- May 28, 2018
- 14,313
- 6,389
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Yep. In fact I take advantage of that fact every chance I get!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yep. In fact I take advantage of that fact every chance I get!There are times when being icognizant can be confused with cynicism.
Has 'atheism' been falsified? What is your definition of 'atheism'?
I've been given this passage a lot, over the last few years. When I read this passage, over and over, here looks to be the gist of what this passage is telling it's readers.
"Look around you. It's obvious (this) God created it. And if you do not agree, you are either A: lying to yourself, B: really stupid, or C: 'other forces' are messing with you."
1. Would you essentially agree with this (maybe hyperbolic) definition above in quotes?
2. Could one argue this passage is a form of "gaslighting"?
3. Why should I care what the Bible says here, yet? Remember, I'm asking you how one goes from deism to a Christian. You are already placing the cart before the horse.
Has omnipresence been established?
There are times when being icognizant can be confused with cynicism.
I never assert anything without evidence. Ev-er.
Don't start that garbage again. "Assert" = positive assertions.
What's wrong with proving a negative?
Fine.
Fine? Okay, prove "nor can there be" any additional options presented. And don't weasel out of it!
Well, first you need to learn how deductive elimination works.
Are you ever going to prove your claim? Ev-er? Because what you're saying now sure sounds like weaseling out of it.
^ Still doesn't understand how deductive elimination works.
Hint: You don't have to flush afterwards.
Okay, so then you do assert some things without evidence. Just checking.
We went over deductive elimination in another thread, but I'm sure you forgot.
I know which is my strongest, but I was wondering which you supposed was my strongest.
Sounds like you are describing something like the theorized collapse/expand cycle of the universe. This to me is impossible for two reasons: 1. One is that it is basically an excuse not to admit to a beginning --it is just another form of infinite regression, which is 'repugnant to reason', to say the least. It is just more kicking the can down the road. 2 The other is that matter/force/'whatever naturally is', and the principle by which it operates, are both mechanical fact. Mechanical fact does not explain existence. It cannot cause existence. It cannot come into being on its own. Nor can it be self-existent, but must be caused.
This refers to matter as we observe it now. It was not meant describe whether or not, nor how, it came to exist in the first place.
Won't be the first time nor the last.
I could say, "If God, i.e. First Cause, i.e. Omnipotence, 'always was', everything falls into place, including existence itself, as proceeding from God, and not God from it.
But the proof that it is the result of First Cause is simple. Follow the chain of Causation. First Cause, by definition, must be Omnipotent, and further development of the thought leads to necessary Intent. I don't have the time nor inclination to write here the whole matter, as when I do, not only does my audience wander, but my mind does, lol. And every step along the way, if the readers haven't left, I have to demonstrate that what is obvious to me, is not mere assertion, and there are more objections always raised than I care to deal with. But anyway, as development of thought continues, the intent and attributes of this First Cause are step by step identical with the Abrahamic God. Admittedly, there are some surprising things about the Abrahamic God that are reasonable within the scope of attributes found philosophically, but would probably not have been thought of by mere philosophical development. But I have not heard of any developed by philosophical pursuit of the attributes of First Cause, unless they contradict other philosophical findings, that the Bible does not use or mention outright.
Lol. No, actually, that doesn't show which is my strongest. It may show in part why I believe what I do in, but not the whole thing. To avoid the argument that raised so much hay in another thread, I will not here go on about the proposing of a logically self-contradictory hypothetical, than to just say that is what you are doing here, because it is impossible that "that material stuff never 'began'".
But to entertain your question, I will go with, 'what if I became convinced that', instead of 'what if I found out that'. If somehow I became convinced that matter never began, then I would have already given up on the notion of God. But I have to say, as I did on another thread just the last couple of days, that if I gave up on the notion of God, then it would not be by intellectual honesty, but for expedience sake for the pursuit of ungodliness.
Not sure here what you mean, here, that presence implies dwelling "in" 'something', but I will try to go with the imprecision --I don't know that I could do better than you did to get the idea across.
Your "BEFORE" I will try to understand as merely a word for lack of a better one, seeing as God is not time-dependent as we are. And I hope this doesn't come across as too cryptic, but God 'just is', as he said, "before Abraham was, I AM."
'Before' or any other use of 'time' is our thinking. I also want to say that 'before' or any other use of 'cause' is our thinking, but that is a step beyond what I know. I hope I don't run too long here, but to me, for God to be God, ALL fact is his 'invention' or 'proceeds from him'. HE made logic, math, principle, fact, and they are all of his nature. They are OF HIM, or he is not God. He is not subject to them as to an external force.
Right here:Where?
Ya know... The claim I've been trying to get you to prove for like five pages now...Nor can there be.
Deductive elimination is proof; not evidence. Please learn the difference.
If you want to prove that your argument is sound, then you need to prove that premise is true. But you don't care about soundness because you repeatedly assert your premises while refusing to prove that they are true.
lol Yes, the rules of what makes a sound argument are arbitrary. Hahahaha!Your arbitrary rules are arbitrary.
GodWas it a philosophical argument such as the cosmological argument or was it some type of personal experience? or something other than one of these?
How did god show you he exists?
1. Knowing my own propensity to fool myself, and to not allow myself to see the obvious when it is inconvenient to do so, I can easily see them using it as an excuse, yet not even realize they are doing so. It is, in fact, a little surprising to me how often on this site people of all flavors of belief do that, while claiming pure intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I admit to it, so maybe, as has been suggested more than once, I am projecting.Answer: 1. I doubt all intellectuals use this hypothesis as an 'excuse not to admit to a beginning'.
Answer: 2. If matter always was, then of course it would be nonsensical to even broach the topic of asking how it ever 'came into being'. How do you know matter must of had a beginning?
Please let me re-state my prior entry... "Long ago, an assertion was made that 'matter' can neither be 'created' nor 'destroyed'."
If matter can never be created, then your response appears illogical. To suggest 'came to exist' does not follow.
But again, I am not making the rogue assertion that all matter always was, (for certain). But I trust we agree, that if matter always was, then the topic of 'creationism' would likely be nothing more than a talking point.
I'll make this short, which looks to be a repeating cycle. This looks to be a battle of the hypotheticals. Meaning...
(me) If matter always was, then 'creationism', 'first cause', 'omni-anything', 'intent', etc., likely goes kaput.
(you) If a 'first cause' is proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove anything beyond the argument for "generic deism".
This response raises more questions, than provides answers.
On the one hand, you seem to agree with me, that if you should 'find out, believe, or other' that matter always was; you would ditch a 'god belief'.
But then... You state "if I gave up on the notion of God, then it would not be by intellectual honesty, but for expedience sake for the pursuit of ungodliness."
What does this mean exactly? This kind of seems to touch on what I stated at the top of this post... That the topic of 'first cause' may play less of a role in your God belief, than you are stating here?.?.?.?.???
Well, here is one of the fundamental issues I see with your argument. You argue for a first cause. This would mean that any 'realm' in which God is/was present within, had to be 'caused' by Him. Thus, if everything outside God had a true beginning, then at some 'point', God ruled over nothing at all, and 'occupied' "absolute nothing" at all? And yes, I'm aware that verbiage gets a little wonky here, as we may be speaking about the mere assertion of 'transcendence'/other....
Right here:
Right here:
lol Yes, the rules of what makes a sound argument are arbitrary. Hahahaha!
1. Knowing my own propensity to fool myself, and to not allow myself to see the obvious when it is inconvenient to do so, I can easily see them using it as an excuse, yet not even realize they are doing so. It is, in fact, a little surprising to me how often on this site people of all flavors of belief do that, while claiming pure intellectual integrity. On the other hand, I admit to it, so maybe, as has been suggested more than once, I am projecting.
(Lol, this reminds me of my wife whose logic ran kind of like this: "You admit you don't have a great memory of details, while I say I do, to the point where I remember word for word statements in specific conversations, and even what we were wearing in those conversations years ago. So, guess who is more likely to be right about what I am saying was said? And no, don't ask the kids --yes they were there, but their opinion is irrelevant, and besides, Christian teaching says not to involve them in our arguments.")
2. This sounds like begging the question: "If matter always was, why ask how it came into being?" But, are you positing that matter always was? Of course not! But, as usual, I can't remember to whom I said what, so, let me try a short version of how it cannot have "always been", or at least how it cannot have "always been in and of itself". (If you need me to explain the difference, please ask. I love the subject.)
Mechanical fact (matter, in this discussion) is subject to principles from outside itself. It is not the source of those principles, (though some might claim the principles were co-emergent with matter. But if co-emergent, then matter emerged which means not first cause, because a principle caused the emergence. Even the claim that first cause (i.e. God) caused himself, if self-contradictory for the same reason. Emergent also means not "always was".) First Cause necessarily is self-existent.
To avoid calling it begging the question, I will just say that the principle, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" refers to already existing matter. It was not meant to reference how or whether matter came to exist. But the question of existence applies to all things in this discussion --even first cause (God, I say), or mechanical fact (i.e. matter, in this discussion).
Generic Deism falls flat on its face, in its logic. If by 'God', the deist means mere first cause (creation), and no subsequent activity or concern on the part of God, his logical development of the term 'first cause' has gone no further than mere creation, in that for all practical purposes his creator has ceased to exist. He has not looked at the implications. His 'act of creation' is incomplete, apparently [unknowingly] presupposing that his 'God' is subject to 'what is' as far as principles such as time. (I.e. if God is creator of everything, then he is not subject to time, so any moment is as 'now' to God as the moment he began time.) He has no concept of the notion that the existence of all matter (and all other fact) is sustained by God.
I tried to be specific that I did not agree with you about "find out" that matter always was. I could only conjecture a hypothetical that I "became convinced" (i.e, "I decided"). The science community, let's say, might discover that it 'always was', and I would probably in some sense think they are merely failing to see the permanent nature of God, from which matter 'proceeds' or 'came to be', and thus bears the characteristics of permanence.
To give you some sense of the tentative nature of this 'solid fact' of physics, there is (or at least, has been) a philosophical POV that 'the gods' are the movers of every motion of matter, and nothing is mere naturalism; thus what we think is natural cause-and-effect is the gods watching us, and moving things around in the way we expect (or don't expect, as the case may be) --fooling us. I have not heard that they think the objects we see are not there --but that could easily enough also be faked, I would think. Practically, I don't see how it would be any harder than for them to be actual, or that it would make any difference. This proposition is, of course, impossible to scientifically prove wrong. But it is begging the question.
The notion of pantheism, or that all this IS God, also (barely) has a certain merit, in that all this came from God, and is OF himself. So in that sense, yes, being of him, all this has 'always been'. But in its 'present form', shall we say, he could easily cease to sustain it and it would cease to exist. Such matters are obviously beyond us to understand. We don't even know what existence is, though it stares us in the face.
In a sense, you are right, that the intellectual assent concerning First Cause is not my 'strongest'. My mind could fail me, get sleepy, shall we say, in my old age, yet my beliefs not fail me in the least.
But the intellectual apprehension is of the two the more easily discussed with an unbeliever than the faith.
Furthermore, the intellectual assent is only that --compelling, but altogether wrapped up in worldview and mindset --belief.
Yes and no. First Cause, (i.e. God, Omnipotence), only occupies a realm, (I call it God's economy, or manner of operation), by way of our terminology --our understanding. I find it necessary to think of that way, but it is only conceptual, not actual. First Cause is complete in himself.
And since he is complete in himself, the creation of fact (existence) that proceeds (proceeded) from him could even be said to merely be 'God expressing himself'. Yeah, I agree --wonky language-- but reality is that much beyond us.
1. My observation is that where the 'conclusion' of 'always existed' or 'infinite regress' is concerned, I doubt ALL intellectuals are administering 'belief preservation'.
You would first have to prove that all matter 'came into existence'. Can you do that without mere assertion? If not, then you must entertain the possibility that matter (may or may not) have always been.
I disagree. (If) a 'first cause' is somehow established, it would be naive to not explore the topic of 'external world skepticism.' You would then have to entertain an infinite number of 'causal forces', for which any human would run out of time addressing, during their lifetime.
My point is that it seems like you really like this subject, but it may have little cause as to why you actually believe?
Seems as though you have eluded to the fact that atheists know God exists, but choose to suppress, rebel, deny, other (ala) Romans 1:18-22?
Is it possible a god belief stems more from 'emotion', rather than 'reason'? By 'emotion', I mean "it just makes the most sense (to me)."
We need to first decipher if any plain of existence is real, outside a material realm?.?.?.?.?.?.?
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy... again. You do remember that you made a whole thread about how the difference between positive and negative claims is arbitrary don't you?No, that's a negative claim. If you are making the positive claim for more options, then the burden of proof is on you.
Ya know... The claim I've been trying to get you to prove for like five pages now...
lol No, you need to learn what a premise is.Please pay attention. The premises = The Big Bang
You don't know what it means for an argument to be "sound"? Really?!?!?!You keep making claims of "rules" that you yourself have no proof or evidence of.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy... again.
You do remember that you made a whole thread about how the difference between positive and negative claims is arbitrary don't you?
If you've got nothing to support your "nor can there be" then we can safely nix it from your argument if there's no reason to believe it's true.
lol No, you need to learn what a premise is.
You don't know what it means for an argument to be "sound"? Really?!?!?!
1. My observation is that where the 'conclusion' of 'always existed' or 'infinite regress' is concerned, I doubt ALL intellectuals are administering 'belief preservation'. I'm willing to bet some, whom argue for matter having always been, have intellectual reasons which may not even involve the 'protection' of an 'atheistic agenda'. Do you disagree? If so, are you saying such ways of thinking are always linked to support a bias of 'no first cause can be possible because then I would have to entertain a God idea"?
2. When you say 'mechanical fact', you will need to sight a source where 'mechanical fact' is "subject to principles from outside itself." And if you can achieve this, is it mere hypothesis, or, 'proven' in this narrow field of study?
You would first have to prove that all matter 'came into existence'. Can you do that without mere assertion? If not, then you must entertain the possibility that matter (may or may not) have always been.
I disagree. (If) a 'first cause' is somehow established, it would be naive to not explore the topic of 'external world skepticism.' You would then have to entertain an infinite number of 'causal forces', for which any human would run out of time addressing, during their lifetime.
Case/point, to touch on what you stated directly above... An agent could create a 'universe', which now adheres to such governing laws; without the continued necessity of oversight to assure these laws remain in place. Maybe this agent no longer exists, or is merely onto creating another universe and does not engage ours. I, just as you, could formulate quite a few scenarios, off the top of our heads, what the 'objective' of this creating force is, if any... Who's to say this/these agency(s) want to interact with us at all?
My point is that it seems like you really like this subject, but it may have little cause as to why you actually believe? Yes? If so, then we are not getting near the root of why you actually believe. We may instead want to talk about "not be by intellectual honesty ....pursuit of ungodliness". Which is to maybe say, a deliberate choice to rebel against an agent for which we all 'know' exists?
Seems as though you have eluded to the fact that atheists know God exists, but choose to suppress, rebel, deny, other (ala) Romans 1:18-22?
Are the reasons we all believe more intuition based, apprehension based, discernment based? Or, do many of us get there instead by posed intellectual arguments, (like this "first cause" argument)? I'd say more-so the former. I have yet to meet a passed atheist, whom became a believer due to the 'first cause' argument'? Have you?
Is it possible a god belief stems more from 'emotion', rather than 'reason'? By 'emotion', I mean "it just makes the most sense (to me)."
If so, maybe we need to shift gears in this discussion, rather than discussing a topic, for which is interesting, but is not THE reason either of us believes, or does not believe.
I think we are speaking passed each other here? I blame much of it on the fact we are now attempting to venture into speculation territory. We need to first decipher if any plain of existence is real, outside a material realm?.?.?.?.?.?.? And if so, what are it's characteristics? Seems as though, thus far, I'm entertaining unfounded assertions. Not just from you, but anyone, as we do not even know if this/these 'realm(s)' exists; let alone to investigate them.
What claim did I make? Use the quote feature.Nope. It's your claim.
Yeah. Do you not believe the article you posted?And you, an atheist, actually believe it?
So what?The "nor can there be" part makes it a negative claim.
I have no reason to correct anything that you've asserted without evidence.Your complete absence of any specific corrections implies you're faking it.
Another assertion without evidence, and this is a positive claim, so no weaseling out. You'll need to look up what it means for an argument to be sound in order to respond, though.The argument is logically sound.
What claim did I make? Use the quote feature.
Yeah. Do you not believe the article you posted?
So what?
I have no reason to correct anything that you've asserted without evidence.
Another assertion without evidence,
Retract what? What claim are you talking about? Quote me.Oh, if you're going to retract it, then no worries.
But you don't really take on the burden of proof, you shrug it off and try to shift it, so your statement "I accept the burden of proof" is false.I clearly stated, "I accept Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to. It's not a rule-in-itself. It's only necessary to determine who goes first in a debate; that's all."
What matters here is whether you believe it's a rule or not. Which atheists typically do. They can't stand to take on burden of proof.
Shifting the burden of proof again. You've asserted "nor can there be" without proof and without evidence. I asked for proof and all you've done is stall desperately.If you're going to contend with it, then you should bring a rational argument for other options instead of stalling so desperately.
Yes, you have. You've offered neither proof nor evidence for "nor can there be". That is established, and you repeating this falsehood doesn't reflect well on your integrity.I haven't asserted anything without evidence. You do know that proof is stronger than evidence, right?
Learn what soundness is. It ain't proof until you show that it's sound. The burden is on you to prove your argument is sound. If you don't have that burden to prove it, then I don't have a burden to refute it, and we can all just ignore your baseless claims that are justified by nothing.Soundness makes it proof.
"The Big Bang" is not a premise of your argument. Sheesh. Learn what a premise is. Your argument is not:There's nothing irrational about using the Big Bang as a premise.
Retract what? What claim are you talking about? Quote me.
But you don't really take on the burden of proof, you shrug it off and try to shift it, so your statement "I accept the burden of proof" is false.
Shifting the burden of proof again. You've asserted "nor can there be" without proof and without evidence.
Learn what soundness is. It ain't proof until you show that it's sound.
"The Big Bang" is not a premise of your argument. Sheesh. Learn what a premise is. Your argument is not:
p1 The Big Bang
p2 The Big Bang
p3 The Big Bang
c God
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?