This is why I think God exists.

raah! · 25-08-2010 03:43AM

I'll agree on you this much, I said "not a thing in the sense that things are things" in that way because I like how it rolls off the anus.

But it was also a legitimate criticism of peoples interpretation of the argument, which is running through this thread, and seen in the very first post. He Gives his reasons why certain things can self cause and others can't, and the first reply is "why can't [things which op just said can't self cause for his cited reasons] be first causes".

strobe · 25-08-2010 03:48AM

raah! wrote: »

I'll agree on you this much, I said "not a thing in the sense that things are things" in that way because I like how it rolls off the anus.

But it was also a legitimate criticism of peoples interpretation of the argument, which is running through this thread, and seen in the very first post. He Gives his reasons why certain things can self cause and others can't, and the first reply is "why can't [things which op just said can't self cause for his cited reasons] be first causes".

I agree with the point you were trying to make, just not in how you tried to make it. It's my own neurosis in that regard. I constantly see these things(conversations) devolve into word games. I think it ruins interesting discussions. Also like I said, it was addressed at other points in the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 07:10AM

use logic please wrote: »

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.

We do not know this "must" is true at all I am afraid, it is wholly your assumption. The funny thing however is that you are almost realising this when you say:

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters

This is exactly the problem. Your imaginary "must" is based on linear time based thought. The entire basis for you thinking it "must" be this way is because you are thinking in temporal terms, which as you say is almost impossible for humans NOT to do.

However time itself was created when the universe took on its current form. So "before" this point your thinking does not apply and there is no such "must" as you describe it. The whole requirement for x1 to create x2 to create x3 simply does not apply at this point because the linear claim your problem is based on is temporal based and time was not an attribute at this point.

So if this is the only reason you have for thinking there is a god entity, you are on seriously weak footing from the outset.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 07:17AM

PDN wrote: »

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

Well given you have not even attempted to establish the first iota of a reason to lend credence to the idea that the entity in question exists, it is hardly an onus on us to worry about what said entity did or did not do is it?

It makes about as much sense, really, as closing a door on an empty room, and then wondering what the tall man in that room likes for his breakfast of a Sunday morning.

Try presenting the first reason to even thing the entity exists, then we can start discussions about what its actions may or may not be.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 07:22AM

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time.

The problem being that his entire opening “argument” is linear time based. So what his “argument” has got to do with something he is postulating which is outside time… I do not know, nor is it becoming any clearer in proportion to the length of this thread.

If you want to postulate an imaginary entity existing outside time, then that is great. However the first thing to do is realise that temporal arguments and temporal logic simply do not apply to it, so using them is a little unusual.

PDN · 25-08-2010 07:28AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well given you have not even attempted to establish the first iota of a reason to lend credence to the idea that the entity in question exists, it is hardly an onus on us to worry about what said entity did or did not do is it?

It makes about as much sense, really, as closing a door on an empty room, and then wondering what the tall man in that room likes for his breakfast of a Sunday morning.

Try presenting the first reason to even thing the entity exists, then we can start discussions about what its actions may or may not be.

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Max Power1 · 25-08-2010 07:50AM

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

With regard to #2, "god did it", "he did it because he is omnipotent" and the ilk, are not politely and helpfully answering the question. They are blindly expressing one belief, without any logic or proof to back it up.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 08:01AM

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

Another generalisation? They appear to be your forte.

However, if you want to prove the generalisation true, I heartily recommend you focus on your point 4. You exiting this forum is not something I expect to see happen any time soon and I reckon you will be back sooner rather than later. So have fun proving your own generalisation wrong by single handedly destroying point 4.

pH · 25-08-2010 08:26AM

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

Well argument may well be too strong a word for the OP, it appears to start with some logic about things having causes, then halfway through God is defined as the creator of the universe, argument through axiom if you like.

A) God is the creator of the Universe.

Therefore

God is the creator of the universe.

Langerland · 25-08-2010 08:36AM

This is an age old argument and extremely interesting to both observe and participate in. To be a devout believer in God or an absolute atheist takes a huge amount of blind faith on both counts. To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap. Even at the cutting edge of theoretical physics, we are merely scratching the surface of our full understanding on the universe and beyond. Which means to a large extent can only hypothesize about the truth. To prove things either way from within the current confines of our understanding is practically impossible. Of course, as humans, we find this extremely frustrating (well at least I do) as we crave understanding. To those with the blind faith in both camps, I wish I could have your same confidence in your beliefs with my own limited intellect.

MagicMarker · 25-08-2010 08:39AM

raah! wrote: »

Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.

A HA! So something CAN come from nothing after all!!

Ergo, God doesn't exist.

sellerbarry · 25-08-2010 08:41AM

Why most people base their beliefs on an old book (any old joe could have written) is beyond me anyway.:rolleyes:

The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 08:48AM

Langerland wrote: »

To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap.

Nope. Saying we can’t is the leap. Just because there are things we do not understand now does not mean we never will know them and there is nothing to base an assumption on that we can or never will know them.

Our history is punctuated all too often with people claiming something will never be understood, only to have us see it explained later.

You are on safe enough ground to point out things we do not understand now, but to claim that we are therefore incapable of EVER understanding them is wholly an assumption.

I can not see the future and I warrant you can not either. So it is not useful to pretend one can, and make such claims about what we can or will know in the future that we do not now know.

Langerland wrote: »

To prove things either way from within the current confines of our understanding is practically impossible.

Maybe, but this does not change the fact that the problem with the god hypothesis is not that it is not proven, but that it lacks ANY arguments, data, evidence OR reasons to lend it even basic credence.

There is a massive difference between something being unproven and something being entirely devoid of valid evidence or arguments. The problem with the god hypothesis is that it is the latter, not that it is the former.

I, and most people here, do not go around saying "You have to prove god". We go around saying "Have you got any arguments, data, evidence or reasons to lend any credence what soever to the notion that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe???"

Thus far, in 20 years of me asking, searching, reading and researching... I have not been given anything to answer this.

Sam Vimes · 25-08-2010 09:06AM

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

So there "must" be something to which the normal rules of the universe as we understand them do not apply, making it not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. Let's make this shaky assumption for the moment. Now why must this "something" be a god, with all of the connotations that word brings?

philologos · 25-08-2010 09:14AM

Max Power1 wrote: »

Isnt the religious view that god DID create himself and from that point create the universe in seven days?

Christians believe God is eternal, and wasn't created.

Sam Vimes · 25-08-2010 09:18AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians believe God is eternal, and wasn't created.

tell this guy
|
|
|
V

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say anything created itself. I said that God may have "created itself", I don't know.

Langerland · 25-08-2010 09:42AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. Saying we can’t is the leap. Just because there are things we do not understand now does not mean we never will know them and there is nothing to base an assumption on that we can or never will know them.

Our history is punctuated all too often with people claiming something will never be understood, only to have us see it explained later.

You are on safe enough ground to point out things we do not understand now, but to claim that we are therefore incapable of EVER understanding them is wholly an assumption.

I can not see the future and I warrant you can not either. So it is not useful to pretend one can, and make such claims about what we can or will know in the future that we do not now know.

Maybe, but this does not change the fact that the problem with the god hypothesis is not that it is not proven, but that it lacks ANY arguments, data, evidence OR reasons to lend it even basic credence.

There is a massive difference between something being unproven and something being entirely devoid of valid evidence or arguments. The problem with the god hypothesis is that it is the latter, not that it is the former.

I, and most people here, do not go around saying "You have to prove god". We go around saying "Have you got any arguments, data, evidence or reasons to lend any credence what soever to the notion that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe???"

Thus far, in 20 years of me asking, searching, reading and researching... I have not been given anything to answer this.

Thank you for your reply. I am not discounting or disputing the fact that in the future, we may have evolved to have an intellectual capability to understand the wholeness of the universe and beyond and also prove or disprove things such as deities. However, for the moment I propose it is a matter of perspective and the proof (be that data, evidence or reasons) that some people require to believe in God (or not) differs in relation to that perspective. Many people believe in God purely because of the bible. For others, it is possibly the beauty of life. For more still it is the mysteries and miracle of life. For example, didn't Francis Crick say ""What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle". To many that would be enough data/reason/proof. Unfortunately for me it is not proof to accept or deny the existence of God. It is simply more unknowns.

Dades · 25-08-2010 09:52AM

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

As do your own interjections.

You really are quite adept at misrepresenting the nature of a thread - and at closing your eyes to the inadequacies of the answers provided to the questions asked.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-08-2010 09:57AM

Langerland wrote: »

I am not discounting or disputing the fact that in the future, we may have evolved to have an intellectual capability to understand the wholeness of the universe and beyond and also prove or disprove things such as deities.

This is closer to being true. I guess when you said “To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap.” you just were maybe not being as clear as you could

It very much came across as if you were declaring we simply can not understand these things. The difference between not understanding, and not being capable of understanding, is a MASSIVE one and I welcome your clarification.

I think we humans CAN begin to understand such things, contrary to your original declaration. Not only CAN we, but we HAVE been beginning, which is what our science does every day, and has been doing for some time.

Langerland wrote: »

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle"

Whoever did say this is making what has been called the "Two card game error". Quite simply, it is applying retrospect to something we have no business applying retrospect to.

Try it yourself. Deal out 52 cards in a row. Not too special is it? However I challenge you to work out the probability of having got that exact hand as it was dealt. It is MASSIVELY improbable. I have quite a decent Calculator, and even it can not calculate the probability past the first 16 cards, let alone all 52.

You will likely NEVER deal the same 52 cards in that order ever again, no matter how much you try, even if your family were to take up the challenge for another 1000 generations after you. If every person alive today had dealt at the same time as you, it is likely no one else would have got the same hand.

The ONLY difference between your 52 cards, and the universe is that in only one case is someone applying retrospect and saying "We must consider it amazing that the cards we have been dealt were dealt in this exact way".

We were dealt the universe we were dealt. Simple as that. The probability of it is entirely irrelevant, and the probability of it in retrospect is 1 in 1, because that is exactly what happened.

use logic please · 25-08-2010 10:13AM

When I come home from work today, I'll try to answer some of your posts. I cannot possibly answer all of them. I'm used to posting on guitar forums where it takes hours to get a single reply, so I am surprised by the fact that there's a reply every few minutes here, I expected maybe five or ten replies to deal with.
Anyway, I'll do my best.

krudler · 25-08-2010 10:42AM

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Hmmm, lets apply that pattern to the other forum shall we?

<snip>

MOD EDIT

Let's not. See the charter.
Thanking you.

Dades

Choochtown · 25-08-2010 10:42AM

Apologies if this has been linked to before. (I'm new!) Perhaps all posters to a thread such as this should watch this before posting??! ...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nonstampcollector&annotation_id=annotation_610342&feature=iv#p/u/1/bSLkQnCurgs

actuallylike · 25-08-2010 10:43AM

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Just because you don't understand everything about the Universe, doesn't mean you get to say 'God did it' to fill in the gaps*. It's that type of thinking that conjured up Banshees, Fairy Forts, Leprechauns and Astrology.

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing a comedian.

Exactly, that's what I've always said. I personally would love to have faith but I'd just be kidding myself. The belief that we're going somewhere after we die is a lovely crutch but there's just no evidence to support it whatsoever.

It's a typical human trait that we have to understand something. The universe isn't presented to us as a puzzle to solve, we probably don't have the mental capacity to even grasp the ins and outs of it.

Just say for example you were really bad at, oh I don't know, maths. Say you were given an algorithm to solve and you just couldn't get your head around it. What would you do? You'd admit you didn't know right? You wouldn't go "Eh, the answer's 5". And not only say that but try and convince everyone else that the answer truely is 5. And scoff at the other people who may say it's 6 (different religions).

Free yourself of doubt and enjoy your life. I feel that this is the only chance and I'm not going to waste a single second worrying about if there is anything after or not and believe me, my life is so much better for it. Come on in, the water's warm!:)

philologos · 25-08-2010 10:55AM

krudler wrote: »

<snipped>

MOD EDIT

The Christianity forum can mind it's own affairs.

Dades

Zombrex · 25-08-2010 10:58AM

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Wait, so the cops knew internal affairs were on to them?

sink · 25-08-2010 11:05AM

I think when casual theological discussions stumble into the areas cosmology and theoretical physics, we run into some pretty big problems.

Cosmology and theoretical physics are entirely different to theology, they are based on entirely different and incompatible ways of thinking. The former is based upon pure maths backed up by empirical observation and deals with matters completely alien to human intuition. The latter is based almost entirely on human intuition completely bereft of formal maths and empirical observation. Using theories laid down by the former to contemplate the latter is folly.

The living universe that is being painted by modern physics is impossible to comprehend in any other way than mathematically. We cannot use our intuition to explore these areas because often they behave entirely counter to it. Yet theories such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics describe empirical observation with close to perfect accuracy. They are two of the most accurate scientific theories humanity has to offer and are massive achievements for evolved carbon based life forms.

Due to the fact that we can't use our intuition or common understanding of the everyday world to comprehend these topics, physicists lack the language to describe these concepts to us in everyday terms. When we hear Lawrence Krauss or Brian Greene attempt to put these ideas in terms we can understand, we must realise that we are getting butchered simplified versions of the original theories, that while fascinating, completely fail to describe accurately the original theories. The original theories can really only be described using very high level maths, which is out of reach of your average person.

My point is, arguing for or against god using a laymans rudimentary understanding of these topics is like trying to argue for or against the potential benefits of stem cells, only using the understanding expounded in a six year olds textbook on the human body.

liamw · 25-08-2010 11:10AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek.

Except when it reads as something that a loving and caring god would say. The translations are always perfect when it reads that way. That or context is wrong.

Morbert · 25-08-2010 11:16AM

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

PDN · 25-08-2010 11:22AM

Dades wrote: »

As do your own interjections.

You really are quite adept at misrepresenting the nature of a thread - and at closing your eyes to the inadequacies of the answers provided to the questions asked.

My 'interjections' into this thread were limited to the following:

1. Pointing out that there is not a generic 'religious view', or indeed a majority Christian view, that God created Himself.

2. Responding to Robin's misunderstanding about Christian theology as outlined in the Nicene Creed.

3. Answering a few direct questions that arose from that concerning Christology.

4. Responding to a hypothetical question which, as its basis, assumed the existence of God - which then subsequently had another poster telling me I had to prove the existence of God first before I could address any such hypothetical arguments.

However, if you, as moderator, feel these interjections are unhelpful then I would welcome any guidance from you. Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology? Or would I be better off ignoring direct questions? It's your forum, so please just let me know.

Zombrex · 25-08-2010 11:31AM

Morbert wrote: »

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

Good point.

This is why I think God exists.

Comments