God the middleman

[Tinker Grey]

Saying a person/being/entity is truth is a meaningless statement.

 

[Paulomycin]

Saying a person/being/entity is truth is a meaningless statement.

According to what standard of "meaning?" Atheists have no objective evidence of the claim "truth" itself. Which is why everything is ultimately meaningless, including atheist assertions.

Welcome to existential anomie.

 

[gaara4158]

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

How so? Have I not maintained that the universe need not be an effect?

Because you prioritize dogmatic naturalism over logic. I get it.

Again, you’re claiming that I’ve failed to apply logic properly but you seem unwilling or unable to point out where I go wrong. You’re opting instead to guess at my worldview. It won’t work.

- I just did in post #141, which is a simple variant of a classic argument. You gonna move the goalposts now?

All you managed to establish there was what you mean by “cause” and “effect,” and you introduced a categorical set of things that are not, in themselves, effects. You did nothing to establish that the universe could not be contained in that set, nor did you establish that the God you defined into that set actually exists. This is our second time revisiting the failures of your argument. I won’t entertain further appeals to the mighty infallibility of this argument without direct references to the weaknesses I just pointed out.

Which you are now claiming without evidence. If you have no evidence for the claim of "other ontic realities," that you cannot demonstrate, then prime mover remains both necessary and unrefuted.

Furthermore, prime mover is necessary to avoid infinite regress, aka: "Turtles All The Way Down." <-- Not limited to theism, you know.

Arguing without evidence is exactly the thing I’m avoiding by rejecting your conclusion without arguing that the opposite must be true. You’ll note that I used the word “plausible” when referring to other ontic realities, meaning that it is not a logical contradiction to suppose that the universe itself may not be an effect, therefore it is not necessary to conclude that the universe had a cause.

Infinite regress is still on the table, as far as I’m concerned, but it need not be the case for the universe itself not to be an effect.

Please don't misrepresent my rules here. God is only clearly and consistently defined as an omnipotent being.

Making him something that could invent a universe, sure, but we haven’t seen any reason to suppose this thing you’ve clearly and consistently defined actually exists.

We've yet to see a cogent argument for the claim of an atheist "reality." Taking ontology for granted isn't very skeptical.

The fact that there are no cogent arguments for the existence of God is reason enough to proceed as though he doesn’t.

 

[Paulomycin]

How so? Have I not maintained that the universe need not be an effect?

You're maintaining that the universe is contingent except when it's not. <-- That's the contradiction. Begging the question of cause is never rational. Forcing everyone else to beg the question of cause is "pants-on-head" insane.

Again, you’re claiming that I’ve failed to apply logic properly but you seem unwilling or unable to point out where I go wrong. You’re opting instead to guess at my worldview. It won’t work.

I'm not guessing. I'm relying on reliable patterns of atheist behavior that I've encountered over the past 10 years. Ontological naturalism is the dogma to be protected by any means necessary, even to the point of suspending logic, or rejecting it outright.

All you managed to establish there was what you mean by “cause” and “effect,” and you introduced a categorical set of things that are not, in themselves, effects. You did nothing to establish that the universe could not be contained in that set, nor did you establish that the God you defined into that set actually exists. This is our second time revisiting the failures of your argument. I won’t entertain further appeals to the mighty infallibility of this argument without direct references to the weaknesses I just pointed out.

You're right. I nipped the rest of it. The deduction is as follows. . .

Given that Big Bang Theory falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.

Thus, cause rationally supersedes nature. Or is simply known as "supernature."

To account for ultimate cause, the only options* are as follows:

- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.

^ The latter invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

"Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -AC Doyle

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on purpose. Q.E.D.

*Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

Bottom line: It has ^ been deductively proven that it was done on-purpose.

Arguing without evidence is exactly the thing I’m avoiding by rejecting your conclusion without arguing that the opposite must be true. You’ll note that I used the word “plausible” when referring to other ontic realities, meaning that it is not a logical contradiction to suppose that the universe itself may not be an effect, therefore it is not necessary to conclude that the universe had a cause.

There are no other "plausible" ontic realities, and you haven't presented any to consider.

Infinite regress is still on the table, as far as I’m concerned, but it need not be the case for the universe itself not to be an effect.

Infinite regress is never rational, because it infinitely "kicks the can down the road" on any rationally conclusive answer. It's infinite procrastination.

Making him something that could invent a universe, sure, but we haven’t seen any reason to suppose this thing you’ve clearly and consistently defined actually exists.

You concede a finite omni. I'm merely pointing to the potential of the omni, or simply omni-potential.

The fact that there are no cogent arguments for the existence of God is reason enough to proceed as though he doesn’t.

As long as you're content with question-begging the universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You do realize that Aristotle was wrong about physics quite often, don't you? Also it's a bit strange for a Christian to seem to imply that a nonbeliever is the arbiter of what is correct and what is incorrect.

Huh? All humans even pagans are created in the image of God and have a God given brain so they can discover things and systematize them. I dont think he discovered logic, because we live according to it every day and cannot even communicate without it. But he did systematize it and categorized all the different laws. Without logic we cannot even explain physics. Of course, he was wrong about physics (he lived long before the invention of modern physics by Christians) but as I said, logic is a law of reality both physical and non physical.

nv: I don't care what Aristotle said. Causality is a physical process. Implication is the associated logical process. If I drop a ball, it is not logic which brings it to the earth. It's physics.

His laws of logic have never been refuted. I never said that the laws of logic and the laws of physics are the same thing. Though you seem to be implying that. There is overlap however. Effects whether physical or non physical have causes. Your belief that there is no God which is a non physical entity, even has a cause.

 

[Tinker Grey]

According to what standard of "meaning?" Atheists have no objective evidence of the claim "truth" itself. Which is why everything is ultimately meaningless, including atheist assertions.

Welcome to existential anomie.

Truth statement that accurately reflects reality. There is no such thing as "truth itself"; it's nonsense. To say a person is truth is nonsense.

 

[Paulomycin]

Truth statement that accurately reflects reality.

Atheists have no objective standard of "reality," nor can they prove the claim.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Atheists have no objective standard of "reality," nor can they prove the claim.

As noted by others, the meaning of words are subjective. The consensus appears to be that truth is correspondence with reality. A person cannot be "correspondence with reality."

As long as we agree on the meaning, we can communicate. The words "god is truth" conveys no meaning. Prove me wrong. Tell me how a person can be "correspondence with reality".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

- Suppose that I'm never required to answer a pure hypothetical. So, "according to me," it's completely irrelevant.

- Suppose I'm only arguing for an omnipotent being in a consistent manner.

Your response is an "if" without a "then", and it wouldn't even be an answer even if you provided the "then". You sound like a person who hangs out with academics and makes a word soup out of the jargon you've heard.

Because a clear and consistent definition of "God" prior to proof and/or evidence is not even close to "defining God into existence."

You define God with property X, and then you say that God exists because he has property X. Yes, you've defined him into existence.

I can do the same thing. A fairy is a winged female humanoid which exists. Therefore, fairies exist.

I get that a lot. It used to throw me off, until I understood that atheists really hate clear and consistent definitions of God. Omnipotence is the litmus test for all other religious claims.

Omnipotence is nonsense, and you'd understand this if you understood Russell's paradox.

If the "god" of a particular religion is contingent to form, or a causal beginning, then that "god" is not omnipotent.

Do you mean or "HAS" a causal beginning?

When applied consistently, this destroys entire pantheons. Atheists tend to prefer using the ambiguity of "god(s)" as cover. And so this is how that same ambiguity is removed.

Bruh. I can assemble matter into the form of a rock so heavy that I cannot lift it. It's something I'm capable of doing. Yet, hold on let me guess, this is not a sensible question for God. So there are things I can do that God cannot, and this doesn't involve "sin". It's because if you tried to list the set of things that God could do, the set would be nonsensical. It would be a contradictory mess.

 

[Paulomycin]

As noted by others, the meaning of words are subjective.

Then your words begin and end at you alone. If there is no hope of objectivity, then why bother trying to communicate at all? Your posts are intellectually inconsistent.

The consensus appears to be that truth is correspondence with reality.

What reality? You're taking your own claim here for granted, and without evidence at that. How can you possibly justify the claim of a purely secular "reality?"

As long as we agree on the meaning, we can communicate.

We can't agree on meaning, because atheism has no meaning at all to speak of. At best, all they can do is leech-off of a Westernized Judeo-Christian sense of meaning.

The words "god is truth" conveys no meaning.

Then you have rejected meaning altogether. Again, welcome to existentialist anomie.

 

[Paulomycin]

Your response is an "if" without a "then", and it wouldn't even be an answer even if you provided the "then". You sound like a person who hangs out with academics and makes a word soup out of the jargon you've heard.

If appeal to pure speculation, then it can be dismissed as pure speculation.

If appeal to purely subjective speculation, then that appeal can be dismissed as objectively irrelevant.

You define God with property X, and then you say that God exists because he has property X. Yes, you've defined him into existence.

No, I actually didn't. It's first definition, then proof/evidence. You're still hung-up on definitions, so we have to get past this issue first. So no, I haven't "defined" anyone or anything into existence, beyond you putting words in my mouth.

Omnipotence is nonsense, and you'd understand this if you understood Russell's paradox.

What does naive set theory have to do with this? Aren't you actually referring to Russell's teapot?

Do you mean or "HAS" a causal beginning?

No. I mean contingent to a causal beginning.

Yet, hold on let me guess, this is not a sensible question for God.

Because it's a contradiction within the question itself. That's what makes it sophomoric.

So there are things I can do that God cannot, and this doesn't involve "sin". It's because if you tried to list the set of things that God could do, the set would be nonsensical. It would be a contradictory mess.

No, I would only be limited at a rational set of things that an omnipotent being can do. God cannot do the absurd, because absurd proposals are entirely our fault for suggesting them as-if they were rational.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Huh? All humans even pagans are created in the image of God and have a God given brain so they can discover things and systematize them. I dont think he discovered logic, because we live according to it every day and cannot even communicate without it. But he did systematize it and categorized all the different laws. Without logic we cannot even explain physics. Of course, he was wrong about physics (he lived long before the invention of modern physics by Christians) but as I said, logic is a law of reality both physical and non physical.

Even if logic is a law of physical reality, that doesn't mean causality is a logical law. Use logic to sort your inclusion and exclusion.

His laws of logic have never been refuted. I never said that the laws of logic and the laws of physics are the same thing. Though you seem to be implying that. There is overlap however. Effects whether physical or non physical have causes. Your belief that there is no God which is a non physical entity, even has a cause.

You've been on these forums for years now. You know my position and the generic atheist position. Why would you say that I believe there is no God? And after lecturing me about logic, no less.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If appeal to pure speculation, then it can be dismissed as pure speculation.

If appeal to purely subjective speculation, then that appeal can be dismissed as objectively irrelevant.

What's this got to do with the price of tea?

No, I actually didn't. It's first definition, then proof/evidence. You're still hung-up on definitions, so we have to get past this issue first. So no, I haven't "defined" anyone or anything into existence, beyond you putting words in my mouth.

Here's what I currently understand your position to be:

1. God is omnipotent by definition.
2. Omnipotent beings must exist by definition.

If you could define God and then provide the reason he exists, that would expedite things.

What does naive set theory have to do with this?

I already explained it. There is no set of all sets, nor is there a set which contains all elements. This is a remark on God's "omni-" properties.

Aren't you actually referring to Russell's teapot?

No. Like I said you don't get it.

No. I mean contingent to a causal beginning.

So you agree that God exists without cause, but yet there is a reason. Got it.

Because it's a contradiction within the question itself. That's what makes it sophomoric.

No, it isn't sophomoric because, as I explained, you and I can both do it. It stands to reason that some entity who can do anything we can do would be able to do it also. The only thing causing a problem is omnipotence, and that's not a surprise because it is not a well-defined notion.

No, I would only be limited at a rational set of things that an omnipotent being can do. God cannot do the absurd, because absurd proposals are entirely our fault for suggesting them as-if they were rational.

And omnipotence is among the absurd.

 

[disciple Clint]

God's existence is already hypothetical. You can't just pretend to have this knowledge. Answer the question please, thanks.
(correction of placement)
I have answered your questions, I have provided evidence for the existence of God and several other questions that might be sincere concerns of someone wanting to learn about God. It is up to you to review what I have provided and make a decision. Please review what I have provided. I am moving on. There are people who are interested in making a decision about faith in God and not in endless debate simply for the sake of debate. I am reminded that the Holy Spirit must make the first move in motivating people to open their hearts to God.

I already answered this. Please pay attention.

I have answered your questions, I have provide evidence for the existence of God and several other questions that might be sincere concerns of someone wanting to learn about God. It is up to you to review what I have provided and make a decision. Please review what I have provided. I am moving on. There are people who are interested in making a decision about faith in God and not in endless debate simply for the sake of debate. I am reminded that the Holy Spirit must make the first move in motivating people to open their hearts to God.

 

[disciple Clint]

You introduced an equally absurd alternate reality where things can exist without ever having begun to exist. This isn’t a game, it’s an approach to your question that exposes the hidden premise that smuggles in your preferred conclusion.

When you answer my question with something other than a question we can proceed. What is the cause of everything that exists? Answering a question with a question is insincere.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe one of the essences of God is "truth", and God is what emerges from all the essences such as truth? So God knows all truth, because he emerged from all truth? This makes God contingent on truth which @Paulomycin did not think we should allow, but I think it is o.k. to be contingent on something certain.

Probably this doesn't work, but it's my best shot.

How do you square this with the Münchhausen trilemma?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have answered your questions, I have provide evidence for the existence of God and several other questions that might be sincere concerns of someone wanting to learn about God. It is up to you to review what I have provided and make a decision. Please review what I have provided. I am moving on. There are people who are interested in making a decision about faith in God and not in endless debate simply for the sake of debate. I am reminded that the Holy Spirit must make the first move in motivating people to open their hearts to God.

If you need the Holy Spirit, then the facts on their own are insufficient. We both already knew this, but thank you for admitting it. It seems to me that you find yourself emotionally drawn to a child-killing God, and you don't even care where the facts lead.

 

[gaara4158]

You're maintaining that the universe is contingent except when it's not. <-- That's the contradiction. Begging the question of cause is never rational. Forcing everyone else to beg the question of cause is "pants-on-head" insane.

I’m maintaining that the universe might be contingent, and it might be non-contingent. We don’t know, and as far as I can tell we can’t know. This is a problem for your argument, which rests on the premise that the universe is in fact contingent. That just won’t fly.

I'm not guessing. I'm relying on reliable patterns of atheist behavior that I've encountered over the past 10 years. Ontological naturalism is the dogma to be protected by any means necessary, even to the point of suspending logic, or rejecting it outright.

Even worse, then, you’re projecting your expectations on to me based on nothing but my agreement with OP on arguments from contingency. This will not go well for you.

Given that Big Bang Theory falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.

This needs to be fleshed out. What is it about BB theory that necessitates a cause? Why must this cause be something other than natural forces?

If you can answer these questions we’ll proceed to your second premise, with which I also take great issue.

There are no other "plausible" ontic realities, and you haven't presented any to consider.

I don’t think you understand what I mean. By ontic reality, I mean what the universe might actually be, in terms of either effect or non-effect. Both options are on the table.

Infinite regress is never rational, because it infinitely "kicks the can down the road" on any rationally conclusive answer. It's infinite procrastination.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be true. It just means we can’t rationally understand it.

You concede a finite omni. I'm merely pointing to the potential of the omni, or simply omni-potential.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

As long as you're content with question-begging the universe.

If it’s between question-begging the universe and question-begging God, I’m going to spend my time engaging with the thing I already know exists.

 

[gaara4158]

When you answer my question with something other than a question we can proceed. What is the cause of everything that exists? Answering a question with a question is insincere.

Your questions are loaded and require unpacking. If anyone’s arguing in bad faith, it’s you.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you need the Holy Spirit, then the facts on their own are insufficient. We both already knew this, but thank you for admitting it. It seems to me that you find yourself emotionally drawn to a child-killing God, and you don't even care where the facts lead.

The Holy Spirit is needed by everyone but especially those who are prideful