If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out...

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

This post is in regard to God's omniscience and free will. If you know the ending of a movie before you watch it, does that mean you cause the ending to occur? Could there have not been another ending for the movie, or would you have simply known that ending instead? In what way does knowledge of anything physically force action? The idea that God's knowledge negates freewill is based on the assuption that God's omniscience is enforced by action to make the predicted true. It also is grounded in the idea that God moves through time linearly like we do. If God simply experiances all of time simltaniuosly, then it would make more sense for him to know your free choice.
I'm terrible at getting points across online, so I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense.

 

[Kix]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

If we assume that God knows the future, although I'm free to choose whatever I want at any time, I change the future he has foreseen every time I change my mind. This wouldn't be omniscience anymore because all he'd know is an infinite number of possible outcomes.

We're assuming that God knows what your choice will be. Therefore if you had A and B it could only be A or B. If God knows you will freely choose A, it follows that you shall choose A, but you were to choose B then God would know that you were going to freely choose B. All that follows is that with your choice you are going to make one and it shall be the one that God predicted, but this is because this is what you will freely choose.

If you want to refute this, you have to argue that he knows in advance I will change my mind and freely choose option X, leading to the one and only future he had foreseen.
The problem is, he knows in advance what I will do, and as you said he can't know both at the same time. Suddenly I don't have a choice anymore, without proving God's vision wrong.

Change your mind? I'm just saying that out of your ability to choose one of them, you will choose one, right? From your view when you choose one you disallow the other, but that will happen in the future if it hasn't happened yet. God just knows the conclusion of your choice so the choice itself will occur and pick one, and the one you pick God will have known. There just is no constraint there, because obviously if the conclusion is to be known then it will be A or not A. Not both at once.

Either God's vision is based on our decisions, in which case we are constantly altering the future he has foreseen, or our decisions are based on the future he has foreseen, in which case we don't have a choice.
I don't see another possibility.

The possibility that you are missing is that you will freely choose something and that God knows that choice, but that you still choose it. It's still not logically inconsistent unless some force enters in making you make that choice without your will or that God's foreknowledge actually just makes you make the decision because God knows it. What we're saying is neither of them. We're saying that God knows what you will choose to do. Not God knows what you will be forced to do because God knows it.

You choice is logically prior to God's foreknowledge, but God's foreknowledge is chronologically before your choice. The knowledge is contingent on what you will choose, but the question isn't if they are logically inconsistent, but how God knows it which is just a different topic.
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======

This post is in regard to God's omniscience and free will. If you know the ending of a movie before you watch it, does that mean you cause the ending to occur? Could there have not been another ending for the movie, or would you have simply known that ending instead? In what way does knowledge of anything physically force action? The idea that God's knowledge negates freewill is based on the assuption that God's omniscience is enforced by action to make the predicted true. It also is grounded in the idea that God moves through time linearly like we do. If God simply experiances all of time simltaniuosly, then it would make more sense for him to know your free choice.
I'm terrible at getting points across online, so I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense.

Right, I think that there are different ways people use in attempt to explain God's omniscience and time such as Molinism, but what we're talking about assumes both omniscience and free will could exist to see if they are logically compatible, not how omniscience works.

We're assuming that our free will is causally indeterminate, so the contingency of God's propositions about the future rests on what you freely choose. How does the knowledge itself make it fated to occur? Just because it is known?

 

[Gegliosch]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

If you know the ending of a movie before you watch it, does that mean you cause the ending to occur? Could there have not been another ending for the movie, or would you have simply known that ending instead?

In your example the movie has been made before I make my predictions about it's ending. To be able to compare it to our omniscience problem you'd have to ask: If you know the ending of a movie before it is made, does that mean you cause the ending to occur?
In this case the ending just has to be the way I predicted it or I'm wrong.

Of course you have to assume, that the predicting person experiences time the same way as everybody else, as you stated correctly.

If God simply experiances all of time simltaniuosly, then it would make more sense for him to know your free choice.

This is the only way I can see omniscience and free will fit together and this is also what I meant by

If god knows the outcome of all this right now, at this moment in time, there are only 2 logical conclusions:

1. My choice is predetermined by his omniscience.
2. God doesn't experience time and exists in the presence with his knowledge from the furtherst possible time in the future, if that makes any sense.

Maybe the word conclusion is misleading. I didn't mean both options could be true at the same time, it's either one or the other. If free will exists, god can't be omniscient and experience time as we do simultaneously.

You choice is logically prior to God's foreknowledge, but God's foreknowledge is chronologically before your choice.

This is exactly what I'm trying to argue against with my poor english :D
If somebody predicts an action in the future and neither can he be wrong nor is the action in any way forced by this, the prediction can not have been chronologically made prior to the action. It is only possible if God exists in the future at the same time and therefore already saw it, in which case the prediction is no longer chronologically prior to the action.

but what we're talking about assumes both omniscience and free will could exist to see if they are logically compatible, not how omniscience works.

The result of my theory is a mixture of both. Omniscience and free will are indeed logically compatible, but only if God doesn't experience time as we do. These three options are logically related and if we were certain about two of them, the third could be determined as a result. Of course this isn't worth anything when nothing about God or fate will ever be known for sure, but I still like thinking about this stuff and that's what this thread is about.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Whoa, sorry for the delayed response. I got swamped with a ton of stuff to do yesterday, and I could only mess with this when I had some down time.

Your choices are not removed! You merely make a decision and God knows it, whether is be A, B, C, D, etc. Since if you can pick a certain thing in a given situation, God simply knows that choice. Obviously if you were to choose A, you cannot choose both A and not A at the same time. So because God accurately predicts what you shall pick, it does not mean you couldn't have chosen B, just that you did not, or shall not. If an infallible barometer were to exist, the weather isn't in anyway forced to be that way, just is accurately known beforehand.

What you are saying does not follow. God's understanding of the future could include our choices just that God knows will happen. They do not happen because God knows them, so what I was saying is that you were placing an utterly mysterious constraint because God's foreknowledge of a choice does not make it any less of a choice. One last thing is that when I say God's knowledge would have been different if you were to pick B instead of A, that doesn't mean that he would change his mind but just that his knowledge would have been different in the first place.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you know that I am omniscient, and that I am willing to offer you a choice. We have items A and B, though you are only allowed to choose one. Before you pick, I let you know that I am omniscient, and that you will pick A (assuming I am not lying/double bluffing). Because of my omniscience, if you then decide to pick B, you will have proved that I am not omniscient. However, if we assume I am, and have told you that you will, eventually, pick A, I have stripped all options to pick B.

Basically, you would be under a paradox to show that I am either not omniscient, or that you have no free will to pick B.

Well this is something that I'm currently studying that is really complicated on how God exists outside of time and perhaps stepped into time to relate to what he created. Either way what you were thinking doesn't actually follow although it does seem to make sense at first.

I was under the impression God could not cause anything if he was outside of time and space? Does causality not require time?

Also, "stepped into" time?

"Consideration" was not the best word, but it would have been better said "God knows". I don't know how God's knowledge would be arbitrary, but I also don't think you would be able to fully understand it, especially based on the limits we experience. This does not keep God from being the best explanation.

If all of God's knowledge/morality stems from his nature, what is keeping his nature from being something completely arbitrary? As in, God has the same odds of being a sadistic prick as an omnibenevolent deity. The mere fact that God is supposed to be infinitely complex and powerful prevents him from being viable due to Occam's Razor. The odds that the Universe popped into existence (which I don't even necessarily agree with) has less complex entities to entertain to be viable than an all powerful being.

I was about to delve into Christian morality, but I'll attempt to keep this a theism vs. agnostic/atheism conversation.

God has no "objective moral code" which if it did exist would be arbitrary. This leads us back to the good old Euthyphro argument and is easily gotten through by saying that what God gives as moral dictates come from God's necessary nature. This makes sense specifically for what the Christian God is supposed to be, but I don't want to get sidetrack on Christian particularism at this point.

For anyone reading, the Euthyphro argument is summed up by Socrates asking, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Which can be translated to "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Again, if God had dictated that rape and murder were cherished actions, and joy and love were vices, it would be as such, if we consider everything stems from his nature. This gives us the idea that even if his morals are not arbitrary (which they seem to be), God's nature is arbitrary and we are unable to ascertain anything different. It allows scenarios for God to be malevolent.

Well the point is that you yourself will choose what you are going to choose and that God knows it. If you choose the other choice then it is just "God knows that Felix will freely choose B" absolutely.

Went over this with the above analogy.

-snip- Dawkin's Argument

I'll leave that alone for now, and attempt to return to it later.

"Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang" seems to tell me that they do not think it existed in another form. When you say that we do not know if it is a potential infinite, that would seem to infer that it still had a finite past and thus a beginning.

I would point to the circular causality argument, and I'll tackle your objections in a second. As far as my understanding goes, the potential infinite does not need an "absolute" beginning. There is Melissos an admiral's argument (based in part on Cantor's ideas), that states that "If something exists it is eternal because nothing can be produced from nothing", though I believe Brouwer and Wittgenstein wrote refutations to his particular strand of logic.

Why would God need to begin to exist? Time doesn't exist prior to the Big Bang, so how God exists would be something entirely 'other'. The universe began to exist, based on the classic example of God, God did not begin to exist so it doesn't complicate things further. At any rate the Kalam argument is a deductive argument. The conclusion follows from the premises necessarily if they are true.

Again, the Universe as we understand it today began to exist.

The Kalaam is not necessarily true, as it states in Premise 1 that everything finite and contingent has a cause, when there are several examples of things without a first cause, such as Brownian Motion. It then follows that there may have been no inherent first cause for the Universe, though this would not outright disprove a God (at least in a deistic sense).

I don't see how this avoids an absolute beginning, is that what this is supposed to do? It seems like, even though I don't fully understand what it is totally getting at, that it still works within time. If the particle did not exist prior to the singularity then there is nothing to go back to.

Inflationary models don't seem to avoid an absolute beginning either. Vilenkin admits this even though he is for multiverse which uses inflationary models. So the problem is that none of these avoids the beginning, but multiverse attempts to explain fine tuning.

Can you expound your thoughts beyond "I don't understand this"? I don't mean to be rude, but that is all I'm getting across in this message. Circular causality does not have to explain a beginning, though it does have to tackle the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which I believe to be a fallacious concept.

It isn't ironic that Craig uses experience for his arguments? Since when did he or other theologians deny their existence?

That is not what I was expressing at all. My comment was merely to state that I did not believe Craig to be a fundamentalist, nor did I think they denied their own existence.

It certainly doesn't make sense to deny P1, unless you are an inconsistent atheist.

Excuse me? I have already made the contention that P1 is false primarily because we do know that there are things without a first cause, and that it commits a fallacy of composition. It isn't being inconsistent at all.

What?

I originally said, "P1 also commits the fallacy of stating that a set of things inherits the characteristics of the individual parts thereof."

This can be translated to, "The set of a group of things does not necessarily inherit the traits or attributes of the existents it contains."

I believe the reasoning for that is very clear.

The reason why it isn't fallacious is because the same reason applies to both.

Ah, but I contend it is fallacious. It assumes that because the existents within the set are caused, then the set itself is caused. This is just as inherently false as assuming that because a car is composed of several light weight pieces, then the car will, overall, be lightweight.

There is a problem with this analogy. It isn't the nature of a classroom of students to be under 200 pounds, it has to do with human nature which allows for them to be more than that. That is why not all students would necessarily be under 200 pounds. There isn't a nature constraining them to it.

You are assuming that the Universe has a "nature" to be caused? What is your justifying principle, then?

He is talking about different natures entirely. I am talking about the nature of existence alone, which applies by logic to anything that exists and thus has a nature. When something does not exist and nothing puts it into existence, there is no nature for it to come into existence. This remains true for the turd spontaneously appearing in your room, the RE5 chainsaw guy and even the universe.

Nothing. Is. A. Fallacious. Concept.

The universe began to exist, it was not always there. The question is what best explains how the universe began to exist.

As I have said umpteen times, the Universe as we understand it began to exist. We do not know if it existed in a different fashion before the Big Bang.

Nothing is non-existence, simply put.

Have we ever observed nothing?

What is this guy going on about?

It's fairly simple. We have never truly perceived nothing to exist, so stating that there was originally "nothing" is likely a fallacious concept to begin with.

When the universe does not exist and begins to exist, it becomes something, but why?

I think I've addressed this entirely too many times to warrant another response to it. Basically, you are begging the question by presupposing a "creation", or that it did not always exist.

All this does is sidetrack the issue into "Why does God exists" when this argument is a very proof for God's existence! It doesn't even go anywhere or respond to the premises.

The Kalaam basically boils down to the cosmological argument, which has already been shown to be inherently flawed. The refutation explains, in detail, why certain premises are wrong and why it uses fallacious logic.

What is with this guy's logic? Who said that if something consisted of many of the same thing that it itself is one unit of the same thing of what it contains (multiples of what it is supposed to be a single unit of?) even though that makes no sense at all? Let's say there are three apples, who said that three apples is one apple? What does this even apply to? This guy needs to stop drinking. I don't even remember if he even mentioned the premises since that was such a trip.

That is not what the refutation presupposes at all. It deals with applying inherent characteristics from the individuals to the whole, not that plurality is flawed. You're attempting to bash a strawman right now.

You said give me something and I did. I also doubt refutations of TAG actually refute it given all of them that I have seen. I want to make sure you understand that it isn't a valid evidence for God's existence.

There is no refutation or argument that has no logical flaws, but Kant is an incredible philosopher, both credited with one of the best refutations to the TAG and the Ontological argument.

A chunk of the Kalaam refutation was my own work, so I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm trying not to answer anything presented.

It holds fine water as even the atheists will use multiverse theories to try to explain it away (showing that it does actually bother them). The problem is that they think they are applying to science when this isn't testable at all and it doesn't explain why we are in the position we are in. Also it does not avoid an absolute beginning as even people like Vilenkin state.

You don't need a multiverse to refute the fine tuned argument. We, over time, have adapted to exist in the form we have now. There is no evidence that the world was created specifically for us to exist in.

Your argument boils down to "If things were different, then things would be different", which is merely a tautology.

As for objective moral values, how do you explain them, and how are they not arbitrary and meaningful?

That depends. Are you asking how I explain my objective moral values, or God's moral values?

Easily because it either comes from physical necessity or it doesn't. From what I see is that cosmologists do not think that it comes from necessity. Even so, how does something without a nature just come out so well anyway? Considering how ridiculously small changes in pretty much anything would make us end up with a universe that is just helium or something, it cries out for explanation and that's why the attempt with multiverses was even brought up. What I find funny is that the fine tuning itself is not even debated by cosmologists, it's how it is best explained.

Fine tuning is still inherently flawed, and I'd love to see said cosmologists that agree with the concept. What they likely mean is that we are fine tuned to exist in the Universe, not the other way around, akin to the puddle concept.

This just shows a misunderstanding of what happens with the small changes. If the universe collapses back into a fireball we don't exist. If the universe exists only of helium and star formation never occurs we never exist in ANY form.

This is a common fine tuning misconception. No one says we are required to exist in our form, or even as forms we would acknowledge as life today.

You've delved right back into the tautology mentioned earlier.

Kh'thanks!

Mmkay?

Yet the deductive arguments don't matter even though the conclusion is unavoidable. Maybe the supernatural does have decent evidence but it just isn't what you like?

Now you're melding deductive/inductive arguments into empirical evidences, which are completely different things. Can you give me any empirical evidence that the supernatural exists?

I don't "ignore" things based on what I like or dislike. Seeking the truth, whatever it may be, comes before my own indiscretions or personal comfort.

Do properties come from nothingness?

Have we ever perceived nothing to exist? Have we ever seen nothing, to then conclude that there truly are no properties? I would contend that we have not, making it unlikely the "default" setting for the universe was nothing.

What kind of evidence do you need?

For starters, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps a prophecy from any number of religious texts that wasn't vague and was on a massive scale. Something akin to "In the continent that resides in the "lower left" hemisphere of the world, in quadrant X, there will be a massive earthquake followed by a hurricane, causing the deaths of X number of people".

Possibly God ascending from the Heavens and demonstrating his divinity by bending the natural laws that govern our world today. That could potentially be flawed, as he could merely be from the future. ""Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark.

If God existed as claimed, he could easily have made his existence much more obvious than it is today.

Is it unreasonable to believe that something that begins to exist has a cause?

Again, Brownian Motion, Casimir effect, and Quantum Mechanics (in relation to quarks) all show things coming into existence without a prior cause.

What about everything else? Is there any good reason for believing that atheism is true?

Atheism is merely a rejection of the postulation "God exists", unless you are part of strong atheism, which I do not claim to be. As there is little to no empirical evidences for the claim, and the fact that most inductive arguments fail, atheism (or agnosticism) is the logical choice to make.

If I denied the existence of pixies, would you make me give logical arguments against the existence of pixies? Wouldn't the fact that there is no evidence for these pixies be a refutation in itself? It is much like trying to disprove a negative.

More like non-being does not become being without a cause. It makes sense on a common-sense scale, as your friend admitted, that that which begins to exist has a cause. The question is if the universe could come out of nothing by nothing, which is logically invalid, then why doesn't anything and everything anywhere do the same? Why do you never suspect it? What property causes nothing to become something out of nothing?

Then you missed the part where it was posted that common sense is very often flawed. I've already argued that the concept of "nothing" is fallacious many, many times in this thread. I'm not repeating it again.

The claim is not that something must have a cause in order to exist, but that that which begins to exist needs a cause. It seems to me like you are just like most of atheists on the internet and don't even understand these things. Your reasoning is wrong-headed.

That was polite.

Also, we have shown that this is not the case (on causality), making your first premise inherently flawed.

? More like the laws of physics began.

There is no evidence to suggest there was a time where the laws of physics did not exist, but there is evidence to say that they were different in the far reaching past, as I've said before.

Wow I'm surprised you survived through this, I've seen the bad effects of migraines. (I've never actually had one myself)

To be honest, I'm surprised I finished writing that mini-dissertation myself. It gave me something to focus on, so I could think less about my headache.

You do not need to explain an explanation in order for it to be the best explanation. That is the case is science, archeology, you name it.

That's flawed on a number of levels. We ascertain which is the "best" explanation by explaining why it is the best explanation. You cannot possibly think to say that science would equally consider Creationism on the same playing field as Evolution without empirical basis "explaining" which comes out ahead.

I don't think there is a valid argument against omnipotence either.

(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore:
(4) God is not omnipotent.
(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Therefore:
(6) God does not exist.

The only way out is to argue that God is bound by logic, and thusly cannot create nor entertain paradoxes of himself. If we take that route, however, then we have problems with omniscience and omnipotence being compatible.

Does God have the omnipotence to change his omniscience? If he does, does he then show himself not to be omniscient?

Occam's Razor states not to multiply explanations past necessity, but it doesn't at all say not to explain something when it is necessary! This might be an argument for example against multiple gods or something.

Or a Triune God? *hintwinknudge*

In any case, there is no evidence that God is a logical necessity or an empirical one, which is why he is invalid when compared to Occam's Razor.

I hope you feel better man, migraines are a nightmare I'm sure! Get some rest.

Appreciate it.

The above is why I never get involved with religious threads online.

What, you don't want to type out a dissertation for the hell of it?

 

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Wouldn't a vacuum be an example of nothing? An empty space that amidst all of the matter quickly fills up.
Also is Brownian motion proven causeless or is it simply not understood?

 

[Kix]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you know that I am omniscient, and that I am willing to offer you a choice. We have items A and B, though you are only allowed to choose one. Before you pick, I let you know that I am omniscient, and that you will pick A (assuming I am not lying/double bluffing). Because of my omniscience, if you then decide to pick B, you will have proved that I am not omniscient. However, if we assume I am, and have told you that you will, eventually, pick A, I have stripped all options to pick B.

Basically, you would be under a paradox to show that I am either not omniscient, or that you have no free will to pick B.

Well in that case you would be lying if I pick B. If you know absolutely that I will choose A, then I shall choose A. There is still nothing actually constraining me from picking B. Nothing physical, and knowledge does not.

I was under the impression God could not cause anything if he was outside of time and space? Does causality not require time?

Also, "stepped into" time?

Why not? Not necessarily. Yes.

If all of God's knowledge/morality stems from his nature, what is keeping his nature from being something completely arbitrary? As in, God has the same odds of being a sadistic prick as an omnibenevolent deity. The mere fact that God is supposed to be infinitely complex and powerful prevents him from being viable due to Occam's Razor. The odds that the Universe popped into existence (which I don't even necessarily agree with) has less complex entities to entertain to be viable than an all powerful being.

I was about to delve into Christian morality, but I'll attempt to keep this a theism vs. agnostic/atheism conversation.

God's very existence is necessary and eternal, so it isn't arbitrary. If nothing else exists, God still exists. Do you honestly think that if a nature is necessary that we are multiplying the cause into more causes? The problem is that the universe is not going to pop into existence out of nothing because it isn't viable. I think that you notice the problem of the situation because you don't want to yourself believe that it began to exist. I think that's how obvious it really is to anyone.

For anyone reading, the Euthyphro argument is summed up by Socrates asking, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Which can be translated to "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Again, if God had dictated that rape and murder were cherished actions, and joy and love were vices, it would be as such, if we consider everything stems from his nature. This gives us the idea that even if his morals are not arbitrary (which they seem to be), God's nature is arbitrary and we are unable to ascertain anything different. It allows scenarios for God to be malevolent.

Well only if these were consistent with Gods nature. What morals are arbitrary are those from a naturalistic worldview. Good luck telling the psychopath or nazi germany they actually did anything wrong.

Why would God's nature be arbitrary if it were necessarily existent?

I would point to the circular causality argument, and I'll tackle your objections in a second. As far as my understanding goes, the potential infinite does not need an "absolute" beginning. There is Melissos an admiral's argument (based in part on Cantor's ideas), that states that "If something exists it is eternal because nothing can be produced from nothing", though I believe Brouwer and Wittgenstein wrote refutations to his particular strand of logic.

I don't see that circular causality is avoiding the beginning of the universe, or even that it takes it on. It's not like this is anything scientifically tested either. A potential infinite is not one that has an infinite past, because then it actually goes past infinity.

Again, the Universe as we understand it today began to exist.

Then currently it makes the most sense to believe in a personal creator.

The Kalaam is not necessarily true, as it states in Premise 1 that everything finite and contingent has a cause, when there are several examples of things without a first cause, such as Brownian Motion. It then follows that there may have been no inherent first cause for the Universe, though this would not outright disprove a God (at least in a deistic sense).

I think it is apparent that it is metaphysically true in any situation. Random motion of particles=thing that begins to exist without a cause? How does it follow that there is no inherent first cause of the universe? Is this because you brought up something that was not even the same as what we are talking about?

Can you expound your thoughts beyond "I don't understand this"? I don't mean to be rude, but that is all I'm getting across in this message. Circular causality does not have to explain a beginning, though it does have to tackle the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which I believe to be a fallacious concept.

I don't see why you are using it the way you are because it doesn't seem to do what you want it to. It isn't fallacious to ask why there is something rather than nothing when there was nothing in the first place.

That is not what I was expressing at all. My comment was merely to state that I did not believe Craig to be a fundamentalist, nor did I think they denied their own existence.

Excuse me? I have already made the contention that P1 is false primarily because we do know that there are things without a first cause, and that it commits a fallacy of composition. It isn't being inconsistent at all.

Even though you have not demonstrated this even though you think you did?

I originally said, "P1 also commits the fallacy of stating that a set of things inherits the characteristics of the individual parts thereof."

This can be translated to, "The set of a group of things does not necessarily inherit the traits or attributes of the existents it contains."

I believe the reasoning for that is very clear.

This doesn't have to do with traits other than identity. It is never a trait for something to come into being out of nothing uncaused because there is anyway in which it can be a property of something unless it were to actually have some sort of cause.

Ah, but I contend it is fallacious. It assumes that because the existents within the set are caused, then the set itself is caused. This is just as inherently false as assuming that because a car is composed of several light weight pieces, then the car will, overall, be lightweight.

You seem to think that this is a valid property and it seems to me are actually committing fallacy by assuming that nothingness has properties within something.

You are assuming that the Universe has a "nature" to be caused? What is your justifying principle, then?

Logic. Identity. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing has no nature to come into existence.

Nothing. Is. A. Fallacious. Concept.

So you contend that everything is a literal something? If not everything is a literal something (like your mental thoughts in a physical way), then some things do not have a nature and do not exist.

As I have said umpteen times, the Universe as we understand it began to exist. We do not know if it existed in a different fashion before the Big Bang.

What I have said umpteen times is that cosmology pretty much are in agreement about there being nothing before the Big Bang. Is Hawkings exaggerating just a bit?

Have we ever observed nothing?

Why do you insist on not making sense? Nothing has no properties or nature, you are trying to give it one.

It's fairly simple. We have never truly perceived nothing to exist, so stating that there was originally "nothing" is likely a fallacious concept to begin with.

If you abandon the law of identity and cease to be rational, I'll give you that. Then how is anything fallacious?

I think I've addressed this entirely too many times to warrant another response to it. Basically, you are begging the question by presupposing a "creation", or that it did not always exist.

The more I read from you the more clear it becomes that even you have a problem with it not existing, but you are swimming against the scientific community because I think that it is obvious to you.

That is not what the refutation presupposes at all. It deals with applying inherent characteristics from the individuals to the whole, not that plurality is flawed. You're attempting to bash a strawman right now.

It asks why the kids would not be under two hundred pounds when it isn't the nature of humans to be a specific weight like that. What I said about the apples just makes no sense, but his analogy isn't even talking about something the same at all as what we are talking about with the something that begins to exist has a cause.

There is no refutation or argument that has no logical flaws, but Kant is an incredible philosopher, both credited with one of the best refutations to the TAG and the Ontological argument.

How does he go about refuting it?

You don't need a multiverse to refute the fine tuned argument. We, over time, have adapted to exist in the form we have now. There is no evidence that the world was created specifically for us to exist in.

Your argument boils down to "If things were different, then things would be different", which is merely a tautology.

It WOULD seem that it makes sense that it was fine tuned for our creation when tiny differences in constants would cause something like the universe being entirely helium. Tell me how helium can be life? At all? We're within a infinitesimally small margin. There is no need to refute fine tuning as you don't understand. It is accepted that there is fine tuning, we're merely trying to explain it. Who is trying to refute it even though it is obvious to even the scientific community? Internet atheists because they think that fine tuning automatically is the word design?

That depends. Are you asking how I explain my objective moral values, or God's moral values?

How do you explain the existence of objective moral values? I explain God's as necessary with God's nature.

Fine tuning is still inherently flawed, and I'd love to see said cosmologists that agree with the concept. What they likely mean is that we are fine tuned to exist in the Universe, not the other way around, akin to the puddle concept.

What is meant by fine tuning is that the universe's constants were tuned within a very strict margin that allows things to work properly and eventually for life to even possibly evolve. These are highly specified conditions from the Big Bang. This isn't contested in the scientific community because of things like how I mentioned happen with very minor changes. I still think that you are thinking of the word "design".

The possibilities to explain it is that it is either due to how it has to be, chance, or design.

This is a common fine tuning misconception. No one says we are required to exist in our form, or even as forms we would acknowledge as life today.

You've delved right back into the tautology mentioned earlier.

We could exist in maybe a slightly different form, but when almost all of the other possibilities from small changes lead to something in which life cannot exist, we're talking about existing in ANY form. This is not my misconception, it is your's. Improbability is built upon improbability, and so on.

Now you're melding deductive/inductive arguments into empirical evidences, which are completely different things. Can you give me any empirical evidence that the supernatural exists?

I don't "ignore" things based on what I like or dislike. Seeking the truth, whatever it may be, comes before my own indiscretions or personal comfort.

It's good to know that you are seeking the truth! Why do deductive arguments not actually matter? Is it because you don't like the type of evidence when you don't have evidence for the truth of atheism?

Have we ever perceived nothing to exist? Have we ever seen nothing, to then conclude that there truly are no properties? I would contend that we have not, making it unlikely the "default" setting for the universe was nothing.

We don't observe that something cannot be A and not A at the same time, do we? Nothing exists to separate it from existence. You are throwing laws of logic out for some reason.

For starters, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps a prophecy from any number of religious texts that wasn't vague and was on a massive scale. Something akin to "In the continent that resides in the "lower left" hemisphere of the world, in quadrant X, there will be a massive earthquake followed by a hurricane, causing the deaths of X number of people".

Possibly God ascending from the Heavens and demonstrating his divinity by bending the natural laws that govern our world today. That could potentially be flawed, as he could merely be from the future. ""Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark.

If God existed as claimed, he could easily have made his existence much more obvious than it is today.

What kind of evidence to extraordinary claims need that make them coercive? What is needed in order to make them rational belief? The argument that God doesn't do what you want Him to do in order to believe in God's existence doesn't mean that there is not strong evidence that God does exist. I think that if you accept even what we are talking about it would appear as though God exists. Deductive arguments are just fine for rational belief.

Again, Brownian Motion, Casimir effect, and Quantum Mechanics (in relation to quarks) all show things coming into existence without a prior cause.

So nothing does not exist, yet they are coming into being? How inconsistent you are! They have been shown? Even though they don't do what you want them to do, they have been shown? Like taken and dissected and shown that there is no reason that they happen?

Atheism is merely a rejection of the postulation "God exists", unless you are part of strong atheism, which I do not claim to be. As there is little to no empirical evidences for the claim, and the fact that most inductive arguments fail, atheism (or agnosticism) is the logical choice to make.

If I denied the existence of pixies, would you make me give logical arguments against the existence of pixies? Wouldn't the fact that there is no evidence for these pixies be a refutation in itself? It is much like trying to disprove a negative.

The arguments are not failing right now, so what does that mean? Maybe I could give you good reasons why pixies did not exist, and that there were no good reasons for thinking they do exist. This isn't even the case with God. For instance there is no Santa Claus because there is no one living at the North Pole, no one flying around delivering presents on Christmas Eve.

There is no evidence to suggest there was a time where the laws of physics did not exist, but there is evidence to say that they were different in the far reaching past, as I've said before.

Except for the beginning of the universe. Can you tell me where physical laws exist without the matter, or without a universe?

That's flawed on a number of levels. We ascertain which is the "best" explanation by explaining why it is the best explanation. You cannot possibly think to say that science would equally consider Creationism on the same playing field as Evolution without empirical basis "explaining" which comes out ahead.

I'm not arguing or Creationism.

(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore:
(4) God is not omnipotent.
(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Therefore:
(6) God does not exist.

The only way out is to argue that God is bound by logic, and thusly cannot create nor entertain paradoxes of himself. If we take that route, however, then we have problems with omniscience and omnipotence being compatible.

There is an easy way out and it is to say that God's omnipotence does not mean God can do everything conceivable. Since logic would be a part of God's nature, God would not contradict His nature. This just means that God can do anything God wishes to do with no other constraining factor beyond his nature. We for example are constrained by things around us whereas God is free to do what God wants to do consistent with His necessary nature.

Or a Triune God? *hintwinknudge*

How does a Truine God multiply causes beyond necessity? It's a single entity.

In any case, there is no evidence that God is a logical necessity or an empirical one, which is why he is invalid when compared to Occam's Razor.

Unless nothing yields nothing because it can't do anything unless it were something.
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======

Wouldn't a vacuum be an example of nothing? An empty space that amidst all of the matter quickly fills up.
Also is Brownian motion proven causeless or is it simply not understood?

I don't think vacuum is nothing because it has properties through which things go through it and it is space.

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Wow, I actually read all this... and it wasn't even all that interesting. Best part of it:

Felix:

Kix:

Felix:

Exactly what I was thinking. Every choice I make leads to several other choices and it influences other people's choices as well. If god knows the outcome of all this right now, at this moment in time, there are only 2 logical conclusions:

1. My choice is predetermined by his omniscience.
2. God doesn't experience time and exists in the presence with his knowledge from the furtherst possible time in the future, if that makes any sense.

However, the second option is confusing. If somebody in the presence already saw what we're going to decide, do we still have a choice at this moment?
If we have, we are constantly changing God's knowledge. Sounds pretty powerful for his own creatures :D

God = Benjamin Button

 

[Gegliosch]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Too.. many... quotes........ uuaarrghhh...



You really made a contest out of this Oo

 

[Allyourbase]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I crunched some numbers and I'd have $13,432,023. Yeah...

 

[KingAce]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I believe the reason you guys are having problems with God's Omniscience characteristic, is because you forget that his also omnipresent.

Which goes back to my earlier statements.
My understanding is that the construct of this Universe other universes and omniverses...is type of energy.
And this energy gives form to all objectivity and subjectivity...from matter, physical energy and thought. In other words everything is composed of this energy. With this premise, omnipresent means everything is God.
So it would make sense for him to know the actions you can take and the actions you will take.
And if God is infinite, then he can't be effected by change and thus by time.

Secondly even without God in the discussion.
Free will doesn't exist, Felix. That idea correlates with randomness, something you hold on to...but will never prove because you're not omniscience. Everything is predetermined, especially our actions (this is consistent)...since they are driven by thoughts or our body...all these properties are parts of the Universal system. A system that runs on determinism; you cannot trick the Universe Felix.

You're argument was that God is an irrational explanation to Universe. You have failed to prove this. What you have succeeded in doing is stating the obvious, which is...God is not a satisfactory explanation to the universe for you, because you believe in free will.

Which takes us back to the usual end of these discussions...
People believe in what they want to believe...and you don't know enough to go about proving them wrong.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Well in that case you would be lying if I pick B. If you know absolutely that I will choose A, then I shall choose A. There is still nothing actually constraining me from picking B. Nothing physical, and knowledge does not.

Then you clearly missed the part where I said I am not lying. Explain how you could pick up B without denying my omniscience.

Why not? Not necessarily. Yes.

As far as I am aware, causality requires time. Can you name me an example of causality without time?

You need to explain the "stepped into" time a little better. Unless we delve back into logical incongruities and paradoxes, if God steps back "into" time he is then affected by it, and all arguments about him being "outside space and time" fall flat on their arse.

God's very existence is necessary and eternal, so it isn't arbitrary.

You have not shown he is necessary, and we were discussing his morality, not logical necessity. Have you shown that his morality is not completely arbitrary, or that he could just as easily be malevolent as he is benevolent? Who would you be to judge God if he decreed murder a cherished action?

If nothing else exists, God still exists.

So are you contending that God = nothing? Or he gets to dodge the bullet on having to be logically constrained like the rest of us?

Do you honestly think that if a nature is necessary that we are multiplying the cause into more causes?

What are you saying here? That things can't exist without a cause (they can) but God gets a free ride through logic town? God attempts to explain complexity with more complexity. How is that anything but multiplying causes with more causes?

The problem is that the universe is not going to pop into existence out of nothing because it isn't viable.

The next time I see the word "nothing", I think I may very well jump out my apartment window.

I think that you notice the problem of the situation because you don't want to yourself believe that it began to exist.

I think you are strawmanning existence into something that it is clearly not for your own benefit. I'd rather you didn't take potshots at my intellectual honesty without due cause, as I have already explained before that I believe what has been shown to be true, not that which we wish to be true.

I think that's how obvious it really is to anyone.

LOL

Saying "God did it" may be obvious, but it sure as hell doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Well only if these were consistent with Gods nature. What morals are arbitrary are those from a naturalistic worldview. Good luck telling the psychopath or nazi germany they actually did anything wrong.

Why would God's nature be arbitrary if it were necessarily existent?

Again, you would need to show how God's nature isn't completely arbitrary, via the Euthyphro argument. You can actually have an objective moral standard if you base it off of the fundamental right to live, from which all other rights stem from, but again, this isn't intended to be a conversation on modern morality.

I don't see that circular causality is avoiding the beginning of the universe, or even that it takes it on. It's not like this is anything scientifically tested either. A potential infinite is not one that has an infinite past, because then it actually goes past infinity.

Then I fear you don't understand what a potential infinite is. Circular causality rids the need for an original beginning, and we could always get into the mathematical proof for traversing an actual infinite distance in a finite period of time.

Then currently it makes the most sense to believe in a personal creator.

No, it really doesn't. We see snowflakes, and do not assume a snowflake making god. We see mountains, and do not assume a mountain making god. As God is not a logical necessity for the existence of the Universe, why would we assume there is a Universe making god?

I think it is apparent that it is metaphysically true in any situation. Random motion of particles=thing that begins to exist without a cause? How does it follow that there is no inherent first cause of the universe? Is this because you brought up something that was not even the same as what we are talking about?

You originally made the contention that, "Is it so hard to believe that everything that began to exist had a cause?". I then showed why I do not believe as such. This is exactly what we were talking about.

Brownian Motion show particle movement that began to exist without any prior cause behind it. Personal incredulity is not an argument against it.

I don't see why you are using it the way you are because it doesn't seem to do what you want it to. It isn't fallacious to ask why there is something rather than nothing when there was nothing in the first place.

/sigh

We have never, ever perceived nothing to exist. There is no evidence that the concept "nothing" is even logically valid. Why then, would you assume the default position of the Universe was originally "nothing"?

Even though you have not demonstrated this even though you think you did?

Considering that you didn't actually give a refutation to the composition fallacy you are attempting to bestow upon the Universe, yes, I believe I did demonstrate this. Should you wish to show how I am incorrect, then point out the errors in my logic, rather than making sweeping generalizations.

Kix]This doesn't have to do with traits other than identity. It is never a trait for something to come into being out of nothing uncaused because there is anyway in which it can be a property of something unless it were to actually have some sort of cause.

I refuse to respond to any comments that contain "nothing", unless you can show me an example of nothing, or how it logically makes sense that there was originally "nothing".

You seem to think that this is a valid property and it seems to me are actually committing fallacy by assuming that nothingness has properties within something.

Then by your own logic, you would contend I am invisible?

Premise 1 - Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
Premise 2 - Humans are made up of atoms.
Conclusion - Therefore, humans are invisible.

Unless you wish to endorse the composition fallacy, you have to give up that line of reasoning.

Logic. Identity. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing has no nature to come into existence.

Copy/pasted from above.

"I refuse to respond to any comments that contain "nothing", unless you can show me an example of nothing, or how it logically makes sense that there was originally "nothing"."

So you contend that everything is a literal something? If not everything is a literal something (like your mental thoughts in a physical way), then some things do not have a nature and do not exist.

Mental thoughts can be shown to have physical counterparts, or chemical reactions in the brain. As such, it does not follow to assume that things are poofed out of existence by your definition of of "nature".

What I have said umpteen times is that cosmology pretty much are in agreement about there being nothing before the Big Bang. Is Hawkings exaggerating just a bit?

Can you actually explain yourself, or am I going to get the same appeal to authority over and over again?

Why do you insist on not making sense? Nothing has no properties or nature, you are trying to give it one.

Not in the slightest. I originally asked if we had ever observed "nothing". We have not, so how can you contend what "nothing" is even defined as?

If you abandon the law of identity and cease to be rational, I'll give you that. Then how is anything fallacious?

I'm the one that's ceasing to be rational? You're the one that contends the Universe must have been a default state of nothing, with nothing more than an appeal to mostly unnamed cosmologists to assert such.

The more I read from you the more clear it becomes that even you have a problem with it not existing, but you are swimming against the scientific community because I think that it is obvious to you.

More potshots against my intellectual integrity. You sure know how to have a civil discussion, don't you? You are the one presupposing a creation, which goes against what we understand today with science, not me.

How does he go about refuting it?

You...you did read the entire last post, yes?

To sum it up, it commits a fallacy of composition by assuming that the set inherits the traits of the individual existents, and that as we have never perceived nothing to exist, it is unlikely that it was the "default" state of the Universe.

It WOULD seem that it makes sense that it was fine tuned for our creation when tiny differences in constants would cause something like the universe being entirely helium.

If that is the case, then why is the vast majority of the Universe incredibly hostile to us?

Tell me how helium can be life? At all?

More fluffy strawmen. I never contended that helium could be life, but that there would be a life form that we would be unlikely to understand today, as we have never "observed" what would only exist if the universal constants were different.

We're within a infinitesimally small margin. There is no need to refute fine tuning as you don't understand.

The irony is delicious.

It is accepted that there is fine tuning, we're merely trying to explain it. Who is trying to refute it even though it is obvious to even the scientific community? Internet atheists because they think that fine tuning automatically is the word design?

"It is accepted"? By whom? Your unnamed cosmologists, whose scientific papers backing this ludicrous statement you have yet to put forth? Your entire ploy here has been a mix between appealing to an invisible authority and bashing my integrity by deeming me an "internet atheist". Have I yet called you an "internet theist", or put words in your mouth, or attempting to lower your integrity as a whole by making blithe generalizations?

The irony is that your attempt to create this stereotype is that it is all mental projection.

How do you explain the existence of objective moral values? I explain God's as necessary with God's nature.

I would contend that you could base objective moral values on the right to live, from which all other rights stem from. I'm not really interested in explaining this at length, as it has little to do with the conversation at hand, but I'd be happy to PM it to you, should you be interested. Let me know.

What is meant by fine tuning is that the universe's constants were tuned within a very strict margin that allows things to work properly and eventually for life to even possibly evolve. These are highly specified conditions from the Big Bang. This isn't contested in the scientific community because of things like how I mentioned happen with very minor changes. I still think that you are thinking of the word "design".

Which is why fine tuning fails. The fact that most of the Universe is hostile makes the idea that the strong force was tuned to be ludicrous at best, nor to mention the fact that we would still find life should the constants be tweaked, even if we wouldn't currently recognize it as life today.

The possibilities to explain it is that it is either due to how it has to be, chance, or design.

If I flip a coin a thousand times, the odds of me guessing the exact outcome would be very slim. However, the chance that there would be an outcome of some kind is 100%. That is exactly how we can explain "chance" to how the Universe came about in the form that it did.

To do so otherwise is, again, merely repeating a tautology.

We could exist in maybe a slightly different form, but when almost all of the other possibilities from small changes lead to something in which life cannot exist, we're talking about existing in ANY form. This is not my misconception, it is your's. Improbability is built upon improbability, and so on.

See the above. I'm tired of explaining this.

It's good to know that you are seeking the truth! Why do deductive arguments not actually matter? Is it because you don't like the type of evidence when you don't have evidence for the truth of atheism?

I never claimed deductive arguments did not matter, I claimed that they have been thoroughly debunked and that you were melding empirical evidences with logical arguments for existence. I note that you still have not provided empirical evidence for existence of a God.

Again, is my position as a pixie denialist invalid because I have no argument against them, or because there is no evidence in the first place that they exist? By your logic, everyone that denies every supernatural or mythological construct is being "blinded" by their lack of arguments against unproven entities.

We don't observe that something cannot be A and not A at the same time, do we? Nothing exists to separate it from existence. You are throwing laws of logic out for some reason.

Again, I refuse to respond to comments regarding "nothing".

What kind of evidence to extraordinary claims need that make them coercive? What is needed in order to make them rational belief?

If we are discussing empirical evidences, then if you have a religion that has a Holy Book, there are easily ways to make prophecies that are incredibly specific to convince the future masses. The ability for God to touch our minds and make us know, without a shadow of a doubt that he existed, would also be enough evidence.

The argument that God doesn't do what you want Him to do in order to believe in God's existence doesn't mean that there is not strong evidence that God does exist.

I absolutely agree! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, that strand of logic goes no further than denying him 100% plausibility of existence. It does not grant him evidence anymore than the fact that I can't 100% disprove pixies gives them credibility.

I think that if you accept even what we are talking about it would appear as though God exists. Deductive arguments are just fine for rational belief.

Ever heard the phrase, "appearances can be deceiving"?

Again, if you could show me a deductive argument that hasn't been torn apart by Kant or Hume or thousands of others, I would entertain it. As it is, even Anselm's version of the Ontological argument has been showed to be flawed.

So nothing does not exist, yet they are coming into being? How inconsistent you are! They have been shown? Even though they don't do what you want them to do, they have been shown? Like taken and dissected and shown that there is no reason that they happen?

More comments about the word "nothing". Doesn't it get old after a while?

The arguments are not failing right now, so what does that mean? Maybe I could give you good reasons why pixies did not exist, and that there were no good reasons for thinking they do exist. This isn't even the case with God. For instance there is no Santa Claus because there is no one living at the North Pole, no one flying around delivering presents on Christmas Eve.

I'm beginning to think your confirmation bias has led you to avoid all refutations of the deductive arguments.

There may be no good reason for pixies to exist, but you cannot prove that they do not, no more than I can prove the nonexistence of a deity. As I cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, neither can you prove his existence.

I'm not arguing or Creationism.

I never said you were. I merely made the contention that claiming explanations could be "the best" without an explanation as to why they were the best was incredibly poor logic.

There is an easy way out and it is to say that God's omnipotence does not mean God can do everything conceivable. Since logic would be a part of God's nature, God would not contradict His nature. This just means that God can do anything God wishes to do with no other constraining factor beyond his nature. We for example are constrained by things around us whereas God is free to do what God wants to do consistent with His necessary nature.

I agree, hence my contention that the only way out was to either assume that God was bound by logic, or was above logic. If he was above logic, then deductive arguments are moot, as there would be no logical basis for his existence or nonexistence. If we contend that he is bound by logic, then we have the problems of omnipotence being incompatible with omniscience. Either God has the power to change his perfect knowledge, or he doesn't. Either way, it constrains God, even within his own nature and the realm of logic.

How does a Truine God multiply causes beyond necessity? It's a single entity.

Because it has three parts, which each require additional explanation for existence, making them less likely to exist than a "truly" monotheistic God who had no additional parts.

Unless nothing yields nothing because it can't do anything unless it were something.

Awww, did we have to end the post on another repetition of the concept of nothing?

Apologies if my message comes off as hostile, it's merely how I present my ideas while in a semi-debate (internet debates are serious fucking business).

Dizzynecro - As Kix pointed out, a vacuum is not actually "nothing", as it does have properties of space/volume.

God = Benjamin Button

[Offtopic]

Is that movie actually any good?

[/Offtopic]

Too.. many... quotes........ uuaarrghhh...



You really made a contest out of this Oo

Whoever can write more words wins!

Which takes us back to the usual end of these discussions...
People believe in what they want to believe...and you don't know enough to go about proving them wrong.

Where's my LOL smiley?

I never claimed to be capable of disproving God. I merely contended that there is not enough evidence, nor a valid deductive argument, for his existence. Nor was my claim that God was irrational, but that there is no apparently logical necessity for him to exist.

No, I am not a determinist, though soft-determinism isn't completely that far out there. There simply isn't any evidence that we are completely without control over our own actions.

 

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

As far as I am aware, causality requires time. Can you name me an example of causality without time?

I believe you have said in this thread that "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I believe the reason you guys are having problems with God's Omniscience characteristic, is because you forget that his also omnipresent.

Which goes back to my earlier statements.
My understanding is that the construct of this Universe other universes and omniverses...is type of energy.
And this energy gives form to all objectivity and subjectivity...from matter, physical energy and thought. In other words everything is composed of this energy. With this premise, omnipresent means everything is God.
So it would make sense for him to know the actions you can take and the actions you will take.
And if God is infinite, then he can't be effected by change and thus by time.

You're falling into the trap of redefining god to be something that is not remotely similar to the judeo-christian god. People can (and have) defined god in every conceivable notion from just a human being to the universe to something that simply created the universe to something that created everything and accepts prayers and has a plan (like a cylon).

For some of the other redefinitions of god, you can easily prove or disprove their existence. Emperor Hirohito existed and he was, by at least one definition that was believed by many, god.

But we're not discussing those "gods". We're discussing the proverbial old man in the sky that created life, the universe, and everything, punishes sinners and eats prayers for breakfast.

Secondly even without God in the discussion.
Free will doesn't exist, Felix. That idea correlates with randomness, something you hold on to...but will never prove because you're not omniscience. Everything is predetermined, especially our actions (this is consistent)...since they are driven by thoughts or our body...all these properties are parts of the Universal system. A system that runs on determinism; you cannot trick the Universe Felix.

Your ideas of freewill are very newtonian in that it was believed if you had the knowledge and processing power to know the initial states of the universe, you could perfectly tell the future. But no one really believes that anymore for various reasons.

You're argument was that God is an irrational explanation to Universe. You have failed to prove this. What you have succeeded in doing is stating the obvious, which is...God is not a satisfactory explanation to the universe for you, because you believe in free will.

God IS an irrational explanation to the Universe in that he defies his own reason for being. If the Universe requires a creator, and that creator is a god, then who or what created that god? If nothing did, then that god is an irrational explanation, simple as that. If you argue that you don't know who created that god, but that god did have a creator, then why place a god as the creator of the universe in the first place? That would just add another layer of complexity that's completely unneeded and has absolutely no evidence for.

Which takes us back to the usual end of these discussions...
People believe in what they want to believe...and you don't know enough to go about proving them wrong.

People can always believe what they want to believe, but that doesn't change the truth of the belief. A perfect, recent example is Bishop Richard Williamson, who strongly believes that the holocaust did not happen, and that less than 300,000 Jews were killed, when in reality the Nazis killed 6 million. He can go around believing what he wants - that's his right as a human. But acting on those beliefs may be highly frowned upon or punished because of their factual errors. In general, society has grown out of that phase and into a "live and let live" one, but a lot of people would like to go back to the time where we could kick out those who don't follow our own personal beliefs and even punish or imprison them. These people could be homosexuals, athiests, non-Christians, immigrants, non-Caucasians, or any number of other traits used to discriminate against another person. I don't want to see a society like that, so if you practice a crazy religion, do whatever the hell you want to do as long as you don't impose it on anyone but yourself, including other believers of the same faith.






Oh, and Godwin's Law.
/thread

 

[Kix]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I'm only responding to this post now because it is not very long.

But we're not discussing those "gods". We're discussing the proverbial old man in the sky that created life, the universe, and everything, punishes sinners and eats prayers for breakfast.

Proverbial old man? You mean a non-physical entity from which we can know right and wrong, which you would probably agree does exist from your moral experience? Old man in the sky is merely some incorrect characterture.

Your ideas of freewill are very newtonian in that it was believed if you had the knowledge and processing power to know the initial states of the universe, you could perfectly tell the future. But no one really believes that anymore for various reasons.

Yeah I don't see any good reason to adapt fatalism, where the universe is deterministic.

God IS an irrational explanation to the Universe in that he defies his own reason for being. If the Universe requires a creator, and that creator is a god, then who or what created that god? If nothing did, then that god is an irrational explanation, simple as that. If you argue that you don't know who created that god, but that god did have a creator, then why place a god as the creator of the universe in the first place? That would just add another layer of complexity that's completely unneeded and has absolutely no evidence for.

You're wrong about this. You are making the mistake of saying that something cannot exist unless it is caused, but I don't see any reason to think that something could not be eternal.This only applies if something begins to exist.

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Proverbial old man? You mean a non-physical entity from which we can know right and wrong, which you would probably agree does exist from your moral experience? Old man in the sky is merely some incorrect characterture.

It was all tongue in cheek, sorry you didn't get that. But no, I do not agree he exists from my moral experience, not in the slightest. I do not derive my morals or life choices from the Bible, Qu'ran, or Torah. But that's a totally different discussion than what I was on about that I don't want to get sidetracked with.

You're wrong about this. You are making the mistake of saying that something cannot exist unless it is caused, but I don't see any reason to think that something could not be eternal.This only applies if something begins to exist.

That's the assumption because if something can exist without being caused, then the universe can exist without being caused, thus god does not need to enter the picture at all and the debate is over. You have to make that assumption for the discussion to go anywhere. Basically it's a lose-lose situation unless you decide that god does not apply to any laws of logic or reason (he's outside of the universe, etc)... thus is irrational, which is the entire point of the paragraph you quoted.

And what does being eternal have anything to do with what I was saying? I think that the current universe is probably eternal. But that doesn't change what I wrote earlier in the slightest.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I believe you have said in this thread that "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Indeed I did! I agree that merely because there is no evidence for it does not mean there will never be evidence for it. However, if you read the very next sentence that followed, I noted that all it does it prevent me from 100% "disproving" the notion. It does not give it any additional credibility, and as it currently has no evidence in its favor, it is extremely unlikely.

I'm only responding to this post now because it is not very long.

Take your time.

But that's a totally different discussion than what I was on about that I don't want to get sidetracked with.

I keep having that temptation as well, but to argue against moral relativism and for Humanism (as I want to do in the other God thread). I refrain from doing so for sake of not sidetracking the conversation, but the temptation is still there ;)

 

[JetSetDizzy]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

I don't think vacuum is nothing because it has properties through which things go through it and it is space.

Isn't it just an absence of matter? The only reason things are pulled towards it is because of the natural tendency for things to move from high to low concentration.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Isn't it just an absence of matter? The only reason things are pulled towards it is because of the natural tendency for things to move from high to low concentration.

The question was, "Isn't a vacuum nothing?" As the vacuum has the ability to be a medium, and also a certain size and space, I would contend that those are properties of something, not nothing.

 

[BifordusMaximus]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

God is the Universe. The universe is creation itself. *Takes another puff*
Think about it.

 

[Manta]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

God is the Universe. The universe is creation itself. *Takes another puff*
Think about it.

*shrugs*

Yup, it's true ~ God 'done it.


-Manta-