Many people that become orthodox Christians often talk about they came to believe in Him against their will in many ways. Especially when they look back on their conversion after many years of reflection. Even most people that claim to be Christians are not orthodox theologically because they can not come to believe in the true God as described in the Bible.Ed1wolf said: ↑
This particular response to his claim that if the evidence was so strong why do so few people accept it.
ia: Provide evidence that people do not want to believe in God. Because looking at the world, it seems pretty clear that most people do.
No, this is a scientific fact, that is why they call it the UNI-VERSE.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, Athanasius knew God was a diversity within a unity 1500 years before scientists realized it was also a characteristic of the universe.
ia: Just your imagination.
No, I am getting it from the Bible, logical reasoning, and the history of science.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, up until 150 years ago, perfectly good science was done even allowing for God to exist and on extremely rare occasions interact with the universe and nature. God as a cause of an event would be the absolute last resort and only with good evidence. Pixies, demons and ghosts can be eliminated as causes of the universe as I explained earlier. The Bible teaches that God uses natural law at least 99.9% of time and the universe operates according to natural law read Jeremiah 33:25. Actually without God, science would be impossible. In order to do science, the universe must operate according to regular laws and be orderly and intelligible, only an intelligent mind can make something intelligible and only a lawgiver can make laws including natural laws as Einstein said.
ia: You're all over the place here, Ed. Where are you getting this all from? Josh McDowell?
I think that the biblical and theological evidence is against it. But my personal rejection of Darwinian evolution was based on biological and paleontological evidence rather than my theological beliefs. Because I believe He could very well have created living things using evolution but the scientific evidence says otherwise.Ed1wolf said: ↑
It has never been proven wrong, and is confirmed more every year.
ia: If you think the Bible teaches us that evolution is false, then yes, it has been proved wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
Your clarification is appreciated.I thought I had made myself pretty clear, but I guess not :/
And how are you certain that this isn't exactly what you're doing right now? If by this you mean you're asking for direct personal revelation à la Paul or Moses or something, I'd ask how you know you wouldn't brush it off or dismiss it regardless.God could simply go, peek-a-boo, here I am. Yes, maybe some would scoff. Maybe some would doubt. Maybe some would deny. Maybe some would ignore.
Christianity revolves around God's biggest "impactful move."This is why I state it really does not matter to pre-define 'god.' Again, if God wants a relationship, then the ball is in His proverbial court to make the impactful move.
I don't understand why you are in a thread about arguments for the existence of God, complaining about the fact that arguments exist. If you're not interested in them, then avoid them.
If you require personal revelation, then you can go practice mysticism and see if anything happens, or ask for people to pray for you, or whatever else, but I don't see how your need for personal revelation is relevant to a thread like this.
Jumping straight to revelation in a thread about the existence of God is also backwards. There are theistic belief systems out there like deism, which explicitly denies revelation and holds that God is uninvolved with human history. There are deists on the forum--if they came here and you argued that theism could not be true because of your biblical interpretation, that would be bizarre in the extreme. This thread has never been exclusively about Christian claims concerning God.
That said, I think you're overstating your case. Direct revelation is fairly rare even in the Bible--you've got your various Prophets and Apostles, yes, but there are also a lot of Ruths and Esthers out there, where spectacular things are not happening everyday.
Paul, assuming his experiences were veridical, is more an exception than a norm. Is there any evidence that Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe, or any of the other people that Paul was in contact with were also receiving similar visions? This stuff primarily seems to happen in the Bible when people are specifically chosen for a purpose, and it tends to involve a great deal of hardship.
And how are you certain that this isn't exactly what you're doing right now? If by this you mean you're asking for direct personal revelation à la Paul or Moses or something, I'd ask how you know you wouldn't brush it off or dismiss it regardless.
I suppose God is fully capable of making you know He's there, but then in a way He's imposed a relationship on you that you haven't really chosen.
I read it. All I see are unsubstantiated claims concerning the explanatory power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, followed by more unsubstantiated claims concerning cosmological arguments.
I Unless you wish to demonstrate how Aristotelian arguments could be used to demonstrate the existence of such an entity, to paraphrase Hitchens back at you: claims asserted without argumentation can also be dismissed without argumentation.
Apologies for not responding. I have now read your post afresh, but I'm afraid it seems to amount to essentially nothing more than the cosmological argument: “any change from potential to actual requires cause…Ultimately, the argument goes, we are left with the conclusion that there must be something actualizing all these potentials that itself is not being actualized that has no potential to be actualized and could not have potentials to be actualized. It is pure being, pure actuality. It is the causal bedrock upon which everything else relies, not just at the beginning of the universe, but also at every single moment since its inception. That thing is what we call God.”The argument I made that was never responded to was in this post.
Let’s not quibble about the etyomology of the word “creature”. If we say that God exists “outside of time” (does that even mean anything? How can we know?) can God be said to exist at all? All you’re doing is inventing properties about things you know nothing about.As Silmarien said, God isn't a "creature" that exists in the way you or I do.
Good. So, we have established that “God” is impossible, because He can’t think, because He doesn’t exist in time.It wouldn't, at least not in the way you and I do.
Not strictly. While I do agree with many of the things that eliminativists say, all I’m saying here is that all our experience of thinking involves having a physical brain, and it is as unjustified to say that an immaterial something can "think" as it is to say that I can make a chair float in the air by concentrating really hard.Are you an eliminativist?
Actually, the FSM works just fine. By showing that the cosmological argument can point to a manifest absurdity, it highlights the absurdity of the argument itself. Or, to put it another way, can you tell me why you’re allowed to say that your argument proves God exists, but I’m not allowed to say your argument proves the FSM exists? To be fair, you’ve tried to do that, with a "half-hearted response". Let’s see how it works…Your FSM posting isn't as poignant as you might think.
No problem! I'm afraid you may want to try a full-hearted response .Supposing you wanted even a half-hearted response to it, I'd point out that the FSM is composite in a way that classical theism supposes God is not and could not be, and would thus require further explanation.
I’ve been engaging with them and debunking them, along with others, for the better part of this unnecessarily long thread. To be honest, if you just go back and read the first few pages you will see the theistic arguments introduced and quickly demolished. It's just the people making them didn't listen, and insist on stringing this along for page after redundant page.Except such arguments do exist. That you haven't been engaging with them for whatever reason doesn't mean they aren't there.
I would like to see some evidence of the FSM argument "not being as incisive as I think it is". Because I’m not sure why you think I keep talking about the FSM, but I can tell you my reason: it is that the cosmological argument is a silly little game based on a logical fallacy, and the FSM, being a silly little joke, perfectly serves to illustrate this.The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have the sorts of divine characteristics that would follow from the cosmological argument, particularly the one I put forth. Your insistence that the FSM and God are both equally valid in this regard doesn't mean that they are. I won't say I don't know why you keep talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because I do, but I will say again that it's not nearly as incisive as you seem to think it is.
How do I know that we have no way to judge what happened before the Big Bang? It’s a well-known fact that we are completely unable to see or calculate, in any way, what happened prior to the Big Bang. Therefore, whatever caused it – if anything did – is unknown to us.How do you know that?
Just before I answer, I must make a point: forgive me if this is pedantic, but in this case we are not discussing God. We are discussing the origins of the universe. You are saying that the cause is God, and I am saying that we don’t know and shouldn’t speculate without evidence.Do you take this kind of approach -- that we don't know, so proposing possible explanations is ridiculous and shouldn't be done -- in any other aspect of your life besides questions of God? I'm almost certain you don't, so I have to wonder why this is so special in arousing your skepticism.
Doesn’t this seem a strange thing to ask me? Because I have never seen any evidence of God at all. None. If I had, I would be a believer already.That said, I'll ask you ask well: what sort of evidence is it that you're asking for? What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Then you had better make your case for it better than you have. Because so far, you have failed to show that the Cosmological Argument even makes sense, never mind that is constitutes compelling evidence.Cool assertion. Here's mine: no it's not.
As @cvanwey said, this doesn’t make sense. If someone comes up to you and shows they exist, are you obligated to marry them? Knowledge of existence does not necessitate a relationship.I suppose God is fully capable of making you know He's there, but then in a way He's imposed a relationship on you that you haven't really chosen.
No, it revolves around an unproven story about Jesus’s miracles, if his incarnation and resurrection were what you were referring to.[/QUOTE]Christianity revolves around God's biggest "impactful move."
But the “many people” you speak of – and let’s take you at your word on that – represent a very tiny proportion of Christians. Almost all Christians in the world are Christians because they were born that way. Almost nobody changes religions; it’s a fact of human nature. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to make maps or religions, by the way.Many people that become orthodox Christians often talk about they came to believe in Him against their will in many ways. Especially when they look back on their conversion after many years of reflection. Even most people that claim to be Christians are not orthodox theologically because they can not come to believe in the true God as described in the Bible.
Mere coincidence.Let's not waste time here with silly, tenuous associations. Do you actually have proof, a sound argument, or evidence for the existence of God?No, this is a scientific fact, that is why they call it the UNI-VERSE.
As I said before: you’re all over the place. Pixies, demons and ghosts can not be eliminated as a cause of the universe, as I have been explaining to Silmarien and Redac.No, I am getting it from the Bible, logical reasoning, and the history of science.
We’ve already established that you do not understand the theory of evolution. I see no more need to encourage you in your errors. I suggest you go and do some research - go to a school, go to a library, read a website (not a creationist one) and learn better.I think that the biblical and theological evidence is against it. But my personal rejection of Darwinian evolution was based on biological and paleontological evidence rather than my theological beliefs. Because I believe He could very well have created living things using evolution but the scientific evidence says otherwise.
I think the on-topic ship has sailed in here. It’s page 100-something of a thread made for OP’s cosmological argument (not arguments) for God’s existence, and OP isn’t even participating anymore.If I have ignored an argument, then I shall apologise and address it. I welcome your reasoned argument, Silmarien, although have not seen many of them as yet. I have, I'm afraid, neglected to answer a number of points you made because they seemed to me to be off-topic. I'm sorry about that, but this thread has been going on for a very long time, and I don't have time to waste on side-questions, no matter how intriguing.
Sailed, met an iceberg, and sunk!I think the on-topic ship has sailed in here. It’s page 100-something of a thread made for OP’s cosmological argument (not arguments) for God’s existence, and OP isn’t even participating anymore.
I'm not complaining that arguments exist. I'm stating it seems odd that intellectuals will cite philosophy, 'science', etc., but here we are 1,000's of years later, and still no closer to demonstrating or 'proving' the existence of 'god'. All-the-while, we have a published book of tales --- possibly; stating that God answers prayer - (in which I prayed for contact many of times). Again, since this is a Christian 'proof' forum, the tests appear to fail, at least for me.
Beg to differ... Again, we are speaking about the 'argument for god's existence.' I'm afraid anecdotal tales is one of the key 'proofs' for His existence. Heck, just flip open the the Bible, only for extreme starters.
Furthermore, are you speaking about verses like Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23? These verses seem to assert a specific conclusion. And in such a case, you could then propose a simple 'logical proof' (off-the-cuff)...:
But ultimately, it is... Again, we are in a Christian apologist's forum arena. But I do agree with you (partially). If prayer is not answered, as the logical prove above would suggest, can we then rule out Yahweh as a plausible culprit?.?.?.? If so, great. There is one less god to remain in the mix of possibilities. But I would then ask you, why have you ruled out the many other asserted gods?
You're kidding right? Have you ever observed many church settings? Pentecostals and Baptists quickly come to mind; just for starters. Furthermore, I run across people, on a daily bases, whom claim some type of contact on a regular bases. So I again ask, why was (I) excluded from this contact?.?.?.?.?
But I didn’t make claims about the FSM being to explain anything, and nor did I make claims about the cosmological argument. What I did was use the FSM to point out the weaknesses of the cosmological argument’s claims. It is not up to me to disprove your argument; it is up to you to make the case for God being the outcome of the argument, and you have not yet done so.
You’re almost there, Silmarien. May I now encourage you to think about what you just said:
You say that if I assert that the cosmological argument implies that the FSM exists, I need to prove it.
Fine. I can’t.
The flaw, of course, is that there is no way we can jump from “there was a cause to the universe” to “and that cause was the Christian God” or “and that cause was an all-powerful, omniscient and loving entity” or “that cause was intelligent and personal”. For all we know, the cause may have been a natural force. Maybe the universe exists eternally, repeatedly imploding and exploding.
We just don’t know.
And it is unjustified of you to say that we do know.
See?
Sailed, met an iceberg, and sunk!
Still, I have the utmost confidence that Silmarien and Redac will listen to reason, now that I have taken the time to explain things fully and clearly, and henceforth disavow the Cosmological Argument in all its equally-nonviable forms.
It is pure actuality, pure existence. One way to put it might be that it is existence, or that its essence is existence.First of all, what does “pure being” mean?
It would have to be something outside of the universe, or something that transcends it. Even supposing time were eternal, the universe would still need a "cause" or an actualizer to explain it existing rather than not existing, and it's self-evident that something cannot be self-caused in this way. That is, a potential cannot just actualize itself.The universe itself? Something “outside” it? How do you know?
To say that the universe is the causal bedrock of itself, that it is actualizing all its own potentials, makes no sense.If we are looking for “the bedrock of the universe itself” it would seem to be the universe.
See, what this tells me is that you don't understand the argument being made here -- and neither does Dawkins, which doesn't surprise me. You're still arguing about an infinite regress in a temporal, accidentally ordered series of causes. The argument I made addressed essentially ordered series of causes, which could allow for the universe to be eternal and would still require explanation. You and Dawkins are launching yourselves at strawmen.This, however, is just a minor point. The main one is that from there to jump to “that thing is what we call God” is completely unjustified.
I like the way Richard Dawkins responds to a very similar argument, so I’ll quote it. I understand that Christians generally don’t think much of Dawkins’ arguments, but while I have frequently heard them criticise him I have rarely heard them refute him. So do feel free to point out the error if you think there is one.
Dawkins says:
“Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself! And please note the first sentence: deciding that there must have been an ultimate cause is a dubious luxury indeed. How do we know? We do not know anything and, quite possibly, will never be able to know anything about the cause of the Big Bang. It could be the universe is eternal. It could be the Big Bang had a natural cause. It could be another god. It could be the FSM. It could be anything. We just don't know.
Sure, that specifically isn't too important. Being specific with our terms is important in these sorts of discussions, though.Let’s not quibble about the etyomology of the word “creature”.
I can see how this would cause problems if your assumption going into it is that anything besides purely material existence is impossible.If we say that God exists “outside of time” (does that even mean anything? How can we know?) can God be said to exist at all? All you’re doing is inventing properties about things you know nothing about.
We've established no such thing.Good. So, we have established that “God” is impossible, because He can’t think, because He doesn’t exist in time.
It’s not up to me to sort out how this “God” entity might be possible, you know. I’m just pointing out how incoherent theist’s ideas about it are.
Which is why we wouldn't say it "thinks" in the same way you or I do. This doesn't necessarily mean it has nothing like an intelligence or a will, it just doesn't exist in a way we are familiar with. We could start going into questions of the material or immaterial nature of the mind and consciousness, but that's a bit outside the scope of the discussion here.Not strictly. While I do agree with many of the things that eliminativists say, all I’m saying here is that all our experience of thinking involves having a physical brain, and it is as unjustified to say that an immaterial something can "think" as it is to say that I can make a chair float in the air by concentrating really hard.
That you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster has somehow blown Aristotle out of the water once and for all is hilarious to me. It works fine for the purpose for which it was created, but it poses no serious problem for the arguments being put forward here.Actually, the FSM works just fine. By showing that the cosmological argument can point to a manifest absurdity, it highlights the absurdity of the argument itself. Or, to put it another way, can you tell me why you’re allowed to say that your argument proves God exists, but I’m not allowed to say your argument proves the FSM exists? To be fair, you’ve tried to do that, with a "half-hearted response". Let’s see how it works…
We'll leave aside for a moment that you've made only the assertion that some things are "impossible" without anything to back that up. We'll also leave aside that you didn't address the issue of it being composite, not even tangentially, which leads me to wonder if you understand the objection being raised. I suspect you don't, given that "it's magic!" isn't a proper response to it.No problem! I'm afraid you may want to try a full-hearted response .
The answer, simply, is that the FSM is magical. Therefore, He can do anything. Including existing for no reason, or perhaps calling Himself into existence, or maybe existing later in time and going back in time to cause the start of the universe. I don't know, and I don't need to know. Magic can do impossible things, by definition.
And your own words have shown that your Flying Spaghetti Monster comparisons don't really hold water.And in case you were going to ask me how magic works, can I point out that the cosmological argument does not include any details about what kind of power God used to create the universe, but just asserts that He did in some unexplained fashion. So if you want me to explain how the FSM’s miracles work, first you need to explain God’s.
Again, I am not asserting that the FSM exists. I am using a ridiculous example to highlight the ridiculousness of theism, specifically the cosmological argument.
Unfortunately for you, you haven't disproved anything.I’ve been engaging with them and debunking them, along with others, for the better part of this unnecessarily long thread. To be honest, if you just go back and read the first few pages you will see the theistic arguments introduced and quickly demolished. It's just the people making them didn't listen, and insist on stringing this along for page after redundant page.
In any case, an argument that has been disproven, or shown not to make its case, doesn’t count. So yes, I can certainly say that no successful arguments exist.
The only fallacy I could see being relevant here would be a sort of special pleading, and that only really happens if one uses a sort of cosmological argument that I am not using. It would really only apply to an argument that goes "everything requires a cause, therefore the universe requires a cause," which is a strawman of most serious formulations of the cosmological argument.I would like to see some evidence of the FSM argument "not being as incisive as I think it is". Because I’m not sure why you think I keep talking about the FSM, but I can tell you my reason: it is that the cosmological argument is a silly little game based on a logical fallacy, and the FSM, being a silly little joke, perfectly serves to illustrate this.
Your post there did not appear to be about being able to "see or calculate" (in other words, use science) what happened before the Big Bang. It appeared to be about the ability to judge what sorts of characteristics a Prime Mover might have, which is why I asked how you know that. Your use of "see or calculate" here indicates that you appear to be looking for scientific evidence; if that's the case, you're barking up the wrong epistemological tree here as well.How do I know that we have no way to judge what happened before the Big Bang? It’s a well-known fact that we are completely unable to see or calculate, in any way, what happened prior to the Big Bang. Therefore, whatever caused it – if anything did – is unknown to us.
See, this is how I know you don't understand the arguments as well as you think you do. This isn't about the origin of the universe, especially not in the "how did it begin" sense. It never has been.Just before I answer, I must make a point: forgive me if this is pedantic, but in this case we are not discussing God. We are discussing the origins of the universe. You are saying that the cause is God, and I am saying that we don’t know and shouldn’t speculate without evidence.
This only really works if you posit beforehand that we really do have no way of knowing something. In this case, we can use philosophy and reason to investigate the strength of specific philosophical or metaphysical claims. If the only sort of investigatory method you think would be valid in these cases is the scientific method, that's your problem, not mine.And now, to answer your question: yes, of course I take this kind of approach in other aspects of my life. And so do you. When something happens, and when there are many possible answers for why it happened, and when you have no way of knowing which is the most likely, and when it seems likely to you that there are other answers you may not have thought of…in situation like those, yes, I would say the best course of action is to refrain from deciding that there is an answer and that you know what it is. And so would you, I’m sure.
For example, take lightning. Thousands of years ago, people saw a bright fire dart down from the heavens. They decided that lightning was spears hurled by the gods. Do you think they were correct to jump to this conclusion? Or do you think, in hindsight, waiting until they knew more about how the world works would have given them a clearer answer? They still wouldn't have known, but at least they wouldn't have been wrong.
Or for another example – take something you are completely and totally unfamiliar with. If someone transplanted me into a career I know nothing of (for me, this might be creating computer code, or working as a Czech translator, or cloning animals) then of course I would be unable to do anything and, if asked “What should we do?” I would refrain from telling people to do this or that. I would give the same advice I now give you: back off, and don’t make unjustified assertions until you know what you’re talking about.
Now in this case, we are discussing the origins of the universe.
Not at all. I ask because it would appear the only evidence you deem valid would be empirical, verifiable evidence, which does not really relate to questions of God. Even supposing such evidence does exist, if you already believe that the immaterial or supernatural is impossible, how would you even know that what you're looking at is evidence for God?Doesn’t this seem a strange thing to ask me? Because I have never seen any evidence of God at all. None. If I had, I would be a believer already.
You've demolished nothing here (sorry, but you haven't).You’re the one – aren’t you? – who believes in God. Or a god. I presume you have reasons which seem good to you. What are they? We've just demolished your variation on the cosmological argument (sorry, but we have). Do you have any others?
All that's really been shown so far is that you don't understand the arguments all that well.Then you had better make your case for it better than you have. Because so far, you have failed to show that the Cosmological Argument even makes sense, never mind that is constitutes compelling evidence.
This is off the top of my head, but one way to think of it might be if your wife told you something, or was accused of something, and you're put in the position of trusting her or not trusting her. She wants you to believe her, to trust her, even if the evidence one way or another is inconclusive at this point. If you are given that choice, and choose not to believe her, not to trust in her, not to stand by her, then that will likely have serious ramifications on your relationship going forward. Let's suppose you do this, and then later on some kind of incontrovertible evidence or proof in her favor is brought forward, and she is exonerated. Now you do not have to really believe in her or trust her, you can just point to what was brought forward and say "hey, now I know!" How do you suppose that might go over with her? Do you suppose irreparable damage to that relationship may have been done regardless, and that going to her and saying "now I believe you, now I'm on your side" after all is said and done might not make things any better? You only believed in her after it was easy, after all, and when you were left with no other option but to do so.As @cvanwey said, this doesn’t make sense. If someone comes up to you and shows they exist, are you obligated to marry them? Knowledge of existence does not necessitate a relationship.
If you'll permit me to continue with the above analogy, Hell would be a state of being cut off from your wife completely after choosing not trust in her.Not to mention that it’s hypocritical of the Christian version of God, and of many other religions too, to spend the whole of my lifetime saying “No, IA has to come to see me on his own, I mustn’t impose myself on him,” and then, once I die, say “And now you will go to hell for not believing in me!”
That is what I meant. Even if you don't believe in it, the Incarnation could still be described God's big move in revealing Himself to us and reconciling us to Him in a way that allows us a full relationship with Him.No, it revolves around an unproven story about Jesus’s miracles, if his incarnation and resurrection were what you were referring to.
I think they’re defending a form of theism that you and I aren’t used to hearing about. Classical theism is different from the magical, anthropomorphic deity of Christianity that we reject. It’s more about a set of features they say we must infer about reality in order to make sense of any of it. I don’t understand it very well, but it’s not the kind of thing that can be dismissed for lack of empirical evidence. It’s a metaphysical concern.Sailed, met an iceberg, and sunk!
Still, I have the utmost confidence that Silmarien and Redac will listen to reason, now that I have taken the time to explain things fully and clearly, and henceforth disavow the Cosmological Argument in all its equally-nonviable forms.
1. I couldn't say with any sort of certainty. Would you allow that that's a possibility?Agreed. But then the logical follow-up questions to ask are...
1. Am I in denial?
2. Am I too dumb to realize His revelation tactics?
3. Am I just lying?
4. Maybe He has not responded - (but that would contradict Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23)
5. Maybe this god (Yahweh) does not exist, and all others are mistaken/other about contact from this god flavor?
I think the nature of God is such that if you had true, perfect knowledge of His existence and nature, ignoring Him becomes impossible. I suppose someone in that state might deliberately choose to reject God, which is often what Lucifer is said to have done, but I'm not sure how one would be able to ignore God in the way you mean.Not necessarily... I could know He's real, and then ignore Him.
You could, but you also have to keep in mind that God is not a metaphysical gacha machine that churns out any favor on request.But I would then not be involved in a thread entitled 'evidence for god's existence.' I could pray for God to reveal Himself to all in doubt as well. And viola!
The "BB" gets us no closer to 'God'. Nor, is there any peer review suggesting as such. You do understand that the "BB" makes no attempt to account for what happened before this first measurable moment in 'time', right?
I did, see my later posts. The links you provided based many of their reasoning on string theory which is a theory in trouble.cv: If not, please again address the many links I've provided, of the models in which scientists are weighing and considering...
Feel free.cv: And again, if you wish to go down Genesis, to the claims the Bible makes, which would involve 'science', and play 'accept the hits and ignore the misses', we could certainly do that.
I did, see above.cv; Again, please address the several links which suggest otherwise.
cv: These verses appear vague, and appear no more or less written by authors whom simply looked out at the night sky and wrote stuff. (i.e.) 'Mentioning 'stretched out'... The reason your assertions here are not falsifiable, is because you can no longer go back and ask the authors of these vague texts what was meant by these statements.
cv: Another vague passage, left up to the 'interpretation' of it's intended context...
cv: How about when the author seems to suggest he thinks the earth is flat?:
'8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.'
Why would going to a higher mountain reveal more 'kingdoms'? Why even mention going to a 'very high mountain' unless the author was under the impression all villages were viewable from a single point?
I did, see above.cv: Again, I have provided links which demonstrate the plausibility of an eternal state. And as you've already agreed, if the universe is eternal, the concept of creation would likely be false. Are you going to address them?
cv: So far, you have done little else but assert that the "BB" is finite, and that 'evolution is false'. Both of which contradicts much of science.
But there is no reason that survival of the fittest would produce any organism that invokes an intentional agency, given that the most fit species on the planet dont, such bacteria and insects, just to name two.cv: You completely avoided my point. That survival of the fitter has only left the majoritive population whom invoke intentional agency, both 'good' and 'bad.'
cv: Your assertion appears to be wishful thinking to support your own agenda....
I did see above.cv: No. Please actually address what I stated above, about survival of the fitter; as it applies to intentional agency.
Why is that odd? We've been arguing about materialism vs. idealism, realism vs. nominalism, and whether moral truths exist for the same amount of time. Welcome to philosophy, where things do go round and round in circles simply because of the nature of the questions being asked.
You can only propose a simple logical proof if you hold to a literalist, inerrant interpretation of Scripture. To the extent that you do, I would agree with you that the Bible as you interpret it is basically insane. A lot of what is going on in the New Testament is a record of what the Early Church experienced and how they interpreted events, so everything that's asserted there is going to have a subjective element to it that makes logical proofs impossible. Historical records work very differently than math or science, especially when they have strong theological content.
I haven't. The God of classical theism covers Judaism, Christianity, Islam, various Platonic and Aristotelian systems, and certain philosophical trends within Hinduism. I'm not really interested in polytheistic gods, since they're created, anthropomorphic beings that are irrelevant to the question being asked, but I'm open to the possibility that they once existed.
If they did, though, there's only one religious tradition that always insisted that it was eventually going to overthrow the pagan idols and then actually did so. I think that should give people more pause.
I am actually very suspicious of that form of religious expression (note that this sort of stuff is not exclusive to Christianity--you can get that sort of intense emotional high with any religion). It is probably psychological in nature, especially if people belong to the types of denominations where they're taught that not having experiences like that means that they're damned.
I don't take people's claims of direct contact seriously unless they have the moral and spiritual depth to back it up. You will know them by their fruits, etc.
1. I couldn't say with any sort of certainty. Would you allow that that's a possibility?
2. Even if a certain IQ were required for these things (which I don't really think), you don't strike me as dumb.
3. Possibly, but you don't strike me as dishonest either, and I wouldn't presume you were being dishonest without good reason.
4. How these passages are understood is important to answering that concern, but it's not something we have to get into unless you really want to.
5. How likely do you suppose that is?
I think the nature of God is such that if you had true, perfect knowledge of His existence and nature, ignoring Him becomes impossible. I suppose someone in that state might deliberately choose to reject God, which is often what Lucifer is said to have done, but I'm not sure how one would be able to ignore God in the way you mean.
You could, but you also have to keep in mind that God is not a metaphysical gacha machine that churns out any favor on request.
It’s not actually that difficult, I think. Redac’s argument is basically identical, even without the chronological element. An infinite regress terminated by the use of God.I think they’re defending a form of theism that you and I aren’t used to hearing about. Classical theism is different from the magical, anthropomorphic deity of Christianity that we reject. It’s more about a set of features they say we must infer about reality in order to make sense of any of it. I don’t understand it very well, but it’s not the kind of thing that can be dismissed for lack of empirical evidence. It’s a metaphysical concern.
You didn't actually explain how the FSM demonstrated the weaknesses of cosmological arguments. You just keep on asserting over and over again that it does so, without bothering to show why. If you're going to claim that the FSM has the same explanatory power as the God of classical theism, then you do have to back that up.
Here, we can look at Lloyd Gerson's reconstruction of Plotinus's argument for the One. I can't find anything accessible specifically by Gerson, but Edward Feser has an article about the argument on his blog: Edward Feser: Plotinus on divine simplicity, Part I
If you can't demonstrate that a cosmological argument reasonably entails any attribute associated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you have failed. Classical arguments do generally seek to demonstrate that the nature of reality points to at least one divine attribute being true.
For example, if one were to assert the reality of abstract truths such as mathematics, then abstract truths being mental in nature, it would make sense to say that the reality of abstract truths indicates that there is some sort of divine mind that is "thinking" them.
It would not make sense to posit a plate of magical living pasta as the grounds of abstract truths, unless one were simply trying to demonstrate that our plate of magical living pasta actually possessed the divine attribute of Intellect.
If we keep on trying to demonstrate precisely what our Flying Spaghetti Monster is via classical arguments, however, all the pasta is going to fall away and we're going to end up with something that looks suspiciously like God.
Nobody here right now is actually saying that we do know what the cause of the universe was. Welcome to Scholasticism, where people do in fact follow Plato and Aristotle and say that the universe could have conceivably been eternal.
Your counterargument seems to amount to "Pure Actuality is not God." That seems to be fair, though when talking to people who specifically argue for divine attributes rather than arguing for the existence of a predefined entity called God, rather misses the point.
It is pure actuality, pure existence. One way to put it might be that it is existence, or that its essence is existence.
It would have to be something outside of the universe, or something that transcends it. Even supposing time were eternal, the universe would still need a "cause" or an actualizer to explain it existing rather than not existing, and it's self-evident that something cannot be self-caused in this way. That is, a potential cannot just actualize itself.
To say that the universe is the causal bedrock of itself, that it is actualizing all its own potentials, makes no sense.
The only way I can see that one could make an argument kind of like this would be to appeal to brute fact -- that the universe or its fundamental laws or what have you, at the most bottom, fundamental level, simply are, and not only do they have no explanation, but they cannot have an explanation. Of course, appeal to brute fact raises a number of major issues that don't need to be expounded upon unless that's actually something you would say.
See, what this tells me is that you don't understand the argument being made here -- and neither does Dawkins, which doesn't surprise me. You're still arguing about an infinite regress in a temporal, accidentally ordered series of causes. The argument I made addressed essentially ordered series of causes, which could allow for the universe to be eternal and would still require explanation.
That aside, the "jump" to describing the properties or characteristics of such a thing really just logically follows once you've established -- even arguendo -- that there is such a thing. If it is the actualizer of the material, it cannot itself be material, and thus must be immaterial.
Because things subject to time are subject to change -- they have potentials that may or may not be actualized -- and because this Prime Mover must be fully actual without any kind of potentials whatsoever, it must exist eternally, or in a way that transcends time.
The argument that this thing would have something like intelligence or will might be made with a sort of teleological argument, which is what Aquinas does. And so on and so on.
The attributes of God in this sort of classical theism aren't just being conjured out of nothing. They necessarily follow from what comes before.
I can see how this would cause problems if your assumption going into it is that anything besides purely material existence is impossible.
We've established no such thing.
Which is why we wouldn't say it "thinks" in the same way you or I do. This doesn't necessarily mean it has nothing like an intelligence or a will, it just doesn't exist in a way we are familiar with. We could start going into questions of the material or immaterial nature of the mind and consciousness, but that's a bit outside the scope of the discussion here.
That you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster has somehow blown Aristotle out of the water once and for all is hilarious to me. It works fine for the purpose for which it was created, but it poses no serious problem for the arguments being put forward here.
We'll leave aside for a moment that you've made only the assertion that some things are "impossible" without anything to back that up. We'll also leave aside that you didn't address the issue of it being composite, not even tangentially, which leads me to wonder if you understand the objection being raised. I suspect you don't, given that "it's magic!" isn't a proper response to it.
The way you talk about the FSM here is wholly incompatible with the "God" being argued for. Our conception of God, and the one that flows from the cosmological argument, is not that he exists "for no reason," or that he "called Himself into existence," or that he traveled back in time to create the universe. Your own words have shown how the FSM doesn't work here.
The only fallacy I could see being relevant here would be a sort of special pleading, and that only really happens if one uses a sort of cosmological argument that I am not using. It would really only apply to an argument that goes "everything requires a cause, therefore the universe requires a cause," which is a strawman of most serious formulations of the cosmological argument.