowledge. The argument yields only possible knowledge, contingent
upon whether the statement is true, which cannot be known.
In short, don't insult people because they believe something different
than you, please. Ultimately, you may think you know the truth, but
you're really only holding a belief, just like the rest of us.
Peace.
On Nov 30, 5:42 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> beginning.
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> a cause.
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and
> Romans 1:20 teach.
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
> no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> complex than i previously thought.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
> Romans 1:25
> 25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
> Amen.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
> Romans 1:25
> 25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
> Amen.
Interesting argument that God is the collection of all constants, but
this merely takes us back to the old back-and-forth dance of changing
the defining god (good, old no-true-scotsman fallacy...).
If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
an example).
Wouldn't it be somewhat peculiar to pray to Boltzmann's constant for
absolution?
I also want to point to your statement :
QUOTE
"Ultimately, you may think you know the truth, but
you're really only holding a belief, just like the rest of us."
ENDQUOTE
If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
deities, see wikipedia;
QUOTE
"When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
deities"
ENDQUOTE
May I ask you a few questions about the proof or disproof of (a) god?
Since you claim that there no way one can disprove the existence of
god by scientific methods, I would like to present a philosophers
argument. Would you be so kind as to explain how you would refute the
following argument presented by the philosopher Theodore M.Drange:
The Paradox of omnipresence:
1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
time)
2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
(I would really like omprem's answer on this one too...)
Have a nice day
ZtB
On 1 Des, 10:32, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> personal insult/attack. A personal attack is a logical fallacy and
> potentially evidence of a weak viewpoint.
> Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> science--science especially, since the scientific method is nothing
> more than a formalized method of observation with the added touch of a
> logical fallacy to kick-start it. In other words, while I love
> science, I also realize that it is nothing more than a formalized
> dependence on circular reasoning.
> Now, here's a suggestion that dangling question:
> > We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?
> I propose that CONSTANTS do not and can not have a CAUSE. In case
> you're not quite sure what I mean, I mean anything and everything that
> is not changed by time or dimension. For instance, the number 3 is
> just a number, an eternal concept. Really, any absolute is
> effectively constant. And in the argument for God, all absolute
> knowledge is part of God's intellect, which is also said to be
> constant.
> So, if you simply MUST do so, you can even think of God (at least
> partly) as the collection of all constants--those we have already
> discovered, those we have forgotten, those we don't yet know, and
> those we never will know. In this way, God not only needs no cause,
> but cannot be caused, lest the concept of a constant lose its meaning
> and cause the universe back into nonexistence!
> Clearly, that's not a formal proof. And if I were to waste my time
> writing out a formal proof, it would be subject to the same problem
> that any proof has: reliance on its premises. Every premise of every
> proof effectively needs to be proven itself. Each of those premises
> then needs to be proven, and so on and so forth. To end this
> seemingly infinite cycle, one must either find a perfect premise,
> resort to assuming each premise is true, or accept the fact that each
> premise is most likely just a matter of belief.
> To give an example, the statement "the dog is brown" is either assumed
> to be true as a definition itself or taken as a matter of belief as
> true or false. But, in the latter case, we are resorting to belief,
> and continuing on with the argument yields no new definitive
> knowledge. The argument yields only possible knowledge, contingent
> upon whether the statement is true, which cannot be known.
> In short, don't insult people because they believe something different
> than you, please. Ultimately, you may think you know the truth, but
> you're really only holding a belief, just like the rest of us.
> Peace.
> On Nov 30, 5:42 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 1:13 pm, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we're talking about cause and effect,
> > No, we are talking about your ignorance of physics.
> > > so then if the universe didnt
> > > have a beginning if it didnt come from the big bang where did it come
> > No one knows.
> > > from. there was a cause and the effect was teh universe.
> > We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?- Skjul sitert tekst -
I would like to ask you the same question I asked Jon here:
Since you claim that god is outside space and time (transcendant),
would you be so kind as to explain how you would refute the following
argument presented by the philosopher Theodore M.Drange:
The Paradox of omnipresence:
1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
time)
2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
Have a nice day
ZtB
On 30 Nov, 22:01, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> beginning.
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> a cause.
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and
> Romans 1:20 teach.
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
> no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> complex than i previously thought.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
> Romans 1:25
> 25 (They) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
> served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
> Amen.
> If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
> sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
> that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
> do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
> an example).
I never said that God is a collection of all the constants. I said
that if you must do so, you can think of God as a collection of
constants. The important point here was supposed to be the existence
of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
in the traditional sense. However, if we were to say that one aspects
of God, while he may have more, is that he is a collection of all
constants, this automatically makes God omniscient. Call to mind
philosophical absolutes as the totality of all things, discovered and
undiscovered.
Now, sort of on accident, this one attribute of God (omniscience)
effectively forces the other two commonly argued attributes of God
into being. To avoid excessive detail, I'll simply say this: since
all things are dependent on constants and not the other way around,
that system of constants is fully present in and outside all things
(omnipresence), has full power over all things (omnipotence), and
profits nothing from all things (omnibenevolence). Effectively, the
collection of absolutes is necessarily all knowing, all present, all
powerful, and all loving. An all knowing, all present, all powerful,
and all loving being is the widely accepted philosophical definition
of God.
But, this is hardly a formalized proof and is not meant to be. And as
a proud Christian, any attribute assigning approach to defining God
like this falls short of the mark.
Before moving on to your lingering proof at the end, there is one
other thing you stated that catches my eye and worries me:
> If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
> atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
> deities, see wikipedia;
> QUOTE
> "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
> deities"
> ENDQUOTE
I had a discussion several years ago with an agnostic who claimed the
same basic thing, that the alternative to believe in anything is a
lack of belief. However, the nature of logic does not permit this to
be true. The New American Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed defines belief as
"an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
The second half of this definition is redundant: to make a statement
about something existing is a statement and is already bound by the
first half of the definition, which states that all possible
statements are in fact BELIEFS for the entirety of their acceptance.
Now, a philosopher and scientist like yourself probably holds to the
belief that science and reason can reveal truth. However, the
principles of neither science nor reason make claim of absolute proof
of anything. Science is a standardized method of observation that
gives names to hypotheses once they've passed a threshold of having
not been shown false, but even at the point of calling a hypothesis a
LAW does not promise that this LAW is constant outside of our data set
(the universe). And reason is nothing more than a widely accepted
(believed) set of logical rules, all of which hinge on the acceptance
(belief) in the premises of both the argument and the system of rules
themselves.
So, both science and reason are self proclaimed belief systems at the
very core. Any accepted statement made with them is a belief. Any
accepted statement made without them is a belief. And by definition,
any accepted statement at all is a belief. Moving on,
> The Paradox of omnipresence:
> 1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
> time)
> 2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
> 3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
> 4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
> 5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
> 6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
This argument is false on account of an incorrect assumption regarding
transcendence. Transcendence does not require something to exist ONLY
outside of time and space. Transcendence requires only that something
not be bound by time and space, like the number 7. The number 7 is
transcendent, because it exists independently of time and space, yet
it also exists IN time and space. More specific to matters on God,
the Oxford American Dictionary 2nd ed states that transcendence is
"(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of
the material universe." So, even the more restrictive definition of
transcendence with reference to God does not place God completely
outside of the universe itself, it places God outside of the
LIMITATIONS of the MATERIAL universe.
Nowhere in any classically accepted definition of transcendence that
I've read has there been a requirement that transcendent beings exist
solely outside of space and time. Had this been a classically
accepted definition of transcendence, it would not have been listed as
an attribute of God. In fact, it isn't listed as an attribute of
God. The only reason one might say that God is transcendent is when
one means it in the same way as or as a sub-attribute of
omnipresence. To assign an attribute to something and change the
meaning of the attribute to conflict with a later assignment or to
assign conflicting attributes is an absurd attempt at proving
something nonexistent.
Sure, if you can find a definition of transcendence that requires the
being to exist completely outside of the universe, it is accurate to
say that there is no transcendent omnipresent being. But then you're
not looking at a paradox, you're looking at an incorrect assignment of
attributes. These are completely different things. And if someone
where to somehow prove that omnipresence actually IS logically
impossible, it doesn't disprove all definitions of God. It only
proves that omnipresence is either not actually an attribute of God,
that our human system of logic is flawed, or that someone somewhere
misused the term omnipresent.
Quite frankly, I'm a little disturbed that people are still trying to
disprove individual attributes of God, like omnipresence, that can
apply to things other than the classically defined God, like the
numbers 3 or 7.
And you probably don't care, but I prayed for you ZonkTheBear, that
you will find truth (not necessarily God) and peace.
On Dec 1, 6:32 am, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting argument that God is the collection of all constants, but
> this merely takes us back to the old back-and-forth dance of changing
> the defining god (good, old no-true-scotsman fallacy...).
> If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
> sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
> that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
> do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
> an example).
> Wouldn't it be somewhat peculiar to pray to Boltzmann's constant for
> absolution?
> I also want to point to your statement :
> QUOTE
> "Ultimately, you may think you know the truth, but
> you're really only holding a belief, just like the rest of us."
> ENDQUOTE
> If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
> atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
> deities, see wikipedia;
> QUOTE
> "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
> deities"
> ENDQUOTE
> May I ask you a few questions about the proof or disproof of (a) god?
> Since you claim that there no way one can disprove the existence of
> god by scientific methods, I would like to present a philosophers
> argument. Would you be so kind as to explain how you would refute the
> following argument presented by the philosopher Theodore M.Drange:
> The Paradox of omnipresence:
> 1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
> time)
> 2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
> 3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
> 4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
> 5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
> 6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
> (I would really like omprem's answer on this one too...)
> Have a nice day
> ZtB
> On 1 Des, 10:32, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> > personal insult/attack. A personal attack is a logical fallacy and
> > potentially evidence of a weak viewpoint.
> > Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> > that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> > universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> > science--science especially, since the scientific method is nothing
> > more than a formalized method of observation with the added touch of a
> > logical fallacy to kick-start it. In other words, while I love
> > science, I also realize that it is nothing more than a formalized
> > dependence on circular reasoning.
> > Now, here's a suggestion that dangling question:
> > > We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?
> > I propose that CONSTANTS do not and can not have a CAUSE. In case
> > you're not quite sure what I mean, I mean anything and everything that
> > is not changed by time or dimension. For instance, the number 3 is
> > just a number, an eternal concept. Really, any absolute is
> > effectively constant. And in the argument for God, all absolute
> > If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
> > sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
> > that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
> > do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
> > an example).
> I never said that God is a collection of all the constants. I said
> that if you must do so, you can think of God as a collection of
> constants. The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> in the traditional sense. However, if we were to say that one aspects
> of God, while he may have more, is that he is a collection of all
> constants, this automatically makes God omniscient. Call to mind
> philosophical absolutes as the totality of all things, discovered and
> undiscovered.
> Now, sort of on accident, this one attribute of God (omniscience)
> effectively forces the other two commonly argued attributes of God
> into being. To avoid excessive detail, I'll simply say this: since
> all things are dependent on constants and not the other way around,
> that system of constants is fully present in and outside all things
> (omnipresence), has full power over all things (omnipotence), and
> profits nothing from all things (omnibenevolence). Effectively, the
> collection of absolutes is necessarily all knowing, all present, all
> powerful, and all loving. An all knowing, all present, all powerful,
> and all loving being is the widely accepted philosophical definition
> of God.
> But, this is hardly a formalized proof and is not meant to be. And as
> a proud Christian, any attribute assigning approach to defining God
> like this falls short of the mark.
> Before moving on to your lingering proof at the end, there is one
> other thing you stated that catches my eye and worries me:
> > If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
> > atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
> > deities, see wikipedia;
> > QUOTE
> > "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
> > deities"
> > ENDQUOTE
> I had a discussion several years ago with an agnostic who claimed the
> same basic thing, that the alternative to believe in anything is a
> lack of belief. However, the nature of logic does not permit this to
> be true. The New American Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed defines belief as
> "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
> The second half of this definition is redundant: to make a statement
> about something existing is a statement and is already bound by the
> first half of the definition, which states that all possible
> statements are in fact BELIEFS for the entirety of their acceptance.
> Now, a philosopher and scientist like yourself probably holds to the
> belief that science and reason can reveal truth. However, the
> principles of neither science nor reason make claim of absolute proof
> of anything. Science is a standardized method of observation that
> gives names to hypotheses once they've passed a threshold of having
> not been shown false, but even at the point of calling a hypothesis a
> LAW does not promise that this LAW is constant outside of our data set
> (the universe). And reason is nothing more than a widely accepted
> (believed) set of logical rules, all of which hinge on the acceptance
> (belief) in the premises of both the argument and the system of rules
> themselves.
> So, both science and reason are self proclaimed belief systems at the
> very core. Any accepted statement made with them is a belief. Any
> accepted statement made without them is a belief. And by definition,
> any accepted statement at all is a belief. Moving on,
> > The Paradox of omnipresence:
> > 1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
> > time)
> > 2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
> > 3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
> > 4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
> > 5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
> > 6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
> This argument is false on account of an incorrect assumption regarding
> transcendence. Transcendence does not require something to exist ONLY
> outside of time and space. Transcendence requires only that something
> not be bound by time and space, like the number 7. The number 7 is
> transcendent, because it exists independently of time and space, yet
> it also exists IN time and space. More specific to matters on God,
> the Oxford American Dictionary 2nd ed states that transcendence is
> "(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of
> the material universe." So, even the more restrictive definition of
> transcendence with reference to God does not place God completely
> outside of the universe itself, it places God outside of the
> LIMITATIONS of the MATERIAL universe.
> Nowhere in any classically accepted definition of transcendence that
> I've read has there been a requirement that transcendent beings exist
> solely outside of space and time. Had this been a classically
> accepted definition of transcendence, it would not have been listed as
> an attribute of God. In fact, it isn't listed as an attribute of
> God. The only reason one might say that God is transcendent is when
> one means it in the same way as or as a sub-attribute of
> omnipresence. To assign an attribute to something and change the
> meaning of the attribute to conflict with a later assignment or to
> assign conflicting attributes is an absurd attempt at proving
> something nonexistent.
> Sure, if you can find a definition of transcendence that requires the
> being to exist completely outside of the universe, it is accurate to
> say that there is no transcendent omnipresent being. But then you're
> not looking at a paradox, you're looking at an incorrect assignment of
> attributes. These are completely different things. And if someone
> where to somehow prove that omnipresence actually IS logically
> impossible, it doesn't disprove all definitions of God. It only
> proves that omnipresence is either not actually an attribute of God,
> that our human system of logic is flawed, or that someone somewhere
> misused the term omnipresent.
> Quite frankly, I'm a little disturbed that people are still trying to
> disprove individual attributes of God, like omnipresence, that can
> apply to things other than the classically defined God, like the
> numbers 3 or 7.
> And you probably don't care, but I prayed for you ZonkTheBear, that
> you will find truth (not necessarily God) and peace.
> On Dec 1, 6:32 am, ZonkTheBear <ZonkTheB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Best Jon
> > Interesting argument that God is the collection of all constants, but
> > this merely takes us back to the old back-and-forth dance of changing
> > the defining god (good, old no-true-scotsman fallacy...).
> > If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
> > sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
> > that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
> > do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
> > an example).
> > Wouldn't it be somewhat peculiar to pray to Boltzmann's constant for
> > absolution?
> > I also want to point to your statement :
> > QUOTE
> > "Ultimately, you may think you know the truth, but
> > you're really only holding a belief, just like the rest of us."
> > ENDQUOTE
> > If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
> > atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
> > deities, see wikipedia;
> > QUOTE
> > "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
> > deities"
> > ENDQUOTE
> > May I ask you a few questions about the proof or disproof of (a) god?
> > Since you claim that there no way one can disprove the existence of
> > god by scientific methods, I would like to present a philosophers
> > argument. Would you be so kind as to explain how you would refute the
> > following argument presented by the philosopher Theodore M.Drange:
> > The Paradox of omnipresence:
> > 1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
> > time)
> > 2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
> > 3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
> > 4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
> > 5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
> > 6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
> > (I would really like omprem's answer on this one too...)
> > Have a nice day
> > ZtB
> > On 1 Des, 10:32, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> > > personal insult/attack. A personal attack is a logical fallacy and
> > > potentially evidence of a weak viewpoint.
> > > Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> > > that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> > > universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> > > science--science especially, since the scientific method is
On Dec 1, 1:32 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> personal insult/attack.
When you've heard the same trite, ignorant, arguments for the ten
thousandth time, you'll be that way too. I'm just bored with their
idiocy.
> Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> science--
If you're going to try a nihilistic argument, forget it. That sub-
sophomoric argument never works.
> Now, here's a suggestion that dangling question:
> > We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?
> I propose that CONSTANTS do not and can not have a CAUSE. ...
Gee.... the "first cause argument." How quaint. What caused the first
cause? No, you don't get to claim it did not need a cause unless you
throw out your premise that everything needs a cause. Here; read this:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm
> Clearly, that's not a formal proof.
It's an informal argument that has been thoroughly trashed.
> To give an example, the statement "the dog is brown"
Which has nothing to do with you proving a god exists. So far you have
presented nothing new, or valid. Got anything else?
I've presented plenty of valid and relevent claims. But, just as you
cannot force anyone believe a word you say, I cannot force you to see
the validity or relevence of mine.
Don't worry though, I'll pray that you find success and peace in your
search for truth.
On Dec 1, 11:34 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:32 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> > personal insult/attack.
> When you've heard the same trite, ignorant, arguments for the ten
> thousandth time, you'll be that way too. I'm just bored with their
> idiocy.
> > Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> > that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> > universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> > science--
> If you're going to try a nihilistic argument, forget it. That sub-
> sophomoric argument never works.
> > Now, here's a suggestion that dangling question:
> > > We do not know that. What was the cause for your god?
> > I propose that CONSTANTS do not and can not have a CAUSE. ...
> Gee.... the "first cause argument." How quaint. What caused the first
> cause? No, you don't get to claim it did not need a cause unless you
> throw out your premise that everything needs a cause. Here; read this:http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm
> > Clearly, that's not a formal proof.
> It's an informal argument that has been thoroughly trashed.
> > To give an example, the statement "the dog is brown"
> Which has nothing to do with you proving a god exists. So far you have
> presented nothing new, or valid. Got anything else?
> I never said that God is a collection of all the constants. I said
> that if you must do so, you can think of God as a collection of
> constants.
But how do we know that God is a collection of constants that
remarkably resembles the properties of the Christian God? Two days
back I was told that God is Love. And there have also been rumours
that God is Muslim.
The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> in the traditional sense.
So you are re-defining God. How does that increase the truth quotient
of God? You are just placing him in a more secure intellectual plane
by removing him from YHWH. Yet you say you are a proud Christian.
However, if we were to say that one aspects
> of God, while he may have more, is that he is a collection of all
> constants, this automatically makes God omniscient
May I remind you that your first line was -
QUOTE : "I never said that God is a collection of all the constants"
END QUOTE
o avoid excessive detail, I'll simply say this: since
> all things are dependent on constants and not the other way around,
> that system of constants is fully present in and outside all things
> (omnipresence), has full power over all things (omnipotence), and
> profits nothing from all things (omnibenevolence).
Just to point out the obvious. Why do you assume that a creature that
does not profit from anything will be benevolent in nature? Since
there is no profit or loss, then there is not even any emotion in the
acts. What would then drive such a creature to any act?
Effectively, the
> collection of absolutes is necessarily all knowing, all present, all
> powerful, and all loving.
The last one is wrong. Since the creature profits from nothing, that
means nothing fills him with happiness or joy or hatred or pain (these
would mean a profit or a loss). Hence the creature is emotionless. An
emotionless creature cannot be loving. The creature is indifferent.
And as
> a proud Christian, any attribute assigning approach to defining God
> like this falls short of the mark.
Here you mention again that you are Christian. But before you
mentioned :
QUOTE: "The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> in the traditional sense."
I thought Christians had a very traditional God. Oops, I forgot, the
Christian God differs from Christian to Christian.
Science is a standardized method of observation that
> gives names to hypotheses once they've passed a threshold of having
> not been shown false, but even at the point of calling a hypothesis a
> LAW does not promise that this LAW is constant outside of our data set
> (the universe). And reason is nothing more than a widely accepted
> (believed) set of logical rules, all of which hinge on the acceptance
> (belief) in the premises of both the argument and the system of rules
> themselves.
> So, both science and reason are self proclaimed belief systems at the
> very core.
Equivocation. If you say your mother loves you, you know it by a
method of observation whereby it has passed a threshold of having not
been shown false. Does that mean it is a belief system at the very
core?
Also, where in the definition of 'atheism' do you notice the words
'science' or 'reason'? Atheism means a lack of belief in god(s).
Whether that is because someone believes in aliens, or whether it's
because someone has never been exposed to the idea of God depends on
the individual.
Do you believe in gremlins? If not, then why is your 'lack of belief
in gremlins' not a belief system like my 'lack of belief in God'?
> Quite frankly, I'm a little disturbed that people are still trying to
> disprove individual attributes of God, like omnipresence, that can
> apply to things other than the classically defined God, like the
> numbers 3 or 7.
The problem is that there is no 'classically defined God'. Every
believer has his own take on the big man which he then espouses as the
TRUE DEFINITION. Look at this thread itself. You said :
QUOTE: "The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> in the traditional sense." END QUOTE
Not necessarily God in the traditional sense. So how can the atheist
debate the existence of God than by proving the ridiculousness of the
individual definitions? Of course, just like you say, if a certain
property of god is shown to be fallacious, you can just remove that
and claim that it doesn't mean your definition of God is incorrect.
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you by god mean the collation of natural forces and constants,
> > sure, I believe in that kind of god as I believe in scientific methods
> > that can observe these phenomena but that kind of god has nothing to
> > do with the kind of god described in OT or NT (to take chistianity as
> > an example).
> I never said that God is a collection of all the constants. I said
> that if you must do so, you can think of God as a collection of
> constants. The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> in the traditional sense. However, if we were to say that one aspects
> of God, while he may have more, is that he is a collection of all
> constants, this automatically makes God omniscient. Call to mind
> philosophical absolutes as the totality of all things, discovered and
> undiscovered.
> Now, sort of on accident, this one attribute of God (omniscience)
> effectively forces the other two commonly argued attributes of God
> into being. To avoid excessive detail, I'll simply say this: since
> all things are dependent on constants and not the other way around,
> that system of constants is fully present in and outside all things
> (omnipresence), has full power over all things (omnipotence), and
> profits nothing from all things (omnibenevolence). Effectively, the
> collection of absolutes is necessarily all knowing, all present, all
> powerful, and all loving. An all knowing, all present, all powerful,
> and all loving being is the widely accepted philosophical definition
> of God.
> But, this is hardly a formalized proof and is not meant to be. And as
> a proud Christian, any attribute assigning approach to defining God
> like this falls short of the mark.
> Before moving on to your lingering proof at the end, there is one
> other thing you stated that catches my eye and worries me:
> > If you by "you" mean us atheists, I have to point out, yet again, that
> > atheism is _not_ a belief, merely the absence of belief in any
> > deities, see wikipedia;
> > QUOTE
> > "When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in
> > deities"
> > ENDQUOTE
> I had a discussion several years ago with an agnostic who claimed the
> same basic thing, that the alternative to believe in anything is a
> lack of belief. However, the nature of logic does not permit this to
> be true. The New American Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed defines belief as
> "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
> The second half of this definition is redundant: to make a statement
> about something existing is a statement and is already bound by the
> first half of the definition, which states that all possible
> statements are in fact BELIEFS for the entirety of their acceptance.
> Now, a philosopher and scientist like yourself probably holds to the
> belief that science and reason can reveal truth. However, the
> principles of neither science nor reason make claim of absolute proof
> of anything. Science is a standardized method of observation that
> gives names to hypotheses once they've passed a threshold of having
> not been shown false, but even at the point of calling a hypothesis a
> LAW does not promise that this LAW is constant outside of our data set
> (the universe). And reason is nothing more than a widely accepted
> (believed) set of logical rules, all of which hinge on the acceptance
> (belief) in the premises of both the argument and the system of rules
> themselves.
> So, both science and reason are self proclaimed belief systems at the
> very core. Any accepted statement made with them is a belief. Any
> accepted statement made without them is a belief. And by definition,
> any accepted statement at all is a belief. Moving on,
> > The Paradox of omnipresence:
> > 1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and
> > time)
> > 2) If God exists, he is omnipresent
> > 3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
> > 4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
> > 5) Hence it is impossible for a trandescent being to be omnipresent
> > 6) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist
> This argument is false on account of an incorrect assumption regarding
> transcendence. Transcendence does not require something to exist ONLY
> outside of time and space. Transcendence requires only that something
> not be bound by time and space, like the number 7. The number 7 is
> transcendent, because it exists independently of time and space, yet
> it also exists IN time and space. More specific to matters on God,
> the Oxford American Dictionary 2nd ed states that transcendence is
> "(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of
> the material universe." So, even the more restrictive definition of
> transcendence with reference to God does not place God completely
> outside of the universe itself, it places God outside of the
> LIMITATIONS of the MATERIAL universe.
> But how do we know that God is a collection of constants that
> remarkably resembles the properties of the Christian God? Two days
> back I was told that God is Love. And there have also been rumours
> that God is Muslim.
I was under the impressions the atheists here didn't want a bunch of
Christian babble, so I've been trying to speak in terms as purely
philosophically (logically) as I know how. God as an omnipresent,
omniscient, omnipotent, [omnibenevolent] being is not a strictly
Christian standpoint of God. And the important thing to remember is
that what God is made of, to put it in terms that a human intellect
can easily understand, is not coincidental, just as a ball is not a
ball because it coincidentally displays the features of a ball. It is
named "ball" BECAUSE it displays those features. You will notice, my
argument was not necessarily for God, but for the complete set of
absolutes, in the philosophical sense. I can't help it if that set of
constants (which is the set of all constants) has the attributes of
God.
> So you are re-defining God. How does that increase the truth quotient
> of God? You are just placing him in a more secure intellectual plane
> by removing him from YHWH. Yet you say you are a proud Christian.
No, I'm not. I'm using a definition for God as old as, if not older
than, the initial atheistic attack on theism. YHWH means roughly "I
am who am" or "I am" and is not necessarily a definition in the terms
that most people see a definition. YHWH is only a definition to the
extent that it names who God is, as the necessary being.
You may research Rene Descartes for the proof that "I am" (YHWH for
our purposes) is the only statement that one can know with certainty
without the need for faith. Of course, this statement when Descartes
was proving it applied only to himself. At the moment you speak "I
am" and ponder its truth, its truth applies only to you. So, this
statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
> Just to point out the obvious. Why do you assume that a creature that
> does not profit from anything will be benevolent in nature? Since
> there is no profit or loss, then there is not even any emotion in the
> acts. What would then drive such a creature to any act?
Benevolent is understood by any dedicated Christian to be a matter of
acting for the profit of others rather than for the profit of one's
own self. So, I'm not ASSUMING anything. I'm simply applying the
King's English as it stands. And honestly, a benevolent creature,
machine, or otherwise does not need motivation. Benevolence has
nothing to do with motivation. It is only a descriptive property
regarding the manner of a subject's effects or actions. So, your
question is irrelevant at this point.
> Here you mention again that you are Christian. But before you
> mentioned :
> QUOTE: "The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> > of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> > in the traditional sense."
> I thought Christians had a very traditional God. Oops, I forgot, the
> Christian God differs from Christian to Christian.
That's somewhat true. Christians tend to have somewhat different
views of God. I can assure you though, my views are fairly
traditional. I will repeat for your sake though, that I am not trying
to prove the existence of the Christian God. If I were going to
attempt to do that I would actually be using scientific data. It's
actually much easier to prove things scientifically than it is to
prove them logically (notice how butter is bad for you one year and 2
years later they tell you to stop eating margarine and switch back to
butter ... ).
> Equivocation. If you say your mother loves you, you know it by a
> method of observation whereby it has passed a threshold of having not
> been shown false. Does that mean it is a belief system at the very
> core?
Yes.
> Also, where in the definition of 'atheism' do you notice the words
> 'science' or 'reason'? Atheism means a lack of belief in god(s).
> Whether that is because someone believes in aliens, or whether it's
> because someone has never been exposed to the idea of God depends on
> the individual.
The Oxford American Dictionary ed 2 defines atheism as "the theory or
belief that God does not exist." So there you have it right in the
definition. Atheism is a belief. If you need further convincing,
we'll go back to a dog analogy: The dog is brown.
You either believe the dog is brown, the dog is not brown, or the dog
could be brown.
Each of the three options is a belief, since there is no possibly way
to prove it (whether by science or logic). So, even if you've
misunderstood atheism with agnosticism (not believing in a God, but
also not rejecting God), you still hold a belief regarding God,
whether it be existence or nonexistence.
> Do you believe in gremlins? If not, then why is your 'lack of belief
> in gremlins' not a belief system like my 'lack of belief in God'?
If I say "I do not believe in gremlins" I have stated my belief that
gremlins do not exist. You can play with word order all you want, but
every statement has a meaning. Regardless of what statement is made,
one can either believe it, believe it is possible, or believe its
inverse, which is just another statement to believe.
> The problem is that there is no 'classically defined God'. Every
> believer has his own take on the big man which he then espouses as the
> TRUE DEFINITION. Look at this thread itself. You said :
Sure there is. There are relatively few mainstream definitions for
God, and the one most classical philosophers seem to acknowledge is
the one presented in my claims. There are others of course, but
they're not all relevant to the first-cause argument this thread is
dedicated to. If you'd like me to make the same points using another
definition of God I would be happy to try.
> Not necessarily God in the traditional sense. So how can the atheist
> debate the existence of God than by proving the ridiculousness of the
> individual definitions? Of course, just like you say, if a certain
> property of god is shown to be fallacious, you can just remove that
> and claim that it doesn't mean your definition of God is incorrect.
You're right. That is why I wasn't trying to prove God's existence.
There are too many God concepts to flat out say "God is real
because ..." OR "God is not real because ..."
Instead, I only showed that the necessary first-cause I proved matched
a classical definition of God, and then suggested that this was not a
coincidence. If you don't see the definition presented as
characteristic of God, you need to appeal to modify the definition of
God until it suits what you're trying to find the truth in.
Until then, I will pray for you and your efforts to discover the truth
and find peace. If you find yourself believing in God, even for a
moment, I ask that you pray for me and my efforts as well.
May Jesus shed some peace and inspiration on you!
On Dec 1, 12:31 pm, blitzkriege <d.chatterj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I never said that God is a collection of all the constants. I said
> > that if you must do so, you can think of God as a collection of
> > constants.
> But how do we know that God is a collection of constants that
> remarkably resembles the properties of the Christian God? Two days
> back I was told that God is Love. And there have also been rumours
> that God is Muslim.
> The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> > of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> > in the traditional sense.
> So you are re-defining God. How does that increase the truth quotient
> of God? You are just placing him in a more secure intellectual plane
> by removing him from YHWH. Yet you say you are a proud Christian.
> However, if we were to say that one aspects
> > of God, while he may have more, is that he is a collection of all
> > constants, this automatically makes God omniscient
> May I remind you that your first line was -
> QUOTE : "I never said that God is a collection of all the constants"
> END QUOTE
> o avoid excessive detail, I'll simply say this: since
> > all things are dependent on constants and not the other way around,
> > that system of constants is fully present in and outside all things
> > (omnipresence), has full power over all things (omnipotence), and
> > profits nothing from all things (omnibenevolence).
> Just to point out the obvious. Why do you assume that a creature that
> does not profit from anything will be benevolent in nature? Since
> there is no profit or loss, then there is not even any emotion in the
> acts. What would then drive such a creature to any act?
> Effectively, the
> > collection of absolutes is necessarily all knowing, all present, all
> > powerful, and all loving.
> The last one is wrong. Since the creature profits from nothing, that
> means nothing fills him with happiness or joy or hatred or pain (these
> would mean a profit or a loss). Hence the creature is emotionless. An
> emotionless creature cannot be loving. The creature is indifferent.
> And as
> > a proud Christian, any attribute assigning approach to defining God
> > like this falls short of the mark.
> Here you mention again that you are Christian. But before you
> mentioned :
> QUOTE: "The important point here was supposed to be the existence
> > of an eternal unchanging cause for the universe, not necessarily God
> > in the traditional sense."
> I thought Christians had a very traditional God. Oops, I forgot, the
> Christian God differs from Christian to
On Dec 1, 11:35 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey blitz,
> > But how do we know that God is a collection of constants that
> > remarkably resembles the properties of the Christian God? Two days
> > back I was told that God is Love. And there have also been rumours
> > that God is Muslim.
> I was under the impressions the atheists here didn't want a bunch of
> Christian babble, so I've been trying to speak in terms as purely
> philosophically (logically) as I know how. God as an omnipresent,
> omniscient, omnipotent, [omnibenevolent] being is not a strictly
> Christian standpoint of God.
In the sense that there are preceding standpoints from Hindus, for
example?
> And the important thing to remember is
> that what God is made of, to put it in terms that a human intellect
> can easily understand, is not coincidental, just as a ball is not a
> ball because it coincidentally displays the features of a ball. It is
> named "ball" BECAUSE it displays those features.
Why not simply assert "Essence precedes existence" instead?
I much prefer the Christian babble to that, though.
> You will notice, my
> argument was not necessarily for God, but for the complete set of
> absolutes, in the philosophical sense. I can't help it if that set of
> constants (which is the set of all constants) has the attributes of
> God.
And I can't help but note that you are still asserting things without
any compelling evidence to support your assertions.
> > So you are re-defining God. How does that increase the truth quotient
> > of God? You are just placing him in a more secure intellectual plane
> > by removing him from YHWH. Yet you say you are a proud Christian.
> No, I'm not. I'm using a definition for God as old as, if not older
> than, the initial atheistic attack on theism. YHWH means roughly "I
> am who am" or "I am" and is not necessarily a definition in the terms
> that most people see a definition. YHWH is only a definition to the
> extent that it names who God is, as the necessary being.
> You may research Rene Descartes for the proof that "I am"
"I think, therefore I am" will do?
> (YHWH for
> our purposes) is the only statement that one can know with certainty
> without the need for faith. Of course, this statement when Descartes
> was proving it applied only to himself.
And that's the only person it applies to - the person himself.
> At the moment you speak "I
> am" and ponder its truth, its truth applies only to you.
Correct. Only to me, not you, not someone else.
> So, this
> statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
> his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
Not so fast.
"This statement by God" is alleged by some human author to have been
made by an alleged entity called God, to another human called Abe.
That does not make it true. Or not true.
And then there is still the small matter of Descartes maxim applying
only to your self when you say "I am".
On Dec 1, 1:32 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice your primary method of argument is the
> personal insult/attack. A personal attack is a logical fallacy and
> potentially evidence of a weak viewpoint.
> Nonetheless, I think I'll give that dangling question a shot, in hopes
> that you will keep in mind that NEITHER God NOR *the existence of the
> universe itself* can be proven or disproven with reason/logic or
> science--science especially, since the scientific method is nothing
> more than a formalized method of observation with the added touch of a
> logical fallacy to kick-start it. In other words, while I love
> science, I also realize that it is nothing more than a formalized
> dependence on circular reasoning.
Can you be so kind as to illustrate this dependence of science on
circular reasoning?
A description of the logical fallacy to kick-start, if different than
circular reasoning would be nice, too.
I only ask though that you first provide a definition of the
scientific method, perhaps it is different than my understanding.
On Dec 1, 9:41 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've presented plenty of valid and relevent claims.
You have presented nothing of the sort. You have presented arguments
that have been trashed for over 100 years, many unsupported claims,
whole books of logical fallacies, but nothing valid.
> But, just as you
> cannot force anyone believe a word you say, I cannot force you to see
> the validity or relevence of mine.
If they were valid. They are not. Just because you believe they are
valid arguments does not make them valid.
> Don't worry though, I'll pray that you find success and peace in your
> search for truth.
That's a very arrogant, asinine, and insulting statement.... exactly
what is to be expected from believers with psychological problems.
> In the sense that there are preceding standpoints from Hindus, for
> example?
In the sense that men and women have believed in such an entities long
before either religion.
> Why not simply assert "Essence precedes existence" instead?
> I much prefer the Christian babble to that, though.
Because I am not perfect and did not think of that wording at the
time. Also because I am a slow thinker, and I would rather use too
many words to describe an idea than accidentally use the wrong words.
> And I can't help but note that you are still asserting things without
> any compelling evidence to support your assertions.
That statement in itself is an assertion without any compelling
evidence. You've said nothing of why my evidence is not compelling.
And even so, it doesn't particularly matter, since the level to which
something is compelling is subjective. For if it were objective it
would be definitively true or false. Perhaps my claims are not
compelling because they are definitive?
> "I think, therefore I am" will do?
No, it will not do. For one, the quote is "I think 'I am', therefore
I am." And secondly, the statement itself is not necessarily a full
argument.
> Correct. Only to me, not you, not someone else.
I'm aware.
> Not so fast.
> "This statement by God" is alleged by some human author to have been
> made by an alleged entity called God, to another human called Abe.
> That does not make it true. Or not true.
Correct.
> And then there is still the small matter of Descartes maxim applying
> only to your self when you say "I am".
Yes, I'm still aware of the meaning of the maxim. And I'm quite aware
that it does not assure God's existence. That is why I said
> > So, this
> > statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
> > his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
and not "this statement proves God's existence." The statement is not
meant to. It is meant to convey the nature of God to one seeking
understanding of God. This statement was spoken to someone who
already believed and didn't need convincing--only further
understanding.
I don't see why you're attacking a point I didn't make as if I made
it. Or are you just agreeing with me?
On Dec 1, 3:24 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:35 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey blitz,
> > > But how do we know that God is a collection of constants that
> > > remarkably resembles the properties of the Christian God? Two days
> > > back I was told that God is Love. And there have also been rumours
> > > that God is Muslim.
> > I was under the impressions the atheists here didn't want a bunch of
> > Christian babble, so I've been trying to speak in terms as purely
> > philosophically (logically) as I know how. God as an omnipresent,
> > omniscient, omnipotent, [omnibenevolent] being is not a strictly
> > Christian standpoint of God.
> In the sense that there are preceding standpoints from Hindus, for
> example?
> > And the important thing to remember is
> > that what God is made of, to put it in terms that a human intellect
> > can easily understand, is not coincidental, just as a ball is not a
> > ball because it coincidentally displays the features of a ball. It is
> > named "ball" BECAUSE it displays those features.
> Why not simply assert "Essence precedes existence" instead?
> I much prefer the Christian babble to that, though.
> > You will notice, my
> > argument was not necessarily for God, but for the complete set of
> > absolutes, in the philosophical sense. I can't help it if that set of
> > constants (which is the set of all constants) has the attributes of
> > God.
> And I can't help but note that you are still asserting things without
> any compelling evidence to support your assertions.
> > > So you are re-defining God. How does that increase the truth quotient
> > > of God? You are just placing him in a more secure intellectual plane
> > > by removing him from YHWH. Yet you say you are a proud Christian.
> > No, I'm not. I'm using a definition for God as old as, if not older
> > than, the initial atheistic attack on theism. YHWH means roughly "I
> > am who am" or "I am" and is not necessarily a definition in the terms
> > that most people see a definition. YHWH is only a definition to the
> > extent that it names who God is, as the necessary being.
> > You may research Rene Descartes for the proof that "I am"
> "I think, therefore I am" will do?
> > (YHWH for
> > our purposes) is the only statement that one can know with certainty
> > without the need for faith. Of course, this statement when Descartes
> > was proving it applied only to himself.
> And that's the only person it applies to - the person himself.
> > At the moment you speak "I
> > am" and ponder its truth, its truth applies only to you.
> Correct. Only to me, not you, not someone else.
> > So, this
> > statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
> > his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
> Not so fast.
> "This statement by God" is alleged by some human author to have been
> made by an alleged entity called God, to another human called Abe.
> That does not make it true. Or not true.
> And then there is still the small matter of Descartes maxim applying
> only to your self when you say "I am".
On Dec 1, 4:48 pm, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simpleton,
> > In the sense that there are preceding standpoints from Hindus, for
> > example?
> In the sense that men and women have believed in such an entities long
> before either religion.
I do not mean to pick on a typo, but it is an ominous one: "such an
entity" or "such entities"?
My guess is the latter, but I cannot be sure what you meant.
> > Why not simply assert "Essence precedes existence" instead?
> > I much prefer the Christian babble to that, though.
> Because I am not perfect and did not think of that wording at the
> time. Also because I am a slow thinker, and I would rather use too
> many words to describe an idea than accidentally use the wrong words.
Hey, I am not picking on you. I am simply stating my opinion of your
stated position.
> > And I can't help but note that you are still asserting things without
> > any compelling evidence to support your assertions.
> That statement in itself is an assertion without any compelling
> evidence.
To you, yes. In much the same way the assertion to which that was a
response was for me.
> You've said nothing of why my evidence is not compelling.
Because there is nothing in that evidence by assertion that compels
me.
> And even so, it doesn't particularly matter, since the level to which
> something is compelling is subjective.
Correct.
> For if it were objective it
> would be definitively true or false.
Correct.
> Perhaps my claims are not
> compelling because they are definitive?
No, it is because because they do not compel me. There is no evidence
that they are definitive.
> No, it will not do. For one, the quote is "I think 'I am', therefore
> I am." And secondly, the statement itself is not necessarily a full
> argument.
> > Correct. Only to me, not you, not someone else.
> I'm aware.
> > Not so fast.
> > "This statement by God" is alleged by some human author to have been
> > made by an alleged entity called God, to another human called Abe.
> > That does not make it true. Or not true.
> Correct.
> > And then there is still the small matter of Descartes maxim applying
> > only to your self when you say "I am".
> Yes, I'm still aware of the meaning of the maxim. And I'm quite aware
> that it does not assure God's existence. That is why I said
> > > So, this
> > > statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
> > > his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
> and not "this statement proves God's existence."
Understood.
> The statement is not
> meant to. It is meant to convey the nature of God to one seeking
> understanding of God.
Well, try something else then.
> This statement was spoken to someone who
> already believed and didn't need convincing--only further
> understanding.
No compelling evidence of that, either. Could be true, or not.
That statement was alleged by a human author to have been spoken by
someone who allegedly is this God entity, allegedly to someone else
who allegedly already believed, and who allegedly understood it.
Rather unusual that someone naive enough to actually prepare his son
for sacrifice would be philosophically savvy to understand the
concept.
Before Descartes, at that.
Besides, it is unclear how someone who wrote that would know what
someone else believed
> I don't see why you're attacking a point I didn't make as if I made
> it.
I am not attacking a point you did not make, simply adding commentary
to your analysis, which could use it.
> Or are you just agreeing with me?
I have already indicated where I agree with you, have I not?
I attempted to reply to this a little while ago and my browser freaked
out on me. So, since I do not see my reply, I'll try another--
possibly shorter this time, since I don't necessarily like repeats.
> You have presented nothing of the sort. You have presented arguments
> that have been trashed for over 100 years, many unsupported claims,
> whole books of logical fallacies, but nothing valid.
The same can be said of the claims the atheists here have made,
including your own. I like to take each argument I read as a new
argument, with the possibility of validity and truthiness. In this
way, I hope to avoid writing off potentially valid arguments that have
been written off at first glance in the past. Doesn't a seeker of
truth like yourself with to do the same?
> If they were valid.
This is not a complete sentence.
> They are not.
They is an ambiguous reference.
> Just because you believe they are
> valid arguments does not make them valid.
Again, the same can be said of every claim you and every other author
here makes. That doesn't mean the claim that they arguments are not
valid is a true statement. Also remember there is a distinction
between validity and truth. Are some of my premises false, does my
conclusion not follow, or both?
And if you happen to respond to that, assume I've already responded to
your response with this:
> Just because you believe they are
> valid arguments does not make them valid.
Now what? Looks like its a matter of belief in the end, doesn't it?
> That's a very arrogant, asinine, and insulting statement.... exactly
> what is to be expected from believers with psychological problems.
I try to be humble--I realize I don't always succeed. I am sorry for
speaking with such a spirit of confidence in my own intellectual
powers.
However, if my praying for you or anything else is offensive, I am
deeply hurt. My prayers are not intended to raise myself above you.
They are intended to raise you up, whether you are above or below me.
For my hope is that you are already close to perfection, and that we
are both climbing steadily toward it--not that either of us will
necessarily be perfect in this lifetime.
But, I am also saddened that an atheist such as yourself does not feel
the same sentiment. Who is more arrogant, the one who lowers himself
before a King to obtain favor for his family, or the brother who
scolds the one for thinking his family is needy enough to need favor?
On Dec 1, 4:58 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:41 am, Jon <IAmBipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've presented plenty of valid and relevent claims.
> You have presented nothing of the sort. You have presented arguments
> that have been trashed for over 100 years, many unsupported claims,
> whole books of logical fallacies, but nothing valid.
> > But, just as you
> > cannot force anyone believe a word you say, I cannot force you to see
> > the validity or relevence of mine.
> If they were valid. They are not. Just because you believe they are
> valid arguments does not make them valid.
> > Don't worry though, I'll pray that you find success and peace in your
> > search for truth.
> That's a very arrogant, asinine, and insulting statement.... exactly
> what is to be expected from believers with psychological problems.
*Sigh* ... I had a nice response for you 90% done and I got a power
surge (maybe something to do with the massive snow storm here).
So ... I'm gonna give you the quick version of what I remember:
First off, Simpleton, I am sorry if I offended you by implying you
were picking on me or being immature in any fashion. You provided a
very good response, both in content and the nature which it was
provided in. I thank you for that, and I apologize if the nature of
my response seemed at all immature in an *unjustified assumption* of
the nature of your response. Forgive me?
.. then I continued to agree and nearly-agree with you a few times,
and I came to that last little excerpt starting with
> > This statement was spoken to someone who
> > already believed and didn't need convincing--only further
> > understanding.
> No compelling evidence of that, either. Could be true, or not.
I'm not sure what would be compelling to you in this scenario. As far
as I recall, the text pretty clearly states that Abram believed in a
God before that God revealed his name/nature to Abram. The text in
combination with oral tradition are all that exist to compel on this
matter, unless I'm overlooking the part that's not compelling.
I am tired. If anyone responds to this, it may be awhile before I
return to read it.
May the peace of Christ be with you all (and me)!
On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > > I much prefer the Christian babble to that, though.
> > Because I am not perfect and did not think of that wording at the
> > time. Also because I am a slow thinker, and I would rather use too
> > many words to describe an idea than accidentally use the wrong words.
> Hey, I am not picking on you. I am simply stating my opinion of your
> stated position.
> > > And I can't help but note that you are still asserting things without
> > > any compelling evidence to support your assertions.
> > That statement in itself is an assertion without any compelling
> > evidence.
> To you, yes. In much the same way the assertion to which that was a
> response was for me.
> > You've said nothing of why my evidence is not compelling.
> Because there is nothing in that evidence by assertion that compels
> me.
> > And even so, it doesn't particularly matter, since the level to which
> > something is compelling is subjective.
> Correct.
> > For if it were objective it
> > would be definitively true or false.
> Correct.
> > Perhaps my claims are not
> > compelling because they are definitive?
> No, it is because because they do not compel me. There is no evidence
> that they are definitive.
> > > "I think, therefore I am" will do?
> > No, it will not do. For one, the quote is "I think 'I am', therefore
> > I am." And secondly, the statement itself is not necessarily a full
> > argument.
> > > Correct. Only to me, not you, not someone else.
> > I'm aware.
> > > Not so fast.
> > > "This statement by God" is alleged by some human author to have been
> > > made by an alleged entity called God, to another human called Abe.
> > > That does not make it true. Or not true.
> > Correct.
> > > And then there is still the small matter of Descartes maxim applying
> > > only to your self when you say "I am".
> > Yes, I'm still aware of the meaning of the maxim. And I'm quite aware
> > that it does not assure God's existence. That is why I said
> > > > So, this
> > > > statement by God to Abraham, if I'm not mistaken, is a statement if
> > > > his profound nature of supreme existence, and nothing more.
> > and not "this statement proves God's existence."
> Understood.
> > The statement is not
> > meant to. It is meant to convey the nature of God to one seeking
> > understanding of God.
> Well, try something else then.
> > This statement was spoken to someone who
> > already believed and didn't need convincing--only further
> > understanding.
> No compelling evidence of that, either. Could be true, or not.
> That statement was alleged by a human author to have been spoken by
> someone who allegedly is this God entity, allegedly to someone else
> who allegedly already believed, and who allegedly understood it.
> Rather unusual that someone naive enough to actually prepare his son
> for sacrifice would be philosophically savvy to understand the
> concept.
> Before Descartes, at that.
> Besides, it is unclear how someone who wrote that would know what
> someone else believed
> > I don't see why you're attacking a point I didn't make as if I made
> > it.
> I am not attacking a point you did not make, simply adding commentary
> to your analysis, which could use it.
> > Or are you just agreeing with me?
> I have already indicated where I agree with you, have I not?
On Nov 30, 4:01 pm, michael84 <mofo2na...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
> beginning.
Citation?
> 2 It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without
> a cause.
Why?
> 3 The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and
> Romans 1:20 teach.
> 4 God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has
> no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
> it seems a lot of theories i THOUGHT i knew about are MUCH more
> complex than i previously thought.
Given that 1 & 2 are not supported, you cannot yet draw conclusions
for them. Back to the drawing board.
> but if the laws of thermodynamics are still the same the first one
> says the TOTAL amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant, but
> the second one says the amount of energy available for work is running
> out. So if that's true then the universe couldnt have been around
> forever because that energy would have dissipated already. But at the
> same time the universe cannot have created itself because that means
> it would have existed before it's existance.
Your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics (as well as all
other scientific theories) continues to astound and amaze.
