Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God

[ElijahW]

And with that you have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, or false dilemma. The third choice is that we cannot know.

No, “your ignorance” isn’t a third option for if the universe had a beginning or not. There is no false dilemma because the middle is excluded, that’s the whole point of excluding it.

In what you presented, there was.

Show me where. So far you seem to be confusing the law of excluded middle for the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Now you are telling me what I think.

And in addition to how I think, you know how much I have examined my life, what I know of philosophy, the bible, religion, neuroscience, and astrophysics, etc.

Anything else you want to tell me about me?

Sorry, it’s really easy to identify the people who have thought this out in some way, from those who have stuck to the thinking they first had of God when they were children. If you can’t differentiate your understanding of God from a superstitious understanding then it is because you aren’t aware of a huge part of the discussion in philosophy.

Let's look at your statement again, from post #35, from a different angle. You said: "They are assuming an irrational understanding of the term God, and that is the concept they are actually arguing against, which in reality is a simple straw-man construction."

It follows that only one concept of "God" can be right, the balance being false. Maybe all I have see are the false ones. How would you demonstrate that yours is correct?

There is no demonstrating if you still think empirical evidence is part of the discussion. Maybe all you have seen is false ones or maybe this isn’t the first conversation you’ve had like this and this isn’t the first time you’ve ignored a rational understanding for not speaking of the Christian God. The way to determine if the understanding of God is correct from the ones that are incorrect is that it is rational and logical. It doesn’t come from taking art literally.

 

[Davian]

No, “your ignorance” isn’t a third option for if the universe had a beginning or not. There is no false dilemma because the middle is excluded, that’s the whole point of excluding it.

"Don't know" is always an option. But that does not work with your 'first cause' claim, does it?

Show me where. So far you seem to be confusing the law of excluded middle for the fallacy of the excluded middle.

You said, "The first cause is God". I guess I thought there would be more to it.

Sorry, it’s really easy to identify the people who have thought this out in some way, from those who have stuck to the thinking they first had of God when they were children.

(Is it just me, or do theists in general need everything to be in dichotomies?)

And which group do you presume I am in?

If you can’t differentiate your understanding of God from a superstitious understanding then it is because you aren’t aware of a huge part of the discussion in philosophy.

So philosophy will help with the superstitious understanding of "God"?

There is no demonstrating if you still think empirical evidence is part of the discussion.

Such is the nature of superstitions.

Maybe all you have seen is false ones or maybe this isn’t the first conversation you’ve had like this and this isn’t the first time you’ve ignored a rational understanding for not speaking of the Christian God.

"a rational understanding for not speaking of the Christian God"?

Parse this I cannot.

The way to determine if the understanding of God is correct from the ones that are incorrect is that it is rational and logical. It doesn’t come from taking art literally.

Way to dodge and weave.

They can't all be right.

Of course, there is always the possibility that they are all wrong, yes?

 

[ElijahW]

"Don't know" is always an option. But that does not work with your 'first cause' claim, does it?

Again, what you are suggesting is completely illogical.

For example, if we have a coin and I said that it will either land on heads or tails, then that is presenting a fallacy of the excluded middle, because maybe it lands on its side or doesn’t land at all. Now compare that to the statement of the coin will either land on heads or it won’t. Here we are excluding the middle by claiming that one statement is true or is not true. There is not third possibility and your lack of knowing if it true or not certainly doesn’t make a third option.

You said, "The first cause is God". I guess I thought there would be more to it.

I said a lot of things and if you can identify anything that I said that was irrational then put it forward, and if you can’t then maybe you should consider the possibility that you have been presented a rational understanding of God.

(Is it just me, or do theists in general need everything to be in dichotomies?)

And which group do you presume I am in?

The evidence would say you are in the group that assumes the word “God” should be understood like a character in a book and is completely unfamiliar with philosophy.

So philosophy will help with the superstitious understanding of "God"?

Familiarizing yourself with western philosophy will let you know that the superstitious understanding pulled from taking art literally has been argued against for a long long long long time.

Such is the nature of superstitions.

Such is the nature of metaphysics. Superstition is a label that is attached to the understanding of non material beings in material ways. Idolatry is another word for the same thing and it shouldn’t be assumed of anyone speaking of God unless they demonstrate it like you comparing God to a character in a story.

"a rational understanding for not speaking of the Christian God"

Parse this I cannot.

You have assumptions about what you think the understanding of the Christian God is and if someone starts speaking of God rationally then what the typical response is, as you did with me, is to question if I am truly speaking of the Christian God. Usually without actually putting forward the understanding you are working with, much more support that understanding with evidence.

Way to dodge and weave.
They can't all be right.

Of course, there is always the possibility that they are all wrong, yes?

Right now it’s not about right or wrong but about rational or superstition. After you possess a rational understanding of God that doesn’t look like a character in a story, then considering the possibility if it is true or not is possible, but until then you aren’t anywhere near the position to judge which position is correct. You still have to consider the possibility that your assumptions about what the word "God" means may not be as well-founded as you have previously thought.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I understand the basic point that it's necessary to understand what a person means by "god" before you can definitively refute that particular god concept but to say that someone needs a rational understanding of God first is kind of begging the question. It's precisely the rationality of the various God theories that such a person would be very skeptical of in the first place. It assumes that there is a rational concept of God and that may or may not be the case. You would need to first present the understanding of God you consider rational, show why you think it's rational, and then work from there.

 

[Davian]

I understand the basic point that it's necessary to understand what a person means by "god" before you can definitively refute that particular god concept but to say that someone needs a rational understanding of God first is kind of begging the question. It's precisely the rationality of the various God theories that such a person would be very skeptical of in the first place. It assumes that there is a rational concept of God which may or may not be the case. You would need to first present the understand of God you consider rational and then work from there.

This tactic is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the non-believer. He is trying to make it look like it is my fault that I don't understand what he means by "God". It has fallen flat so far.

Also trying to use the word God as a synonym for "first cause" is rather weak. Why is this first cause specifically a God? What about all the other attributes that your specific God concept has. Christians often seem to look for one concept that they might have in common with atheist like the belief in a possible first cause and then use that rather than using the whole gamut of attributes possessed by their God concept. Is your God just "first cause" or is he more than that? Is your God personal? Is he a Trinity of persons (hypostasis)? All those things would come into play when judging the rationality of your God concept not simply some definitional "proof" regarding first cause.

I would ask those questions, but it is not my intent to lead or direct ElijahW in his "presentation". But he seems to be stuck at his assertion of "first cause".

And no one else has jumped in to bail him out.

 

[Beechwell]

We consider the alternatives. The only alternative is that the universe has existed an infinite amount of time and if you can put forward how that could be possible rationally then people would stop concerning themselves about what the nature of the beginning was like. Just because we don’t have a time machine that goes back to before the universe existed doesn’t mean we assume there wasn’t a beginning to what we see.
Because the only alternative is that the universe had no beginning and has existed an infinite amount of time.

I have mentioned this before in another thread, but would like to take up the thought again: You seem to assume a linear time independent from the universe. But for all we know this is not how time works. It is a property of our universe and began with the beginning of the universe. So there is no time outside the universe and no moment prior to its beginning.
The same would probably be true for a first cause. Cause and effect (as we classically understand it) happens in time, so there cannot be a cause to the beginning of time in that sense. Cause and effect is also a property of our universe (or at least as we observe it), it need not apply to the beginning of the universe itself. Indeed, as I mentioned before, I don't think it can.

 

[Michael]

I have mentioned this before in another thread, but would like to take up the thought again: You seem to assume a linear time independent from the universe. But for all we know this is not how time works. It is a property of our universe and began with the beginning of the universe.

You'd have to assume the universe actually had a beginning and there are plenty of BB theories that don't assume such a thing. There are quite a few static universe theories that do not assume a "beginning" of matter or time.

So there is no time outside the universe and no moment prior to its beginning.

Even that wouldn't necessarily be true, particularly since something "changed" at the 'beginning'. That change requires "time".

I won't touch the "first cause" concept with a 10 foot pole, but you can't actually assume that time did not exist prior to any generic sort of 'bang' theory. They don't all predict that time 'starts' with the bang.

 

[ElijahW]

I understand the basic point that it's necessary to understand what a person means by "god" before you can definitively refute that particular god concept but to say that someone needs a rational understanding of God first is kind of begging the question. It's precisely the rationality of the various God theories that such a person would be very skeptical of in the first place. It assumes that there is a rational concept of God and that may or may not be the case. You would need to first present the understanding of God you consider rational, show why you think it's rational, and then work from there.

Why should you be skeptical of understanding God rationally? Maybe reason can’t produce the absolute truth in regards to God but willfully understanding the concept of God irrationally doesn’t make sense to me, even if it is commonplace.

I presented a concept I thought was rational but the issue seems to be not that the concept isn’t rational but that the concept presented isn’t God because people assume that has to mean a superstitious understanding for it to be labeled God.

Also trying to use the word God as a synonym for "first cause" is rather weak. Why is this first cause specifically a God? What about all the other attributes that your specific God concept has. Christians often seem to look for one concept that they might have in common with atheist like the belief in a possible first cause and then use that rather than using the whole gamut of attributes possessed by their God concept. Is your God just "first cause" or is he more than that? Is your God personal? Is he a Trinity of persons (hypostasis)? All those things would come into play when judging the rationality of your God concept not simply some definitional "proof" regarding first cause. Even if a first cause were rational you would still need to show why it's a God .

It’s not weak. That is what God is. If the thing in discussion isn’t the first cause then it isn’t God. This isn’t something that an atheist and a theist have in common because an atheist shouldn’t believe in a beginning to the universe at all, if they understand the conversation. This is what the cosmological argument is all about. It doesn’t prove a particular attribute of God, just that if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God. Now from that point as you add attributes you change the understanding of God you are presenting.

The driving issue that determines the properties a philosopher adds to the first cause is based on the believed nature of the universe. For example Aristotle only needed it to cause motion, but the Christians side with Plato and believe that the perceived temporal universe is the product of an unperceived eternal side to the universe. With that understanding of the universe, God’s primary function is the creation of that/those spiritual elements. A big question being was the act of creation a temporary act (Deism) or constant act (Panentheism). The theist/Platonist generally go with Panentheism because something changing or being temporary would imply a body and God isn’t considered corporeal.

Now communion with God comes from the realization that the spiritual activity that is produced from God’s constant activity is responsible for not only the form and order we see in the universe, but the order we see in our thoughts and thinking. The Logos or Reason can be engaged within them mind and the truth can be discerned as we come closer to God through his first creation. Neither God nor the Son is understood as people but they have their own persona, meaning each has their own identity.

 

[ElijahW]

I have mentioned this before in another thread, but would like to take up the thought again: You seem to assume a linear time independent from the universe. But for all we know this is not how time works. It is a property of our universe and began with the beginning of the universe. So there is no time outside the universe and no moment prior to its beginning.
The same would probably be true for a first cause. Cause and effect (as we classically understand it) happens in time, so there cannot be a cause to the beginning of time in that sense. Cause and effect is also a property of our universe (or at least as we observe it), it need not apply to the beginning of the universe itself. Indeed, as I mentioned before, I don't think it can.

I don’t assume time is independent of the universe. Time is a measurement of change and there is no change until the first thing in the universe changes into or creates a second thing/state.

 

[Beechwell]

You'd have to assume the universe actually had a beginning and there are plenty of BB theories that don't assume such a thing. There are quite a few static universe theories that do not assume a "beginning" of matter or time.

True; I wanted to avoid the usual lengthy argument about wether the universe must have a beginning or not.

Even that wouldn't necessarily be true, particularly since something "changed" at the 'beginning'. That change requires "time".

It's pretty tough to contemplate the (possible) beginning of time, since we can only imagine existing in linear, directed time. Still I would say that "change" only happens beginning with the start of the universe. There was no change from no universe to a universe. Otherwise there must have been some other reference frame in which the change could have occured.
Can you evn have time - or change - without a phyiscal universe?

I won't touch the "first cause" concept with a 10 foot pole, but you can't actually assume that time did not exist prior to any generic sort of 'bang' theory. They don't all predict that time 'starts' with the bang.

If General Relativity holds, I would say time must have come into existance together with matter. But of course, anything we say about the time of the Big Bang is always highly speculative. Which is why I don't think it can be used to make conclusive arguments about the existance or nonexistance of a God.

 

[Illuminaughty]

deleted

 

[Illuminaughty]

Elijah,

Sorry about the brevity of the first response I gave I was on my cell phone. You gave a well thought out reply and deserves a little more in depth response.

Maybe I was misunderstanding but it seemed as if you were saying that a person needs to come up with a theistic definition of God that is logically necessary before they can refrain from believing in gods or express skepticism regarding them. If that's the case why don't you present a definition of what a god is and then present a list of his attributes and actions. Then you would have given the person the definition of God you think is rational and they can examine it. It seemed as if you were ignoring the possibility of theistic theories being irrational in general . I think I might have been misreading you though.

As for first cause. It's possible for an agnostic or atheist to believe in the possibility of a first cause without them believing that the cause in question was a god. The term God has a lot of connotations that go beyond being a simple synonym for "first-cause". Creation may be one of the actions that are commonly attributed to gods but that's about it. Just like tempting people to perform evil is an action that is commonly attributed to evil faeries. To just strip the term faerie of every meaning other than "that which tempts people" in order to prove that faeries exist would be pointless though. That says nothing about what a faerie is but merely provides an action that is commonly associated with them. Why use the mythological term "faerie" at all in such a case?

I also see creation by a God as having all of the same rational difficulties as an eternal universe or multiverse. Both involve something that doesn't have a cause. That you call one "God" doesn't really get you out of the conundrum. It may even be possible that rationality and logic are simply incapable of cracking things like this. What took place may not mesh with our understanding of rationality or logic. It's ok to say " I don't know". " I don't know therefore God" doesn't make sense to me.

to be not that the concept isn’t rational but that the concept presented isn’t God because people assume that has to mean a superstitious understanding for it to be labeled God.

I see what you are saying here. People do often make up straw men and then attack them. As a Christian though I don't see how your God could merely be "first cause" and nothing else. Is that really all that's required for something to be a god in your mind? I don't see how fulfilling that one attribute would demand the term god. God means so much more traditionally and I would assume with you to.

 

[Davian]

Again, what you are suggesting is completely illogical.

For example, if we have a coin and I said that it will either land on heads or tails, then that is presenting a fallacy of the excluded middle, because maybe it lands on its side or doesn’t land at all. Now compare that to the statement of the coin will either land on heads or it won’t. Here we are excluding the middle by claiming that one statement is true or is not true. There is not third possibility and your lack of knowing if it true or not certainly doesn’t make a third option.

That is just a rearrangement of the goalposts.

In post #57 you had alternatives. I just added another. And it was't "my lack of knowing".

Do not misrepresent what I have said.

I said a lot of things and if you can identify anything that I said that was irrational then put it forward, and if you can’t then maybe you should consider the possibility that you have been presented a rational understanding of God.

That has already been done. You just moved the goalposts, as already pointed out.

The evidence would say you are in the group that assumes the word “God” should be understood like a character in a book and is completely unfamiliar with philosophy.

Wrong on both counts.

When I joined this site, I really thought there might be more to "God" that just the character in a book. And I do not think 'the word “God” should be understood like a character in a book'. The stance I have tried to maintain is, show me otherwise. You have the floor.

"Completely unfamiliar with philosophy"? I am finding that whenever someone makes an absolute statement, such as this, they are often wrong.

Did you even take a few seconds to search my posts, to see what philosophers, and their work, that I have referenced in my posts?

Familiarizing yourself with western philosophy will let you know that the superstitious understanding pulled from taking art literally has been argued against for a long long long long time.

Superstitions persist.

Such is the nature of metaphysics. Superstition is a label that is attached to the understanding of non material beings in material ways. Idolatry is another word for the same thing and it shouldn’t be assumed of anyone speaking of God unless they demonstrate it like you comparing God to a character in a story.

Is "God" not a character in a story?

You have assumptions about what you think the understanding of the Christian God is and if someone starts speaking of God rationally then what the typical response is, as you did with me, is to question if I am truly speaking of the Christian God. Usually without actually putting forward the understanding you are working with, much more support that understanding with evidence.

What would be the point of putting forth my understanding, when you have already made the presumption that it is wrong?

As for questioning which deity you were reffering to, in post #42 you never said "Christian" god - you just used god-with-a-capital-G.

You have also, in that same post, and others, said "a God". You have implied that there is more than one.

And, in post #42, said "The anthropomorphic understanding that we initially build as kids usually never develops past that superstition unless the person becomes familiar with philosophy, in particular the contributions of Plato and Socrates on the understanding of God."

Can you reference where Plato and Socrates discussed the Christian "God"?

Right now it’s not about right or wrong but about rational or superstition. After you possess a rational understanding of God that doesn’t look like a character in a story, then considering the possibility if it is true or not is possible, but until then you aren’t anywhere near the position to judge which position is correct. You still have to consider the possibility that your assumptions about what the word "God" means may not be as well-founded as you have previously thought.

Is this just not a reworking of the old "you can't believe until you believe" rhetoric? Again, trying to put the onus on the non-believer?

I will grant you that it may be rational to take a postion such as yours, that you do not have to demostrate that you are right, particularly when it would appear that you cannot.

 

[Illuminaughty]

When I hear the term God it brings to mind these dictionary definitions

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe :

b: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

It's true there is a more inclusive definition but minus the things mentioned above why use the mythological term "God" :

: a person or thing of supreme value

 

[ElijahW]

Maybe I was misunderstanding but it seemed as if you were saying that a person needs to come up with a theistic definition of God that is logically necessary before they can refrain from believing in gods or express skepticism regarding them. If that's the case why don't you present a definition of what a god is and then present a list of his attributes and actions. Then you would have given the person the definition of God you think is rational and they can examine it. It seemed as if you were ignoring the possibility of theistic theories being irrational in general . I think I might have been misreading you though.

This is the earliest definition of the Christian God that I know of, from Justin’s letter to Typhro:

Old Man: But what do you call God?

Justin: That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God.
​

And from Origen speaking directly against the anthromorphizing of God.

”We read in many passages of the divine scripture that God speaks to men. For this reason the Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. Because of this it seems to be that I must first discuss these few matters and then come to those words which have been read.

First therefore, let my word be to those outside the Church who arrogantly clamor around us, saying that it is not appropriate for the most exalted and invisible and incorporeal god to experience human affections. For if, they say, you give him the experience of speaking, you will, doubtlessly, give him also a mouth and a tongue and the other members with which the function of speaking is performed. But if this be so, one has departed from the invisible and incorporeal God.” Genesis Homily 3, Origen
​

As for first cause. It's possible for an agnostic or atheist to believe in the possibility of a first cause without them believing that the cause in question was a god. The term God has a lot of connotations that go beyond being a simple synonym for "first-cause". Creation may be one of the actions that are commonly attributed to gods but that's about it. Just like tempting people to perform evil is an action that is commonly attributed to evil faeries. To just strip the term faerie of every meaning other than "that which tempts people" in order to prove that faeries exist would be pointless though. That says nothing about what a faerie is but merely provides an action that is commonly associated with them. Why use the mythological term "faerie" at all in such a case?

It shouldn’t be possible but it is common because “atheist” now-a-days just means you assume that all understandings of God should be understood superstitiously. But just because that is how the word atheist/God is being used doesn’t mean that is how it should be understood, if the goal is to understand what it means correctly.


If speaking of God rationally was a new thing then a new label would be called for but because it has been around for so long it doesn’t make any sense to bring in a new word unless I am bringing in a new understanding.

I also see creation by a God as having all of the same rational difficulties as an eternal universe or multiverse. Both involve something that doesn't have a cause. That you call one "God" doesn't really get you out of the conundrum. It may even be possible that rationality and logic are simply incapable of cracking things like this. What took place may not mesh with our understanding of rationality or logic. It's ok to say " I don't know". " I don't know therefore God" doesn't make sense to me.

The problem with an eternal universe isn’t the something out of nothing it is the infinite amount of time stretching back. All the God concept says is that at some point there was a beginning and that beginning had an effect on what came next, either constantly (panen) or temporary (deist).

I see what you are saying here. People do often make up straw men and then attack them. As a Christian though I don't see how your God could merely be "first cause" and nothing else. Is that really all that's required for something to be a god in your mind? I don't see how fulfilling that one attribute would demand the term god. God means so much more traditionally and I would assume with you to.

If we look at the texts that history has left then traditionally God is what I am suggesting it is but if we listen to the opinion of people in the world then traditionally it has been a guy in the sky with a human personality. Justin was defending the early Christians against accusations of being atheists because to a lot of people what is being suggested wasn’t God like how you see it but to the educated people of the time it was.

 

[ElijahW]

That is just a rearrangement of the goalposts.

In post #57 you had alternatives. I just added another. And it was't "my lack of knowing".

Do not misrepresent what I have said.

From you, “”And with that you have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, or false dilemma. The third choice is that we cannot know.”

That has already been done. You just moved the goalposts, as already pointed out.

Sorry, you haven’t pointed out an error. All you have done is misunderstood the fallacy of the exclude middle for the Law of the excluded middle.

Wrong on both counts.

When I joined this site, I really thought there might be more to "God" that just the character in a book. And I do not think 'the word “God” should be understood like a character in a book'. The stance I have tried to maintain is, show me otherwise. You have the floor.

"Completely unfamiliar with philosophy"? I am finding that whenever someone makes an absolute statement, such as this, they are often wrong.

Did you even take a few seconds to search my posts, to see what philosophers, and their work, that I have referenced in my posts?

No, I did didn’t do a background search on you to see if you secretly had an understanding of Plato and this was all some game you are playing.

Superstitions persist.

It sure does, but should we assume that everyone throughout time has succumbed to it or maybe individuals of reason have worked on these theories and you have to learn to spot those who have a rational understanding from those who believe in superstition. But you can only spot them if you are familiar with a rational understanding and don’t automatically assume an irrational understanding when you hear the word God.

Is "God" not a character in a story?

No more than apple is a painting after you paint one. You are confusing artistic/symbolic representation for the actual thing. God isn’t a word either.

What would be the point of putting forth my understanding, when you have already made the presumption that it is wrong?

If someone is assuming that your understanding is wrong shouldn’t the easy answer be provide the evidence you understanding is coming from?

As for questioning which deity you were reffering to, in post #42 you never said "Christian" god - you just used god-with-a-capital-G.

You have also, in that same post, and others, said "a God". You have implied that there is more than one.

The “theist’ understanding of God is the Christian God. There is more than one understanding of God and there is a difference between something that is a god and God which is usually how you identify the spiritual elements from the actual creator.

And, in post #42, said "The anthropomorphic understanding that we initially build as kids usually never develops past that superstition unless the person becomes familiar with philosophy, in particular the contributions of Plato and Socrates on the understanding of God."

Can you reference where Plato and Socrates discussed the Christian "God"?

“First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name -- assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything -- was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world -- the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable -- nothing less.” Timaeus
​

What you really need to understand about Plato first though is the complaints about the superstitious way you interpret things and assume everyone always has: “let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.”

“At all events we are well aware that poetry being such as we have described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth; and he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the city which is within him, should be on his guard against her seductions and make our words his law.” Republic
​

Is this just not a reworking of the old "you can't believe until you believe" rhetoric? Again, trying to put the onus on the non-believer?

I will grant you that it may be rational to take a postion such as yours, that you do not have to demostrate that you are right, particularly when it would appear that you cannot.

Actually, I still kind of believe that the non-believer should have an easier time coming to a rational understanding of God, and despite repeated failure such as this one I haven’t given up that the potential to get rid of the superstitious bias exists. I just haven’t been given any empirical evidence to support that theory.

 

[Davian]

From you, “”And with that you have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, or false dilemma. The third choice is that we cannot know.”

Which is not how you paraphrased what I said.

Sorry, you haven’t pointed out an error. All you have done is misunderstood the fallacy of the exclude middle for the Law of the excluded middle.

I disagree.

No, I did didn’t do a background search on you to see if you secretly had an understanding of Plato and this was all some game you are playing.

Not even an apology. I'm hurt.

It sure does, but should we assume that everyone throughout time has succumbed to it or maybe individuals of reason have worked on these theories and you have to learn to spot those who have a rational understanding from those who believe in superstition. But you can only spot them if you are familiar with a rational understanding and don’t automatically assume an irrational understanding when you hear the word God.

Well, if you see one, let me know.

No more than apple is a painting after you paint one. You are confusing artistic/symbolic representation for the actual thing. God isn’t a word either.

Again, telling me what it isn't. What else is it not?

If someone is assuming that your understanding is wrong shouldn’t the easy answer be provide the evidence you understanding is coming from?

To clarify what I meant by this, it was in reference to post #49, where you put more effort in to questioning me than you did into your "first cause" assertion. I suppose that was an attempt to put me on the defensive.

The “theist’ understanding of God is the Christian God.

Do you speak for all theists on this?

There is more than one understanding of God and there is a difference between something that is a god and God which is usually how you identify the spiritual elements from the actual creator.

Hence why I had to ask what you meant. As I pointed out, you were sloppy back there.

“First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name -- assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything -- was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world -- the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable -- nothing less.” Timaeus
[/INDENT]What you really need to understand about Plato first though is the complaints about the superstitious way you interpret things and assume everyone always has: “let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.”

“At all events we are well aware that poetry being such as we have described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth; and he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the city which is within him, should be on his guard against her seductions and make our words his law.” Republic​

​

All you have done is show some correlation.

Actually, I still kind of believe that the non-believer should have an easier time coming to a rational understanding of God, and despite repeated failure such as this one I haven’t given up that the potential to get rid of the superstitious bias exists. I just haven’t been given any empirical evidence to support that theory.

Again, trying to put the blame on to the non-believer. Can you not do better than this?

I see that you did not address the "reworking of the old 'you can't believe until you believe"' comment I made. I think that describes what you are trying here.

 

[Radagast]

some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation

A massive quantum vacuum fluctuation in what?

In space? Because if you've already got space, you've already got a universe, and you're not really explaining anything.

 

[ElijahW]

Which is not how you paraphrased what I said.

What is the difference between what do you think I am suggesting you are trying to say the third option is, and what you actually think the third option is.

I disagree.

How do you differentiate between the two then, and how do you understand the law of the excluded middle, so that you don’t commit the fallacy of the excluded middle?

Not even an apology. I'm hurt.

I don’t feel that I have to apologize if it turns out that you are just playing dumb about this subject matter.

Well, if you see one, let me know.

Would you know how to recognize one if shown it?

Again, telling me what it isn't. What else is it not?

Are you saying you aren’t confusing representation for the thing itself, or that you still think that God is actually just a word?

To clarify what I meant by this, it was in reference to post #49, where you put more effort in to questioning me than you did into your "first cause" assertion. I suppose that was an attempt to put me on the defensive.

You do have to lay out your position and where it comes from. Sorry if that makes you feel defensive, but what your thoughts are and where they come from on this subject matter are necessary, if the goal is to have a rational conversation. If the goal is to prove I can support my position with evidence and you never present an alternative, then this behavior is sensible, but if the goal is to come to a rational understanding of the subject matter then it is counter-productive.

Do you speak for all theists on this?

That is generally what theist means. Pantheist don’t because there is no God but only the universe that has existed eternally.

Hence why I had to ask what you meant. As I pointed out, you were sloppy back there.

And the understanding I was working with was put forward; to which you haven’t put any rational argument against.

[/indent]All you have done is show some correlation.[/quote]All you have to do is actually show you understand the paragraph and explain where you think it differs from Christian theology. I don’t know what you need to be shown correlation between until I know what you don’t think is similar.

Again, trying to put the blame on to the non-believer. Can you not do better than this?

I see that you did not address the "reworking of the old 'you can't believe until you believe"' comment I made. I think that describes what you are trying here.

I’m certainly not to blame for your lack of information on this subject. Each of us is responsible for their understanding of their surroundings and the history of their culture. You have nobody to blame but yourself if you don’t understand the basic tenets to western philosophy.

 

[Davian]

What is the difference between what do you think I am suggesting you are trying to say the third option is, and what you actually think the third option is.

The words I used.

How do you differentiate between the two then, and how do you understand the law of the excluded middle, so that you don’t commit the fallacy of the excluded middle?

I don't really care about labelling the fallacies involved.

You made a case for "God" as a 'first cause', built on assumptions. It was weak.

I don’t feel that I have to apologize if it turns out that you are just playing dumb about this subject matter.

Is that rational, basing decisions on future unknowns?

Whatever.

Would you know how to recognize one if shown it?

I don't know. Have you one to compare it to?

Are you saying you aren’t confusing representation for the thing itself, or that you still think that God is actually just a word?

It's looking more like word salad, at this point.

You do have to lay out your position and where it comes from. Sorry if that makes you feel defensive, but what your thoughts are and where they come from on this subject matter are necessary, if the goal is to have a rational conversation.

I did that. You said it was wrong, and that "God" was not a word. What do I do with that?

If the goal is to prove I can support my position with evidence and you never present an alternative, then this behavior is sensible, but if the goal is to come to a rational understanding of the subject matter then it is counter-productive.

I supplied an alternative. You have the floor.

That is generally what theist means. Pantheist don’t because there is no God but only the universe that has existed eternally.

You should have qualified your statement then.

And the understanding I was working with was put forward; to which you haven’t put any rational argument against.

I did in post #44. Other that that, you have provided very little to work with.

I'm not going have to repeat myself a lot in this thread, am I? I just went through that with Michael.

All you have to do is actually show you understand the paragraph and explain where you think it differs from Christian theology. I don’t know what you need to be shown correlation between until I know what you don’t think is similar.

Where do they talk about Jesus?

I’m certainly not to blame for your lack of information on this subject. Each of us is responsible for their understanding of their surroundings and the history of their culture. You have nobody to blame but yourself if you don’t understand the basic tenets to western philosophy.

Now I don't understand the basic tenets to western philosophy?

Maybe you cannot see what I know from way up there on that high horse.

Do you feel that your condescending tone lends weight to your arguments? Is that a Christian thing?

Even if a 'first cause' was required at the instantiation of the cosmos, and you have not provided evidence of that, you would still need to show why it would have to be a deity, and why it would be yours in particular.
---

It’s not weak. That is what God is. If the thing in discussion isn’t the first cause then it isn’t God. This isn’t something that an atheist and a theist have in common because an atheist shouldn’t believe in a beginning to the universe at all, if they understand the conversation. This is what the cosmological argument is all about. It doesn’t prove a particular attribute of God, just that if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God.

You did it again: you said "a God".

Present your argument. It will need to show that, if there was a beginning to the universe, that it required a cause, and that this cause would necessarily be a deity. You will need to define "deity" while you are at it. I will ask, how do we know that what we think of as cause and effect applies to the moment of the instantiation of the cosmos?