Defining God in Theistic Arguments

[Davian]

You appear inconsistent in charging the concept of God with an infinite regress problem,

Of which you acknowledge.

while presenting eternal cosmologies as viable,

I did no such thing. My position is "I don't know". If you would like to tackle the maths and arguments of the professional astrophysicists, I will play spectator.

when they have the same issue. I don't know if an infinite succession is really a problem, but if it is for God it is for those cosmologies, and if not for those, then not for God either.

How so? On what basis do you equate your religious assertions with cosmological models built on repeatable, independently verifiable astronomical observations, Earth- and space-based experiments, and peer-reviewed science?

I've heard Craig's argument, but wouldn't use it myself, since I don't know if the problem is with the nature of infinity itself or just with our understanding of it.

Craig's arguments have not faired well when subjected to scrutiny here. But he looks good in a hat, does he not?

Kalamity Craig

• Davian
• Feb 1, 2016
• wlc

As for miracles, twice people known to have a prophetic gift, when praying for me, told me specific things about me, in one case the very words I had been thinking a short time before. One had never met me before, the other was a recent acquaintance. The probability of their guessing those things was low enough that I find it more reasonable to believe they gained that knowledge supernaturally.

Define "supernaturally" in a manner that might show this probability to be greater than that of guessing or of a false memory on your part. You do acknowledge that people can have false memories, do you not?

I also have had several friends say they were healed supernaturally.

Any regrown limbs?

Such stories are quite common, and while naturally there are some hoaxes, and they tend to be the most sensational and publicized, if there were never real miracles it would be unlikely the hoaxes would have ever got started. Nobody counterfeits fake money; a counterfeit suggests the existence of a genuine version.

Not at all, as you have it backwards; the hoaxes take advantage of the genuine belief that "miracles" are real. No real miracles are required.

Penn and Teller demonstrated that things like the indian rope trick can be believed to be possible, and to have happened, even in modern times.

"The "classic" version, however, was much more detailed: the rope would seem to rise high into the skies, disappearing from view. The boy would climb the rope and be lost to view. The magician would call back his boy assistant, and, on getting no response, become furious. The magician would then arm himself with a knife or sword, climb the rope, and vanish as well. An argument would be heard, and then limbs would start falling, presumably cut from the assistant by the magician. When all the parts of the body, including the torso, landed on the ground, the magician would climb down the rope. He would collect the limbs and put them in a basket, or collect the limbs in one place and cover them with a cape or blanket. Soon the boy would appear, restored." wiki

The "magic" happens at 46 min.

If atheism were true

Atheism is not a truth statement.

one would expect everyone would be atheists, but they have never even been a majority.

Arguments by popularity are fallacious. Millions believed the Earth was flat and the cosmos rotated around it.

Clearly you don't like the idea of a god existing.

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

Your mind-reading apparatus would seem to need a tune-up. Why would I not want to find out that there is something more to human existence that this relatively short biological stint here on Earth?

There are some god concepts out there I find reprehensible too. If you could choose any kind of god and it would then exist, what would you choose?

I have never put much thought into that. I suppose it would be one that would not require tossing out of virtually all of our current scientific knowledge, but then that would be an oxymoron of sorts. We'd have already detected it.

How did you pick your particular god?

 

[Davian]

Davian said "undetectable"....


“And of everything We have created pairs.” [Al-Qur’aan 51:49]

Meaining that for every muslim there may be a scientist who looks on at the same universe, but comes to an opposite conclusion?

I have no idea. My comments were directed at those that start with a conclusion, rather than evaluating the data and then coming to a conclusion.

Davian, maybe a Chrisitan faith (with species of bread and wine) or a Hindu one (with murtis or "sacred idols", or avatars) would be what you expect the truth to be???

I do not know what you mean by "truth", if you allow for it to be different for different people.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well Davian you seen to be posing a dilemma, or putting me in a double bind (a lose lose scenario, with no realistic options).

Truth and evidence.

If there were evidence, physical evidence, you'd probably it would be just another physical thing. So that option is wiped away a priori. And in the absence of such evidence, you say "but but but but theres no evidence" (if I have it right). So also that option is dismissed. A priori.

If I came with an ontological argument, you may argue "you cant define somethig into existence." Existence is not an attribute, but something contingent, inessential.

But the above lines of reasoning outlined commits the same error, defining something out of existence, in that whatever horn of the dilemma we take, then it seems to be deductively implied that you wont accept any argument from that path.

So, more reasonably then:

So, so so any evidence has to be indirect e.g. from analogy style arguments, or a priori, from more logical constructs like Anselms ontological proof.

What we are looking for is theoretical entity style evidence then??? For which there can be no visible sign, but for which signs can be adduced.... well isnt that just more experimental science, you may say, if youre looking for a hidden variable or something.

[51.20] And in the earth there are signs for those who are sure,
[51.21] And in your own souls (too); will you not then see?

Persoanlly I go for portal theory. Faith is entrance to another domian, a new life world, - the process being symbolised by death and rebirth motifs - into a new cognitive world with other standards and ways of (putative) knowing.

Each faith is a portal to a matrix. Eqach matrix is the same unspeakable river (tao) with a new ritual name and form (namrupa of the world) performatively established in the initiation ceremony of faith...

In the philosophy of language and speech acts theory, performative utterances are sentences which are not only describing a given reality, but also changing the social reality they are describing. - Wikipedia

 

[Chriliman]

God is unfathomable, but His word is truth and can be understood because His word became flesh, like us.

Similarly, when I speak, my words exist in a different form than my being, but are still from me.

This explains how we are made in God's image.

 

[Davian]

God is unfathomable, but His word is truth <snip>

Wait - where did you establish this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is unfathomable, but His word is truth and can be understood because His word became flesh, like us.

Similarly, when I speak, my words exist in a different form than my being, but are still from me.

This explains how we are made in God's image.

How do words become flesh?

Describe that process in a way that makes an ounce of sense.

 

[durangodawood]

How do words become flesh?

Describe that process in a way that makes an ounce of sense.

He just said its unfathomable.

 

[Chriliman]

How do words become flesh?

Describe that process in a way that makes an ounce of sense.

Before I explain the logic of that statement, I need you to agree to consider the thought that God is real.

We are all free to consider the thought that God is real or unreal. At this moment you are considering the thought that God is unreal, but I need you to consider the thought that God is real in order to show you how the above is logical.

Can you do that? If not then I won't waste my time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He just said its unfathomable.

Well he said that god is unfathomable...the kind of hyperbole I ignore whenever it's followed by a description of god or his processes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Before I explain the logic of that statement, I need you to agree to consider the thought that God is real.

We are all free to consider the thought that God is real or unreal. At this moment you are considering the thought that God is unreal, but I need you to consider the thought that God is real in order to show you how the above is logical.

Can you do that? If not then I won't waste my time.

Sure, I'll consider god real...now proceed with explaining the magical process of words becoming flesh.

 

[Chriliman]

Sure, I'll consider god real...now proceed with explaining the magical process of words becoming flesh.

When God speaks, logically something would happen. When God spoke, everything was created through His word, past, present and future, this includes us who are created in His image.

Colossians 1:16
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." (Him being Jesus, God's son)

He created us with free will to listen to Him or not, we chose to not listen because we're weaker than God. This is logical since He created us, not the other way around.

God is all knowing, so He knew we would rebel and separate ourselves from Him. Since He knew this, He already had a plan to redeem us back to Himself(we didn't know this plan in the beginning because we're not all knowing).

Romans 8:20
"Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope," (There is a plan)

He has explained His plan to us through His word in the Bible which was written by men that were inspired by God(The reason He has to explain it through these men is because everyone rebelled and were separated from God by God).

Romans 3:10
"As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;"

The Bible says that God made His word become flesh, this is Jesus.

John 1:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Logically we should think Jesus is a pretty important person since before He was born He was the word of God through which all things were created. So to learn about God, we should look to what Jesus says and did in the Bible.

If you're still considering God to be real, then logically, in order to learn more about Him you should read His word, which is recorded in the Bible for you. Remember you are free to consider God to be real or unreal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When God speaks, logically something would happen. When God spoke, everything was created ....

This is no different than saying "god magically made everything appear."

Saying he spoke matter and time into existence is absurd. The only thing we've ever observed being spoken is sound. How do you know he didn't fart everything into existence? Cough or sneeze everything into existence? If those are the crudest examples you think I'm capable of imagining then you're kidding yourself.

The problem here is that when you say "he spoke something into existence" you're basically telling me nothing. It explains nothing. We don't know how words become matter (in fact, we know they don't)...and you saying that they do doesn't explain how they do.

Can you say how his words become existence? Or would you just like to call it magic now?

 

[Chriliman]

This is no different than saying "god magically made everything appear."

Saying he spoke matter and time into existence is absurd. The only thing we've ever observed being spoken is sound. How do you know he didn't fart everything into existence? Cough or sneeze everything into existence? If those are the crudest examples you think I'm capable of imagining then you're kidding yourself.

If you consider the thought that God is real, then you must admit that there is no way to fully comprehend God. When God speaks, His word is truth, which we can comprehend. This would be why we can understand truth.

The problem here is that when you say "he spoke something into existence" you're basically telling me nothing. It explains nothing. We don't know how words become matter (in fact, we know they don't)...and you saying that they do doesn't explain how they do.

If I write my words down on paper, they become matter. If God created us in order to wright is word of truth in us then His word of truth has become matter.

When scientists say the Big Bang happened and therefore we see the universe, does this explain why we can comprehend truth? No, not at all. God who eternally exists, spoke creation into existence for the purpose of expressing His truth to us so that we can understand why we exist. We exist for Him and He created us because He loves to give life. This explains more about our existence than just saying the Big Bang is what caused the universe, that does nothing to explain why we can comprehend truth or even why there is life on this earth.

Can you say how his words become existence? Or would you just like to call it magic now?

I can't say how, but I can say why. The reason why is because God loves to give life and since God is eternal, he is capable of giving eternal life, which is unimaginable to us now because there is so much pain and death in this life. But there is a reason for the pain and death and the reason is because we rebelled, we sinned against God, but even so God has shown us the power He has over death and sin through His perfect son Jesus Christ who suffered all the afflictions of mankind due to sin and died for all and was brought back to eternal life by God.

I'm trying to image how all of this could have been made up by a bunch of men thousands of years ago and somehow coherent enough to explain a lot about our existence and keep the message clear enough to where many still think its true today. That seems more impossible than God's plan of salvation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you consider the thought that God is real, then you must admit that there is no way to fully comprehend God. When God speaks, His word is truth, which we can comprehend. This would be why we can understand truth.

So he speaks people, which are truth, so they can understand people/truth? None of this sounds nonsensical to you?

When scientists say the Big Bang happened and therefore we see the universe, does this explain why we can comprehend truth? No, not at all.

You wouldn't ask about the big bang if you wanted to know how the mind works, those are different questions.

God who eternally exists, spoke creation into existence for the purpose of expressing His truth to us so that we can understand why we exist.

So he speaks truth, which is people, so they can understand truth. Thanks for clearing that up lol.

We exist for Him and He created us because He loves to give life.

Except for the majority of us which will burn in his big furnace.

I can't say how...

Then why not start there? Just say, "I believe all this stuff because it makes me feel good/someone told it to me/I bought into it"...and just admit that? Do you think I'd suddenly think less of your beliefs? Do you think I didn't already know that you didn't know "how"?

I'm trying to image how all of this could have been made up by a bunch of men thousands of years ago and somehow coherent enough to explain a lot about our existence and keep the message clear enough to where many still think its true today. That seems more impossible than God's plan of salvation.

My guess is they had a lot of time on their hands. Coherent? Go back and read what you wrote...I doubt you can make sense of it. "God speaks truth, which is all of existence, so existence can understand truth"

People believe what makes them feel good. There aren't any religions (that I know of) that tell people once someone is dead they're gone forever...you'll never see them again.

 

[Davian]

...
When God speaks, His word is truth, which we can comprehend.

Do you mean the reading the Bible, or do you hear voices?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you mean the reading the Bible, or do you hear voices?

Reading the Bible and discerning truth through the Holy Spirit, which gives understanding.

 

[Davian]

Reading the Bible and discerning truth through the Holy Spirit, which gives understanding.

Or reading the bible, and imagining this "understanding". There is no way to tell the difference, is there?

 

[Chriliman]

So he speaks people, which are truth, so they can understand people/truth? None of this sounds nonsensical to you?



You wouldn't ask about the big bang if you wanted to know how the mind works, those are different questions.



So he speaks truth, which is people, so they can understand truth. Thanks for clearing that up lol.



Except for the majority of us which will burn in his big furnace.





Then why not start there? Just say, "I believe all this stuff because it makes me feel good/someone told it to me/I bought into it"...and just admit that? Do you think I'd suddenly think less of your beliefs? Do you think I didn't already know that you didn't know "how"?



My guess is they had a lot of time on their hands. Coherent? Go back and read what you wrote...I doubt you can make sense of it. "God speaks truth, which is all of existence, so existence can understand truth"

People believe what makes them feel good. There aren't any religions (that I know of) that tell people once someone is dead they're gone forever...you'll never see them again.

God can easily speak His truth through people to give others a chance to understand and believe. This is especially necessary for those who won't open their Bible and read His word, but are curious about God.

However, He won't force anyone to believe, but He will give many opportunities and often will allow someone to suffer in order to bring them closer to Himself.

 

[Chriliman]

Or reading the bible, and imagining this "understanding". There is no way to tell the difference, is there?

When God changes a person, it's unmistakeable, all they care about is loving Him and loving others. The rest is bonus.

 

[Davian]

When God changes a person, it's unmistakeable, all they care about is loving Him and loving others. The rest is bonus.

But you may have only convinced yourself that the experience is unmistakable. There is no way to tell the difference, is there?