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.
Note that the conclusion Antony Flew came to is not theism at all, but rather some form of weak deism....
No, "I don´t know" is the honest answer. I see how every explanation available gets us into logical problems.
Simply repeating this mantra doesn´t help supporting it.
Yes, calling something atemporal and eternal is the ultimate cop-out. Aka The god of the gaps.
Besides, I would like to see explained how something eternal is caused. What caused your god´s existence?
Deism is not a form of Theism at all!! Theism supposes that an active God continues to supervise and intervene in the Universe, and reveals itself through revelation, rewards prayer, etc.... Deism denies all of that, accepting only that God created the Universe but then abandoned it, does not intervene in it, no revelations, no answers to prayers.... Flew is quite explicit about only needing God to explain the origin (I'll grant he's never said he's a PanDeist, but where else does God go when God abandons the Universe? Into being the Universe itself, it's the only logical route!!)Which is a form of theism!! Even he admits this. And he's not a pan-deist.
Deism is not a form of Theism at all!!
Theism supposes that an active God continues to supervise and intervene in the Universe, and reveals itself through revelation, rewards prayer, etc.... Deism denies all of that, accepting only that God created the Universe but then abandoned it, does not intervene in it, no revelations, no answers to prayers.... Flew is quite explicit about only needing God to explain the origin (I'll grant he's never said he's a PanDeist, but where else does God go when God abandons the Universe? Into being the Universe itself, it's the only logical route!!)
A PanDeist is a kind of Deist -- and, like any Deist, a PanDeist believes that God does not intervene in the Universe.... PanDeism is not the belief that God created itself (don't know where you got that notion) it is the idea that God created the Universe out of itself, and that after becoming the Universe, nothing was left of God that was not part of the Universe.... so, yes, PanDeism is a hard Deism, for God cannot intervene in the Universe.... indeed, having the ability to intervene would spoil the only logical purpose of God existing as the Universe, which is to experience existence as a Universe operating without continuing guidance!!Oh boy, here we go.
Deism is a subcategory of theism. No one denies this. I'm not sure why you are. It's actually pan-deism that makes no sense at all. Technically it is the belief that God created himself.Unless of course you believe the universe is eternal (which science denies). Very strange belief.
Just out of curiosity, are you a hard deist or soft one? Do you believe God cannot intervene in His creation or that He simply chooses not to? Of course youre a pan-deist so this may not apply.
I don´t appreciate such misrepresentations. I said something completely different.IOW, since your worldview is obviously contradictory, they all must be. This is very typical of folks that believe in illogical things.
No, this is exactly the opposite of what I said. I said I don´t hold a view, because all views I am familiar with and can think or are illogical or simply giving "I don´t know" another name.Luckily you're supporting it for me. You've already admitted your view is illogical.
I don´t care where it comes from. As far as I know the "god of the gaps" concept is about replacing "I don´t know" by "goddidit". If it is about something else, feel free to fill me in.I gather from this you don't really understand what the "god of the gaps" concept is all about. You also are obviously not familiar with the Bible. The doctrine of God's atemporality comes directly from scripture.
Which makes them acausal - exactly that which you claimed they weren´t.Yikes. And I guess you don't understand what the concept of eternity is either. Eternal things don't require causes (in fact they necessarily don't have them). This is basic logic.
Or God could be self-causing via time travel....I don´t care where it comes from. As far as I know the "god of the gaps" concept is about replacing "I don´t know" by "goddidit". If it is about something else, feel free to fill me in.
Which makes them acausal - exactly that which you claimed they weren´t.
Now, claiming something to be eternal in order to evade the problem of causality is the easiest thing to do. E.g. we could call the universe eternal, and the problem would be "solved", too.
Yes, or time itself is god. Time is eternal, after all.Or God could be self-causing via time travel....
Now, claiming something to be eternal in order to evade the problem of causality is the easiest thing to do. E.g. we could call the universe eternal, and the problem would be "solved", too.
Yes, or time itself is god. Time is eternal, after all.
I didn´t say "temporal eternal".Wrong again. A temporal eternal universe suffers from the problem of infinite regression.
No, it doesn´t make any more sense than anything else that we simply claim to be atemporal eternal.The only thing that makes any logic sense is an atemporal eternal God.
And time having a beginning is precluded by logic as well, interestingly.The eternality of time is precluded by both logic and science, interestingly
And time having a beginning is precluded by logic as well, interestingly.
Again, that´s not what I said. I wonder what the reason is why you put words in my mouth in almost every single response.Really? This ought to be interesting. Please make your logical case for the necessity of time being eternal.
Again, that´s not what I said. I wonder what the reason is why you put words in my mouth in almost every single response.
I pointed out that both notions (time is eternal and time has a beginning) lead to logical problems.
It´s pretty simple, actually: "Before time" is a logical impossibility.
It is a statement of temporal sequence about something that - according to the claim - cannot be subject to such a consideration. Something that cannot be measured by time cannot precede something else.
Good. Unfortunately you said something else.That's what I thought you said.
Here:Where did I put words in your mouth?
Is a completely different thing than what I said and what you wanted me to support, but interesting.You're right. There is no temporal "before time." But there can be things logically prior to other things where time is not involved at all.
As far as I can see I haven´t even mentioned cause and effect in the statement you quoted. How the heck does changing the topic make my statement untrue?Not true at all. In fact causes cannot be temporally separated from their effects.
Undisputed, as long as you use "prior" as in "logically prior" and not as in "temporally prior", which is a completely different meaning. Please make sure you don´t equivocate.Only logic can determine which is prior (or causal).
Not necessarily. In order for constituting a "logical prior" nothing needs to happen at all, to begin with.The two actually happen simultaneously.
Now, you are jumping to and fro between three different, distinct topics: "temporal sequence" (which was what I made a statement about), logical priority and "cause and effect". This sounds confuse, at least it is confusing me.In fact you could have a debate over which was the cause and which was the effect.
This is a very special definition. Although you are free to work from this definition, make sure you don´t equivocate it with what common use of "cause and effect" signify. It has, e.g., nothing at all to do with what science calls "cause and effect".Technically, only a free self-determining agent could be a true cause.
I try to avoid "freewill" discussions, though not always successfully. I have yet to see a consistent concept attached to this term. In fact "freewill" is already a contradiction in terms, and it is a logical impossibility. But that´s a completely nother topic.This would kind of tie into my other thread on freewill.
Agreed. Has not been my claim, though.But causes don't require, indeed never have, a time gap between them and their effect.
"Cause and effect" in the way you use them are logical conjunctions, concepts. They don´t "occur" at all.The two occur at the exact same moment.
True, if you talk about god as an abstract logical concept, an idea.So God would not need to temporally precede the universe. He would merely need to logically precede it.
Wrong again. A temporal eternal universe suffers from the problem of infinite regression. The only thing that makes any logic sense is an atemporal eternal God. Hey just like the one the Bible describes. Interesting, huh?
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?