God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

God's existence is already hypothetical. You can't just pretend to have this knowledge. Answer the question please, thanks.

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?

I already answered this. Please pay attention.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Ok, so what is the reason?

 

[gaara4158]

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?

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.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

You are defining the universe as an effect and God as not an effect, but you have no justification for either of these designations. I could simply argue that the universe is not necessarily an effect, as it may be that not all things which exist are effects.

 

[gaara4158]

Because begging the question of cause is irrational. Reason (logic) necessarily forces one in that general direction. That is.. . .if one truly values reason.

Otherwise, one's incredulity is being forced against reason to suppress truth.

Then it should be simple to draw out the logical steps that force you to that conclusion.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

To clarify, I am concerned that the mathematical models used by physicists to inspire and define the physical laws typically imagine things to be infinite and continuous. Of course physicists test their hypotheses using experiments, so that provides a safeguard against scenarios where the assumptions of infinite and continuous might mislead them. Sometimes though they make claims that might not have a lot of experimental confirmation such as the beginning of the universe or the end of the universe.

When I was studying physics, I remember that we would often drop terms from differential equations to reach some standard form where the solution would be easier. Sometimes we would learn that a term that we dropped needed to be kept in the equation to get the correct solution. Other times we would get the correct solution, but some friend who was majoring in pure math would tell me we arrived at that solution incorrectly.

I guess it just makes me a little suspicious about the claims made by physicists, but I suppose they have done pretty well in general. I don't know.

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

Meaning is there in physical quantity that is an irrational number? For example, pi is defined from geometry, but maybe a circle is physically impossible so pi is unnecessary. You mentioned the Hubble sphere, but maybe that is not actually a perfect sphere so again pi is unnecessary. Or the square root of 2. Maybe we don't actually need that number as a measurement. It would require a perfect right angle, and maybe there is none. ... I don't know, but that's what I meant by "physical existence of real numbers" (I should have said "irrational numbers" rather than "real numbers" too - that might have added to the confusion.)

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.

If God is all-knowing then he must know that he is all-knowing by definition.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Causality is a law of logic. Read Aristotle.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Causality is a law of logic. Read Aristotle.

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.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To clarify, I am concerned that the mathematical models used by physicists to inspire and define the physical laws typically imagine things to be infinite and continuous. Of course physicists test their hypotheses using experiments, so that provides a safeguard against scenarios where the assumptions of infinite and continuous might mislead them. Sometimes though they make claims that might not have a lot of experimental confirmation such as the beginning of the universe or the end of the universe.

When I was studying physics, I remember that we would often drop terms from differential equations to reach some standard form where the solution would be easier. Sometimes we would learn that a term that we dropped needed to be kept in the equation to get the correct solution. Other times we would get the correct solution, but some friend who was majoring in pure math would tell me we arrived at that solution incorrectly.

I guess it just makes me a little suspicious about the claims made by physicists, but I suppose they have done pretty well in general. I don't know.

I see what you're saying. I call that fudging the math. Physicists are known for that, yes.

Meaning is there in physical quantity that is an irrational number? For example, pi is defined from geometry, but maybe a circle is physically impossible so pi is unnecessary. You mentioned the Hubble sphere, but maybe that is not actually a perfect sphere so again pi is unnecessary. Or the square root of 2. Maybe we don't actually need that number as a measurement. It would require a perfect right angle, and maybe there is none. ... I don't know, but that's what I meant by "physical existence of real numbers" (I should have said "irrational numbers" rather than "real numbers" too - that might have added to the confusion.)

I see what you're saying. I've often thought the exact same thing, actually.

If God is all-knowing then he must know that he is all-knowing by definition.

Yes, he would, if he were all-knowing, but how would he know it?

 

[Paulomycin]

Ok, so what is the reason?

Omnipotence is its own reason. I bet that sounds too facile for you. But it takes some thought. Omnipotence doesn't need an external purpose. Omnipotence is the source of all reason. Omnipotence is the Logos. I use omnipotence deliberately here, instead of names that you might superficially bounce off of.

 

[Paulomycin]

You are defining the universe as an effect and God as not an effect, but you have no justification for either of these designations.

In order. . .

(1.)

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

(2.) An omnipotent being is not contingent. If contingent, then not omnipotent.

I could simply argue that the universe is not necessarily an effect, as it may be that not all things which exist are effects.

Which, in all fairness would require the same justification you required from me just now. Incredulous will is not a substitute for justification to the contrary.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then it should be simple to draw out the logical steps that force you to that conclusion.

Not just the conclusion, but also the process. Law of causality forces the rational mind towards supra-natural categories. Logic is unfalsifiable. If one demands that someone "draw out" for them, or drag them through it kicking and screaming is simply demonstrating their own misology.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Omnipotence is its own reason. I bet that sounds too facile for you. But it takes some thought. Omnipotence doesn't need an external purpose. Omnipotence is the source of all reason. Omnipotence is the Logos. I use omnipotence deliberately here, instead of names that you might superficially bounce off of.

Having the ability to do something, or anything, does not provide the reason for doing it. You are also trying to define God into existence. Pretty much everything you're saying is obviously false.

 

[Paulomycin]

Having the ability to do something, or anything, does not provide the reason for doing it.

It's not just any ability. It's omnipotence. Omnipotence is self-sufficient. Omnipotence is necessarily lacking nothing, including purpose.

You are also trying to define God into existence. Pretty much everything you're saying is obviously false.

- "Obviously" = an excuse to evade demonstrating a claimed falsehood.

- You are trying to keep the word "God" as vague and dodgy as possible. <-- I agree with igtheists and ignostics here.

- In debate, clear and consistent definitions are necessary before proof and evidence are presented. I strictly define "God" as an omnipotent being.

- When you understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods except One, then you will understand why I dismiss atheism.

 

[gaara4158]

1.)

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

This does not make the universe necessarily an effect. It means, at best, that everything we know of was once concentrated as a singularity some 15 billion years ago, beyond which time we are unable to make meaningful extrapolations, including whether or not the expansion event was an effect.

Not just the conclusion, but also the process. Law of causality forces the rational mind towards supra-natural categories. Logic is unfalsifiable. If one demands that someone "draw out" for them, or drag them through it kicking and screaming is simply demonstrating their own misology.

This is you sidestepping the question with misused philosophical jargon. If you’re going to appeal to things like logic and rationality, you had better be sure you can present a formal logical proof of your assertion, starting with premises and leading to a conclusion. Otherwise, what you’re calling “logical” and “rational” is likely just a comfy feeling you associate with your deeply-held beliefs. It’s fine to think you have a good argument, but don’t overstate your case.

Which, in all fairness would require the same justification you required from me just now. Incredulous will is not a substitute for justification to the contrary.

It’s a good thing I don’t need to justify the contrary in order to reject the assertion, then. I would never attempt to argue that something like a “prime mover” doesn’t exist. Only that the class of arguments for God which depend on a prime mover are unsuccessful, due to the plausibility of other ontic realities.

2.) An omnipotent being is not contingent. If contingent, then not omnipotent.

God is whatever you need him to be for your preferred argument. But that has no bearing on whether the being you describe maps on to anything in reality. We’ve yet to see a cogent argument for that.

 

[Paulomycin]

This does not make the universe necessarily an effect.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

It means, at best, that everything we know of was once concentrated as a singularity some 15 billion years ago, beyond which time we are unable to make meaningful extrapolations, including whether or not the expansion event was an effect.

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

This is you sidestepping the question with misused philosophical jargon. If you’re going to appeal to things like logic and rationality, you had better be sure you can present a formal logical proof of your assertion, starting with premises and leading to a conclusion. Otherwise, what you’re calling “logical” and “rational” is likely just a comfy feeling you associate with your deeply-held beliefs. It’s fine to think you have a good argument, but don’t overstate your case.

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

- Otherwise, what you’re calling “logical” and “rational” is likely just a comfy feeling you associate with your deeply-held atheist confirmation bias.

It’s a good thing I don’t need to justify the contrary in order to reject the assertion, then. I would never attempt to argue that something like a “prime mover” doesn’t exist. Only that the class of arguments for God which depend on a prime mover are unsuccessful, due to the plausibility of other ontic realities.

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.

God is whatever you need him to be for your preferred argument.

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

But that has no bearing on whether the being you describe maps on to anything in reality. We’ve yet to see a cogent argument for that.

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

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's not just any ability. It's omnipotence. Omnipotence is self-sufficient. Omnipotence is necessarily lacking nothing, including purpose.

Suppose there is a being who is almost omnipotent except he cannot speak seventh century Chinese while juggling 17 flaming swords. Does this being now lack purpose? According to you, he apparently would. But does that then mean that it is important that Jehovah is able to speak seventh century Chinese while juggling 17 flaming swords? Would the universe fall apart if Jehovah was unable to do this, or would your salvation fail?

- "Obviously" = an excuse to evade demonstrating a claimed falsehood.

- You are trying to keep the word "God" as vague and dodgy as possible. <-- I agree with igtheists and ignostics here.

- In debate, clear and consistent definitions are necessary before proof and evidence are presented. I strictly define "God" as an omnipotent being.

- When you understand why I dismiss all the other possible gods except One, then you will understand why I dismiss atheism.

Let's see you avoid saying that there is something "obviously" wrong with my point and instead demonstrate exactly why you're right.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, he would, if he were all-knowing, but how would he know it?

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.

 

[Paulomycin]

Suppose there is a being who is almost omnipotent except he cannot speak seventh century Chinese while juggling 17 flaming swords. Does this being now lack purpose? According to you, he apparently would. But does that then mean that it is important that Jehovah is able to speak seventh century Chinese while juggling 17 flaming swords? Would the universe fall apart if Jehovah was unable to do this, or would your salvation fail?

- 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.

Let's see you avoid saying that there is something "obviously" wrong with my point and instead demonstrate exactly why you're right.

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

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

 

[Paulomycin]

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.

If God is truth (that is, His essential nature), then God is not contingent to an external truth. That is my position.