God the middleman

[Paulomycin]

That doesn’t follow. You are simply more comfortable with something existing without a beginning than something beginning without a cause. Neither has been empirically observed, so why believe in one over the other?

It's a general misunderstanding of the law of causality itself:

Only effects necessarily require a cause.

The law of causality is the abstract (non-concrete) logical relationship between cause and effect.

NOT "cause & things." <-- That's a moron interpretation of it.

NOT "Everything requires a cause." <-- That's still "cause & things."

QUESTION:

"If God made the world/universe...then who made God?"

This is the "gotcha" argument that tries to counter the causality argument for God. There's a lot of history on this. It originates from Bertrand Russell via his godfather John Stuart Mill (ironic, I know).

At one point Russell was theistic, until he read Mill's argument, "If everything requires a cause then who created God?" <-- Which is a gross error in the definition of law of causality. An error Russell took to his grave. But an error atheists tend to perpetuate regardless.

The law of causality is not "everything requires a cause," but rather, "Every effect requires an antecedent cause."

Every thing in the universe is an effect.

"God" is never defined as a contingent effect.

Conclusion: The causality argument is still in-play, as it has been that way all along.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then your knowledge is lacking. As is your "source". And now you're just being dishonest, saying that I agree with you. It's your thread, devolve it as you wish.

If I said all reptiles have four legs, you'd simply say, "Here's a snake, we're done, you're wrong."

Let's assume that's what I'm doing. Let's assume I'm basically saying that all reptiles have four legs. Instead of pointing out that snakes exist, you're just screaming and jumping up and down saying, "What is your source? How do you know this?"

Why wouldn't you just simply point out that snakes exist? Why can't you show me some group of Christians who reject part or all of what I've said? And no, don't just find me one person... that'd be the equivalent of showing me a lizard with a missing leg and then claiming that I'm wrong in saying that all reptiles have four legs.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

At one time we were not sure if the laws of logic applied to outer space, but we assumed they did and it turned out we were right. It is more rational to assume that logic is universally valid until proven wrong then not to, otherwise progress will never occur.

You're not following the conversation. I said nothing about the laws of logic. I referred to the laws of the universe, one of which is causality.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's interesting to read about Hilbert's Hotel. Very weird.

Infinity is certainly counter-intuitive.

It concerns me that infinity and real numbers are so ubiquitous in the math used in physical sciences

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

yet the physical world probably doesn't have any properties of those types.

Agreed. The volume of space in the entire universe could be infinite, but we'd never know. Galaxies form clusters, and clusters can form superclusters. Current data indicates that there is no physical structure larger than this, and we refer to it as the "end of greatness." If there were no limit to physical structure size, and if there were some sort of predictable pattern that could propagate a structure indefinitely, then we could make an educated guess as to whether the universe is infinite or not by seeing if a structure disappears off of one light horizon and reappears from the other side 180° away. We've also searched to see if any galactic positions are repeated within our Hubble sphere, which would indicate that the universe is not only finite but smaller than the observable universe; to my knowledge we've not found any kind of pattern or repetition that would indicate anything significant.

But at least the ideas proposed by theoretical physicists are sanity-checked experimentally, and I guess it has worked so far.

Trying to get back to your thread's topic, I wonder if God can exist without the physical existence of real numbers and infinity and so forth?

Physical existence of real numbers? We made numbers up. Platonism is just dead wrong.

The typical definitions of God say he is "all-knowing", etc. It doesn't seem that "eternal" would work, but maybe it would if it was finessed just right. I don't know LOL

I'm not sure how God could possibly know he is all-knowing. Anyone could be a brain in a vat. I'm not sure how he could know he is eternal either.

 

[Paulomycin]

Why can't you show me some group of Christians who reject part or all of what I've said?

Because you're ignoring them?

 

[disciple Clint]

Why assume that there must be one?

primarily because I do not live in an alternate reality when things just appear all by themselves without any cause. Now can you answer my question without playing games?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

primarily because I do not live in an alternate reality when things just appear all by themselves without any cause. Now can you answer my question without playing games?

The Big Bang is not proposed as an event which brought forth matter from nothing. The Big Bang is the expansion of matter which already existed in the singularity, and we don't know anything about the singularity because we lack the language to describe it.

The Big Bang is NOT an ex nihilo proposition. Why then do you say, "I do not live in an alternate reality when things just appear all by themselves without any cause"?

Oh wait, I think I know why. You are committed to saying that God exists without a cause, and since your creed says that he never began to exist you think that gives you a leg up. It would be terrible if your God was just a middle man, where we choose between an eternal universe which exists without cause versus a universe created by an eternal deity who exists without cause. The universe exists, on that we agree, and your God is an unnecessary assumption which explains nothing. The question is equally unresolved whether we insert your God or not. You know this. You understand it. And yet you persist. Why?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because you're ignoring them?

Nice misleading post there. It links to you simply asserting that I'm wrong, NOT you providing an actual counter example. Which was the entire point of the post you just responded to. You know, my analogy with the snake?

I allow you to nip at my heels repeatedly but this is just going to far. Linking to a post as if you've actually answered a question, satisfying the onlookers who don't bother to click. Those who do investigate your claims see that your amazing response is just a "nuh-uh."

 

[disciple Clint]

The Big Bang is not proposed as an event which brought forth matter from nothing. The Big Bang is the expansion of matter which already existed in the singularity, and we don't know anything about the singularity because we lack the language to describe it.

The Big Bang is NOT an ex nihilo proposition. Why then do you say, "I do not live in an alternate reality when things just appear all by themselves without any cause"?

Oh wait, I think I know why. You are committed to saying that God exists without a cause, and since your creed says that he never began to exist you think that gives you a leg up. It would be terrible if your God was just a middle man, where we choose between an eternal universe which exists without cause versus a universe created by an eternal deity who exists without cause. The universe exists, on that we agree, and your God is an unnecessary assumption which explains nothing. The question is equally unresolved whether we insert your God or not. You know this. You understand it. And yet you persist. Why?

The Big Bang is the expansion of matter which already existed in the singularity, and we don't know anything about the singularity because we lack the language to describe it.

That sounds very much like attempting to avoid the fact that without God you have no explanation for the source of the matter, or do you, please do tell.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That sounds very much like attempting to avoid the fact that without God you have no explanation for the source of the matter, or do you, please do tell.

But if you explain Y with X, and you can't explain what X is or why it exists, then you're not explaining Y. If you say that X exists necessarily because otherwise Y wouldn't exist, you're still not explaining why Y exists. Do you get it bruh?

 

[disciple Clint]

But if you explain Y with X, and you can't explain what X is or why it exists, then you're not explaining Y. If you say that X exists necessarily because otherwise Y wouldn't exist, you're still not explaining why Y exists. Do you get it bruh?

Regardless you still have the problem of trying to explain where the matter came from, obviously you are unable to do that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Regardless you still have the problem of trying to explain where the matter came from, obviously you are unable to do that.

Of course, yes, I'm unable to do that. Let's all take a moment and shame me for not solving the question that has been plaguing mankind for thousands of years.

Ok, now that we're done with that moment, let's see. Oh, right. You haven't explained it either. Your attempt at an explanation is worse though because you make one assumption (God exists) and I make zero assumptions. Sometimes we have to make some sort of initial assumption to get logic rolling, but generally assumptions should be avoided whenever possible and an assumption which does not provide more explanatory power than what is already available is useless.

 

[disciple Clint]

Of course, yes, I'm unable to do that. Let's all take a moment and shame me for not solving the question that has been plaguing mankind for thousands of years.

Ok, now that we're done with that moment, let's see. Oh, right. You haven't explained it either. Your attempt at an explanation is worse though because you make one assumption (God exists) and I make zero assumptions. Sometimes we have to make some sort of initial assumption to get logic rolling, but generally assumptions should be avoided whenever possible and an assumption which does not provide more explanatory power than what is already available is useless.

an assumption which does not provide more explanatory power than what is already available is useless

However you do not seem to have an explanation already available, do you? But I do.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

However you do not seem to have an explanation already available, do you? But I do.

No, you don't. Let's look at a staple argument of apologetics.

Suppose God A created God B, who created God C, who created God D, who created God E, who created God F, who created God G, who created God H, who created Jehovah.

Does this explain Jehovah's existence? Well, no, because we're left asking, "Who created God A?" Apologists argue that this leads to an infinite regress, and they somehow are able to conclude that infinite regress cannot possibly be an answer.

But do you see what happened there? God A does NOT explain the existence of Jehovah because God A's existence is not accounted for. Would you buy my argument that God A "exists necessarily" because otherwise "Jehovah wouldn't exist"? Nope. Yet Christians swear up and down that Jehovah "exists necessarily" because otherwise "the universe wouldn't exist."

To reiterate, I cannot explain existence, but again:

If you explain Y with X, and you can't explain what X is or why it exists, then you're not explaining Y. If you say that X exists necessarily because otherwise Y wouldn't exist, you're still not explaining why Y exists. Do you get it bruh?

Do you?

 

[disciple Clint]

No, you don't. Let's look at a staple argument of apologetics.

Suppose God A created God B, who created God C, who created God D, who created God E, who created God F, who created God G, who created God H, who created Jehovah.

Does this explain Jehovah's existence? Well, no, because we're left asking, "Who created God A?" Apologists argue that this leads to an infinite regress, and they somehow are able to conclude that infinite regress cannot possibly be an answer.

But do you see what happened there? God A does NOT explain the existence of Jehovah because God A's existence is not accounted for. Would you buy my argument that God A "exists necessarily" because otherwise "Jehovah wouldn't exist"? Nope. Yet Christians swear up and down that Jehovah "exists necessarily" because otherwise "the universe wouldn't exist."

To reiterate, I cannot explain existence, but again:

If you explain Y with X, and you can't explain what X is or why it exists, then you're not explaining Y. If you say that X exists necessarily because otherwise Y wouldn't exist, you're still not explaining why Y exists. Do you get it bruh?

Do you?

the fallacy in your post is that there is only one God, God is the supreme being there can be only one supreme being so any god who can be created is not God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

the fallacy in your post is that there is only one God, God is the supreme being there can be only one supreme being so any god who can be created is not God.

I didn't say anything about a supreme being. Why do you have such difficulty reading words on pages? We're talking about the creation of a universe, not omnipotence. You literally have no way of refuting the logic, so you have to insert words and then knock down a strawman.

 

[disciple Clint]

I didn't say anything about a supreme being. Why do you have such difficulty reading words on pages? We're talking about the creation of a universe, not omnipotence. You literally have no way of refuting the logic, so you have to insert words and then knock down a strawman.

Suppose God A created God B, who created God C, who created God D, who created God E, who created God F, who created God G, who created God H, who created Jehovah

Are you unable to follow your own argument? When you speak of God with a G you a speaking about the supreme being. How could you not know that?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you unable to follow your own argument? When you speak of God with a G you a speaking about the supreme being. How could you not know that?

How could I not know that? Because I've talked to a lot of Christians and they don't hold that view. They disagree on what omnipotence is and some dispute that God is even omnipotent at all. Furthermore, this is a red herring. If I take your "supreme being" and I remove one ability - let's say the ability create a universe wherein the speed of light is one kilometer per hour - then will that impact your argument in any way whatsoever? Will this God suddenly be unable to create the universe, or will this God no longer serve as an explanation in your eyes, since he is incapable of doing something which would not even affect creation? Will this one lack of an ability affect his own existence somehow?

 

[disciple Clint]

How could I not know that? Because I've talked to a lot of Christians and they don't hold that view. They disagree on what omnipotence is and some dispute that God is even omnipotent at all. Furthermore, this is a red herring. If I take your "supreme being" and I remove one ability - let's say the ability create a universe wherein the speed of light is one kilometer per hour - then will that impact your argument in any way whatsoever? Will this God suddenly be unable to create the universe, or will this God no longer serve as an explanation in your eyes, since he is incapable of doing something which would not even affect creation? Will this one lack of an ability affect his own existence somehow?

Well unless you can name those people that you say do not believe that God is omnipotent, I cannot accept them as evidence. God is sovereign, all powerful and the supreme being anything less would not be God. God is able to accomplish anything He desires. You cannot place limits on God so your hypothetical conditions do not apply. BUT lets get back to the question I asked you, if there is no God where did the material come from that was used to create the universe?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nice misleading post there. It links to you simply asserting that I'm wrong, NOT you providing an actual counter example.

First, "created by a God who exists for no reason," is entirely your claim. Second, it's a claim that I don't see in the Westminster Confession, the Methodist Confession of faith, the London Baptist Confession, etc. etc. I don't see any Christian doctrine, creed, or scripture expository anywhere that asserts God exists for no reason.

That's all you, buddy.