Does the Monotheistic God Exist?

JulesKorngold

The idea that the universe can be its own cause is a controversial one, but there are a number of philosophers who have argued for it. One way to think about it is to consider the concept of time. Time is often thought of as a linear progression, with events happening one after the other. However, some philosophers have argued that time is not linear, but rather cyclical. In a cyclical view of time, there is no beginning or end, and events simply repeat themselves over and over again.

If time is cyclical, then it is possible that the universe is its own cause. This is because the universe could be said to cause itself to exist by repeating itself over and over again. For example, imagine a universe that is constantly expanding and contracting. In this universe, the Big Bang would not be a unique event, but rather would simply be the beginning of a new cycle of expansion and contraction.

Another way to think about how the universe can be its own cause is to consider the concept of potentiality and actuality. Potentiality is the ability to become something, while actuality is the state of being something. In the universe, there is a constant interplay between potentiality and actuality. For example, a seed has the potential to become a tree, but it is not a tree until it has actualized its potential.

The universe itself could be said to be a potentiality that has actualized itself. In other words, the universe could be said to be its own cause because it is the cause of its own existence. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but it is one that has been explored by a number of philosophers.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Why?

If a loving God exists, why do babies get cancer?

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Cyclic or Linear Time?

@JulesKorngold

Hello, Jules

You are correct that certain philosophers have argued for a cyclic view of time, but I believe this view falls short. It must first be noted that all arguments for the concept of time must be based on our knowledge of how time works in the perceivable world. Thus, in order to make a philosophical argument for either linear or cyclic time, we must use patterns discoverable from our known universe.

There are many patterns the universe follows that clearly show time progresses and moves forward rather than cycling through the same events repeatedly. Humanity, for example. We observe that humans are born, they continually grow older, and then they die. This is a form of linear time. The sun; which is burning out at a rate of seven hundred billion tons per second, is another case of linear time. It will continually grow dimmer until it eventually dies out, yet it will never suddenly become brighter again. We see many real-world cases where time moves forwards but never backwards. Now, it is common for advocates of cyclic time to claim the seasons are a demonstration of how time moves in a cycle, but there is a simple problem with this. It is illogical to take something with a known cause, ie rotation of the earth and revolution around the sun, and apply it to time itself. Seasonal patterns are caused by the way the sun’s rays hit the earth and have nothing to do with linear or cyclic time. (It should also be noted that even seasons do not follow a strictly cyclic pattern, as the duration of seasons are progressively changing over time)

A second argument for linear time is that of Newton’s second law of thermodynamics, which states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. To quote Boston University, “The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior”.( Entropy and the second law (bu.edu)). The idea of cyclic time contradicts this law, for we see that as time passes, things break down and tend towards disorder. If I let a hot cup of coffee sit, it cools down, but it will never heat up again. If a carcass decays, it will never come back to life again. These are observable cases where time is indeed linear.

You claimed that, if the cyclical view of time were true, the universe could cause itself to exist by repeating itself over and over again, but that does not logically follow. If there is an endless cycle of time, something had to have set the universe on that cycle of time. A train riding along a circular track cannot be the cause of its own motion along the track simply because it is repeatedly traveling along the same course, but rather, somebody would have had to set the train on the tracks in the first place and put it in motion. This once again leads us back to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We see in our observable universe everything that exists has a cause. If something has matter and form, something caused it to have the qualities it exhibits. The same would apply to the universe. The existence of a cyclic time scaled universe would not be sufficient cause for the universe to be its own source of existence.

You also claimed that, in a cyclic universe, the big bang would not be a unique event, but rather would simply be the beginning of a new cycle of expansion and contraction, however, I would be interested in your views on this matter. Are you proposing that the big bang did not create this universe, but that it was instead just an expansion of the universe that has occurred many times in the past? Then, do you believe that, in the future, the universe may contract to a tiny dot smaller than the period on a page and need another big bang to expand it again? If that is what you believe, I would pose a simple question; why is the universe constantly expanding, yet it has never been shrinking since its beginning? If we live in an expanding universe, how will we get from there to a contracted universe smaller than a period?

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Potentiality and Actuality

@JulesKorngold

Hello again, Jules.

I agree with you about the concept of potentiality and actuality; however, I fail to see how this proves the universe can be its own cause. The concept of potentiality and actuality shows that everything that has the potential to become something can be actualized when it finally does become that something. Let’s use your example of the seed with the ability to actualize its potential, that is, to grow into a tree. Notice that the seed exists, along with everything that it is made up of in order to actualize its potential. This does not work when we are speaking of the universe being a potentiality that has actualized itself, because it again violates PSR. Potentiality and Actuality only work when the potential is there in the first place. A non-existent universe has no potential to begin with and thus cannot reach the actualization of said potential. An eternal universe has no potential to begin with either, for it has always been and was somehow theoretically always actualized from eternity. In order for actualization to be reached, we must have potential in the first place, and thus there must be a first acter who is pure actuality. In order for this first acter to exist, it must be a being or force that is completely separate from matter, otherwise, this being too would have a cause and thus have the ability to actualize its potential. Thus, we can conclude that the very existence of potential and actuality shows there must be a first cause that is immaterial. The universe is made up of matter and thus something must have caused it to take on form and existence. Matter cannot be its own cause, for that would violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason, ie, that everything must have a cause.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: The Problem of Natural Evil

@JulesKorngold

Hello again, Jules

You asked, if a loving God exists, why do babies get cancer? This is a common objection from atheists, that the problem of human suffering disproves the existence of the theistic God. There are many counter arguments to this, but I will offer one.

If God allows natural evils to occur, He is perfectly justified in doing so if it brings about a greater good. God is outside of time and thus, He can see all of time and allow certain things to happen in order to bring about a greater good in the future that we may not see in the present moment. I must note though, that all evil, whether natural or moral, is a tragedy and is not to be taken lightly at all. Anytime someone suffers, it should not be excused away, for it is indeed heartbreaking and painful. However, because God knows the futures of each human life, He can allow natural evil to occur if He brings about a greater good than would potentially be realized without this evil occurring. We can’t know what these reasons are in all cases, but here are a few possibilities. Perhaps God would allow a baby to get cancer and die because, in His foreknowledge, He sees an even worse death for them in the future if they were to live, and so, He allows cancer to take their life and the baby goes to heaven without having to endure whatever worse death he might have faced in the future. Perhaps God allows cancer to take the life of a child because He knows it will cause the family of that child to turn to Him for comfort and help, and thus, the baby is recompensed in heaven for his suffering and the family of that baby returns to their faith. There are many other instances like this where God would be justified in allowing natural evil if it brought about something better in the future. This is a difficult topic to address in both the atheistic and the theistic worldview, however, understanding that our knowledge is finite and God’s is infinite, we can accept that His plans are better than ours, and thus, this is not a good argument against the existence of God. Perhaps the atheist won’t accept these reasons, but the theistic worldview is not at contradiction with the existence of an all-loving God because of the problem of natural or moral evils.

John_C_87

@ProudToBeCatholic

Exclussion is always the best way to start a debate.

: of, relating to, or characterized by the doctrine or belief that there is only one God

Monotheistic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

: belief in the existence of a god or gods

specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Theistic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

It is a great thing to do. Tell thoughts who we wish to do nothing for we are going to nothing. Not even speak on their behalf where it really matters. How do you find the more perfect state of the ion with freedom of speech. Point out the precise time it is lost and consumed by cost. That cost a loss of liberty. Taxation without representation to make onerous and rigorous demands on one.

Taxed Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold

The idea that the universe can be its own cause is a controversial one, but there are a number of philosophers who have argued for it. One way to think about it is to consider the concept of time. Time is often thought of as a linear progression, with events happening one after the other. However, some philosophers have argued that time is not linear, but rather cyclical. In a cyclical view of time, there is no beginning or end, and events simply repeat themselves over and over again.
If time is cyclical, then it is possible that the universe is its own cause. This is because the universe could be said to cause itself to exist by repeating itself over and over again. For example, imagine a universe that is constantly expanding and contracting. In this universe, the Big Bang would not be a unique event, but rather would simply be the beginning of a new cycle of expansion and contraction.
Another way to think about how the universe can be its own cause is to consider the concept of potentiality and actuality. Potentiality is the ability to become something, while actuality is the state of being something. In the universe, there is a constant interplay between potentiality and actuality. For example, a seed has the potential to become a tree, but it is not a tree until it has actualized its potential.
The universe itself could be said to be a potentiality that has actualized itself. In other words, the universe could be said to be its own cause because it is the cause of its own existence. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but it is one that has been explored by a number of philosophers.

I'm going to help you out a little and give you a scientific theory that fits with the philosophical argument you are making.  There is a scientific theory that does do the Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) thing, where a particle goes back in time and creates the universe.  This was put forward by Princeton professor, J. Richard Gott and Li-Xin Li.  They note that general relativity allows for the possibility of closed time-like curves, they hypothesize that the as we trace the history of the universe back through an original inflationary state, we encounter a region of closed time-like curves prior to our inflation.  In the theory a metastable vacuum inflates and creates a series of bubble universes (this is different than chaotic inflationary models, quantum gravity models, the Hartle-Hawking model, and ekpyrotic models).  Literally, the universe goes back in time and creates itself in this model.

A serious flaw of the theory is that it depends on 2 incompatible views of time. Things come into out out of being.  The past no longer exists.  The future is yet to be, only the present exists.  This is sometimes called A-theory of time.  This is needed for the big bang event.  It happens at a point in time.  Time flows in one direction, with a series of events afterward.  

The second view of time is B-theory.  In it past, present, and future are subjective illusion of human consciousness.  All things and events in time are equally real and existent and  stand alone as timeless moments in tenseless relationships to one another.  In this view nothing ever comes into being and nothing goes out of being - it is only an illusion.  This is the view of Gott and Li.  The problem is that they need an A-theory of time to get an event, like the Big Band, because if there are no sequential events, then the Big bang is never actualized and never happens.  But if you hold to a B-theory of time, then all events are illusory.  So no big bang event.

That's why most cosmologists laugh at this theory and make fun of it.   Also, it doesn't follow all of Einstein's calculations.

John_C_87

@just_sayin
A serious flaw of the theory is that it depends on 2 incompatible views of time.

I would just like to start by sayng as fact General Relativity theory becomes the law of Relativity when witen as so: 

When written this way E = Mc ^ 2 which is in fact G = Mc ^ 2 is mathematically solved in formula by E ≈ Mc ^ 2 or even this way G ≈ Mc ^ 2 as Pi is no longer left unidentified as a possible integer in the formula.

Incompatable view of time, time is a geometric explination of a circle's possition passing over a circle in orbit. We need 6 points to find a locate a possition on 3-D space (X,Y,Z) (HH: MM: SS) get it?

JulesKorngold

@ProudToBeCatholic said:  God knows the future of each human life

If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then we cannot be said to be making our own choices.

Is that what you believe?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Is God Crazy?

@ProudToBeCatholic said:  Perhaps God would allow a baby to get cancer and die because, in His foreknowledge, He sees an even worse death for them in the future if they were to live, and so, He allows cancer to take their life

This makes no sense.  Killing a 6-month-old baby because it is destined to die in a horrible car accident when it is 42 years old is insane.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Flawed Plans

@ProudToBeCatholic said:  His plans are better than ours

If God intends Plan A but changes to Plan B because of prayer, wasn't Plan B better to begin with?

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: A Few Quick Responses

@JulesKorngold

 Hello Jules

First off, I would like to note that you failed to respond to my main rebuttals against your points, shown here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166274/#Comment_166274 and here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166276/#Comment_166276 and instead chose only to respond to my answer to a question you asked here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166270/#Comment_166270 I do hope you will go back and offer a rebuttal to my main argument instead of us following this rabbit trail. Notice I made the argument from the philosophical concept of PSR, Principle of Sufficient Reason, and explained how this makes atheism a logical impossibility, yet you have chosen to bring a totally different question into the equation rather than continuing along the points I actually made.

 

Your Post: “If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then we cannot be said to be making our own choices. Is that what you believe?”

No, I am a Roman Catholic, not a Calvinistic Protestant. I believe in free will. The fact that God knows what we are going to do before we do it does not restrict free will anymore than me knowing that you will type out a rebuttal to this post of mine restricts your free will and forces you to respond.

 

Your Post: This makes no sense.  Killing a 6-month-old baby because it is destined to die in a horrible car accident when it is 42 years old is insane.

You have not correctly stated my point. I did not say God killed the 6-month-old baby, but rather that He allowed him or her to die. We are not arguing for God causing the death of an infant, but rather God allowing the death of an infant. If the death of this infant can bring about a greater good than if he or she were to live, then it does not negate the all-loving character of God, but rather emphasizes it. Either way, a sacrifice must be made. Either the baby will live and the greatest possible good will not be accomplished, or the baby will die and go to heaven and the greatest possible good will indeed be accomplished. Again, God does not cause the death of the child that dies from cancer, but merely allows it. This is not to negate the tragedy of the infant’s death but knowing it will bring about the greatest possible good can be a comfort to those who must go through this terrible situation.

Your Post: If God intends Plan A but changes to Plan B because of prayer, wasn't Plan B better to begin with?

No. Here is where a distinction between the prescriptive and permissive will of God must be noted. The prescriptive will of God concerns those things He has determined will happen; nothing can change anything He declares will happen within His prescriptive will. However, God also has a permissive will; that is, He allows humans free will to make their own choices and chooses to work within the choices He knows we will make. Let me give an example. If God declares that, fifty years from now, there will be a famine, then this would fall into His prescriptive will. He has declared something will happen, and so, it most definitely will. However, if God says, “If you don’t do X or Y, I will cause there to be a famine in fifty years”, then we are speaking of His permissive will. He allows us to make our own decisions and these decisions will affect His will. Now, the argument can be made that, since God is all-knowing and knows the future and the past, everything that happens does indeed fall within His will and thus we get into the topic of foreknowledge, which you brought up earlier. God can see the future, know how He will interact with others and how they will respond to Him, and thus, He can will every event that occurs based on this foreknowledge without taking away human free will. He merely allows His foreknowledge of man’s free will to influence His own will.

MayCaesar

I have three points of criticism. One regards the logical structure of your argument, another questions the presence of meaning in your conclusion, and the last one criticizes the language you use. Let us go through each of them.

1. Your entire argument is built upon the presumption that the Principle of Sufficient Reason holds, namely that everything that exists must have a cause. Yet a "cause" is a pure intellectual construct, it is a concept allowing an intelligent being to understand what consequences his actions are expected to have: "If I do A, X will happen, and if I do B, Y will happen. Y is preferable to X, hence I should do B and not A". It is not some sort of a metaphysical reality that exists in the same objective sense as, say, the Sun does. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that everything that exists must have a cause. If you want to ponder on something really trippy, ask yourself what is the cause of existence of causes.
Even if the Principle did hold, your argument would be self-contradictory. Notice how it posits that everything - everything that exists - must have a cause. Yet your argument concludes in there being the "first cause" which is God. If God has no cause, then the Principle of Sufficient Reason is violated, and if it is violated, then the rest of your argument does not hold either. So you, Sir, have defeated yourself.

2. Even if we ignore all of the above, all that your conclusion posits is that there is the "first cause", and you call it God. Your argument says absolutely nothing about the nature of that God. It might not even be a real entity, just an, again, intellectual construct. It is completely meaningless, you realize. I could just as well say, "Let us define the entity called Gharrgh. Gharrgh has that property that it moves against time and becomes younger as it ages". What have I defined? Some intellectual aberration that not only does not exist in reality, but does not even make sense metaphysically. I can talk about various conclusions of this entity's existence, but, given that it is not clear at all what actual entity I am talking about, all of this is just a weird mental exercise that has no relation to reality.

3. This kind of arguments involves dishonest use of language. Whenever a religious person, a theist, seriously talks about "God", he does not mean some abstract force of the Universe. No, he talks very specifically about a supernatural intelligent being that, in some ways, is responsible for everything happening around us. Your argument does not at all implies intelligence or supernaturality of such a being, yet you proudly call yourself a Catholic and the Catholicism makes a lot of very specific claims about God. You would never say that Allah exists because your religion does not think he does, even though your argument is equally applicable to Allah and Yahweh.

I think that, rather than going back and forth with all this endless fantasy nonsense, it is better to enter the 21st century and to embrace facts and logic in favor of myths and revelations.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Answering Objections to PSR

@MayCaesar

Hello Jules (Yes I know this is one of your “many” alt accounts but I will humor you)

1.     First off, you are incorrect in the formula you presented. “If I do A, X will happen, and if I do B, Y will happen. Y is preferable to X, hence I should do B and not A”. This is not what the Principle of Sufficient Reason states. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is simply that, for every x, there is a y such that y is the sufficient reason for x. Or to put it simply, everything must have a sufficient reason for its existence. If a leaf falls from a tree, there must be a cause for its fall. If a ball begins rolling, there must be a cause for its motion. And so it is with every observable object or concept in this world. The universe came into existence, therefore there must be a cause for its existence. The universe cannot be the cause of its own existence for two reasons: (A) The universe is material - any material object requires a cause that gave it material substance. No physical object can cause itself to exist, otherwise, this would violate PSR. (B) The universe came into existence at a certain point in time- for the reasons I explained in my previous post, the universe cannot be eternal. Not only would an eternal universe violate PSR, it would also require a cyclic time scale, and this is a philosophical implausibility. Therefore, the universe itself must have a cause, and its cause must be an uncaused cause or else we will have an infinite chain of causal events with no first cause, an intellectual impossibility.

In case you forgot, I already addressed the argument that PSR would contradict the existence of God in my opening statement. It must be understood that everything which takes on existence must have a cause, but existence itself does not require a cause. If something is pure existence, it cannot have a cause, for all causes would flow forth from this uncaused cause. This pure existence is what we call God. He cannot be caused, for He is the ultimate causer. This same argument cannot be applied to the universe being its own causer, for the Big Bang is a string of causal events that resulted in our universe, thus the Big Bang must have been caused. It is illogical to look at a moving string of railcars on a train track and conclude that, since every railcar is attached to another as far as the eye can see, the railcars are the cause of their own movement. Rather, there must be a first mover, and this mover is the locomotive. In the same way, it is illogical to look at the string of causal events that brought forth our universe and conclude that these events caused themselves. Rather, there must be a first cause, and this cause we call God. Again, PSR does not apply to existence itself, for existence is the ultimate explanation for all causes.

2.     You are correct that the argument of first cause says nothing about the nature of God, but this is not the topic of discussion. We are merely positing whether the monotheistic God exists, not the nature or attributes of this God. However, there are many things about God that can be understood simply from the very fact that He is the uncaused causer of all things. For example, an uncaused causer who is existence itself would have to be all-powerful, for this causer is the reason all other causes exist, and all causes retain their form only because of this causer. This uncaused causer would also be omnipresent, for it is not only existence itself, but also the wellspring from which all other existence springs forth. There are also many things about the nature of this first cause that can be understood from the world itself, and this first cause’s dealings with this world. However if an individual does not accept PSR or that a first cause of all other existence truly is, there is little fruitfulness in arguing about the attributes of this first cause until the existence of said first cause can be established.

3.     You made a couple of key mistakes in this point. First, as noted in point number two of my response, the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not reveal the nature of God, but rather, the existence of a first cause that we call God. Once the fact that there is a first cause is established, then we can move on to explain the attributes and nature of this God by logic and observation of creation. Second, the Catholic Church does indeed affirm that Allah and Yahweh both exist and are one and the same. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions, and as such, we all have the same God. The difference is, Islam and Judaism do not believe in the Trinity, while Christians do. We have different understandings of who this one God is, but we all believe in and worship the monotheistic God. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 841, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." And 839, “The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."”

MayCaesar

ProudToBeCatholic said:

Hello Jules (Yes I know this is one of your “many” alt accounts but I will humor you)

It is hard to start a comment in a debate with something more self-destructive than this... Do humor me and explain how you acquired this piece of "knowledge".

ProudToBeCatholic said:
1.     First off, you are incorrect in the formula you presented. “If I do A, X will happen, and if I do B, Y will happen. Y is preferable to X, hence I should do B and not A”. This is not what the Principle of Sufficient Reason states. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is simply that, for every x, there is a y such that y is the sufficient reason for x. Or to put it simply, everything must have a sufficient reason for its existence. If a leaf falls from a tree, there must be a cause for its fall. If a ball begins rolling, there must be a cause for its motion. And so it is with every observable object or concept in this world. The universe came into existence, therefore there must be a cause for its existence. The universe cannot be the cause of its own existence for two reasons: (A) The universe is material - any material object requires a cause that gave it material substance. No physical object can cause itself to exist, otherwise, this would violate PSR. (B) The universe came into existence at a certain point in time- for the reasons I explained in my previous post, the universe cannot be eternal. Not only would an eternal universe violate PSR, it would also require a cyclic time scale, and this is a philosophical implausibility. Therefore, the universe itself must have a cause, and its cause must be an uncaused cause or else we will have an infinite chain of causal events with no first cause, an intellectual impossibility.

I am sorry, but I was going by your own definition. Here is what you yourself said:

ProudToBeCatholic said:

The Principle of Sufficient Reason(PSR) states that everything in existence must have a cause.

With the new definition you gave, I agree that eternal Universe still violates it. However, my argument was precisely that there was no reason to assume that PSR (in your original formulation; I do not think that the new formulation changes anything in my argument) holds, and, furthermore, that it holding leads to a contradiction to your conclusion. If everything must have sufficient cause, then there is no such thing as the "first cause" as that cause, in turn, would need to have a sufficient cause, hereby being unable to be first.

ProudToBeCatholic said:

In case you forgot, I already addressed the argument that PSR would contradict the existence of God in my opening statement. It must be understood that everything which takes on existence must have a cause, but existence itself does not require a cause. If something is pure existence, it cannot have a cause, for all causes would flow forth from this uncaused cause. This pure existence is what we call God. He cannot be caused, for He is the ultimate causer. This same argument cannot be applied to the universe being its own causer, for the Big Bang is a string of causal events that resulted in our universe, thus the Big Bang must have been caused. It is illogical to look at a moving string of railcars on a train track and conclude that, since every railcar is attached to another as far as the eye can see, the railcars are the cause of their own movement. Rather, there must be a first mover, and this mover is the locomotive. In the same way, it is illogical to look at the string of causal events that brought forth our universe and conclude that these events caused themselves. Rather, there must be a first cause, and this cause we call God. Again, PSR does not apply to existence itself, for existence is the ultimate explanation for all causes.

Then the PSR does not hold and, hence, your argument is unsound. You cannot first define a universal principle and build your argument on it, then, arriving at the contradiction, say, "Oh, but this is simply an exception from the principle". A logically sound principle must account for exceptions in its very formulation, which is not the case here.

ProudToBeCatholic said:

2.     You are correct that the argument of first cause says nothing about the nature of God, but this is not the topic of discussion. We are merely positing whether the monotheistic God exists, not the nature or attributes of this God. However, there are many things about God that can be understood simply from the very fact that He is the uncaused causer of all things. For example, an uncaused causer who is existence itself would have to be all-powerful, for this causer is the reason all other causes exist, and all causes retain their form only because of this causer. This uncaused causer would also be omnipresent, for it is not only existence itself, but also the wellspring from which all other existence springs forth. There are also many things about the nature of this first cause that can be understood from the world itself, and this first cause’s dealings with this world. However if an individual does not accept PSR or that a first cause of all other existence truly is, there is little fruitfulness in arguing about the attributes of this first cause until the existence of said first cause can be established.

You only have arrived at the conclusion (erroneously so, as I explained above) that the "first cause" exists. "First cause" and "monotheistic God" are not synonymous. Your argument, for one, does not exclude possibility of polytheism, the existence of a set of independent first causes, much like mathematics starts with a set of independent axioms.

ProudToBeCatholic said:

3.     You made a couple of key mistakes in this point. First, as noted in point number two of my response, the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not reveal the nature of God, but rather, the existence of a first cause that we call God. Once the fact that there is a first cause is established, then we can move on to explain the attributes and nature of this God by logic and observation of creation. Second, the Catholic Church does indeed affirm that Allah and Yahweh both exist and are one and the same. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions, and as such, we all have the same God. The difference is, Islam and Judaism do not believe in the Trinity, while Christians do. We have different understandings of who this one God is, but we all believe in and worship the monotheistic God. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 841, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." And 839, “The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."”

First: No, as I already explained, PSR directly contradicts existence of a first cause. We cannot move on to explain anything if we start with accepting a logical contradiction. Either you have to reformulate PSR so it allows for a first cause to exist, or you start with a logical contradiction which, as is proven in mathematics, leads to the conclusion that any possible statement is simultaneously true and false, completely obliterating your world view.

Second: Saying that you have different understandings of who this one God is is exactly the same as saying that this is a different God. If I tell you that I think that Jack murdered my neighbor, and you say that, rather, Bob did, we will not mean the same person by "Jack" and "Bob". It is a different thing entirely if I say that Jack murdered my neighbor, and you say, "No, he did not" - here we are talking about the same guy, but have different understandings of what this guy has done.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: Evidence

Your Post: It is hard to start a comment in a debate with something more self-destructive than this... Do humor me and explain how you acquired this piece of "knowledge".
I will respond to your actual argument later today.

ProudToBeCatholic

Argument Topic: More Objections to PSR, Polytheism, and the Abrahamic Religions

@MayCaesar

Hello Jules

Your Post: I am sorry, but I was going by your own definition. Here is what you yourself said:

I am not sure if you are trolling right now, but that is the definition of PSR I have remained consistent with throughout this entire debate. The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that everything in existence must have a cause. This is exactly what I stated in your quotation as well: I said: “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is simply that, for every x, there is a y such that y is the sufficient reason for x. Or to put it simply, everything must have a sufficient reason for its existence”. This is exactly the same as stating everything in existence must have a cause. The sufficient reason for somethings existence would be the cause of that thing.

Your Post: With the new definition you gave, I agree that eternal Universe still violates it. However, my argument was precisely that there was no reason to assume that PSR (in your original formulation; I do not think that the new formulation changes anything in my argument) holds, and, furthermore, that it holding leads to a contradiction to your conclusion. If everything must have sufficient cause, then there is no such thing as the "first cause" as that cause, in turn, would need to have a sufficient cause, hereby being unable to be first.

I did not provide a new definition, but rather, have remained consistent with the definition of PSR. And you have no valid reason for denying PSR; for two reasons: (A) Everything in existence that we have ever observed has a cause. In fact, as I mentioned before, PSR is a foundational idea to all scientific exploration and discovery. The very reason we have science is practically because of PSR, the attempt of man to find the cause for everything in existence. (B) I already demonstrated that the existence of a first cause does not contradict PSR, for PSR applies to things in existence, not existence itself. The first cause is existence itself, and this is what we call God. With these two points in mind, there is no valid logical reason to deny PSR, for we know it to be true from science and your objection does not hold up under scrutiny.

Your Post: Then the PSR does not hold and, hence, your argument is unsound. You cannot first define a universal principle and build your argument on it, then, arriving at the contradiction, say, "Oh, but this is simply an exception from the principle". A logically sound principle must account for exceptions in its very formulation, which is not the case here.

As I have explained twice now, I am not making exceptions for PSR when I speak of a first cause. The problem lies within your misunderstanding of what PSR is. PSR, again, states that everything in existence must have a sufficient reason for its existence. This does not apply to existence itself, for that would be a logical impossibility. Nothing can cause existence, for existence is cause. Asking what causes the existence of existence is an illogical form of argumentation, for existence just is. God is pure existence, the source of all other existence, and thus, He cannot have a cause.

Your Post: You only have arrived at the conclusion (erroneously so, as I explained above) that the "first cause" exists. "First cause" and "monotheistic God" are not synonymous. Your argument, for one, does not exclude possibility of polytheism, the existence of a set of independent first causes, much like mathematics starts with a set of independent axioms.

The discussion of polytheism is one that has not been brought up yet, but it is worth addressing. Firstly, there cannot be more than one first cause, for this first cause is existence itself. It is an impossibility that there be multiple ‘existences’, for all existence flows from this ultimate source of existence. Existence is being, and therefore, it is all encompassing. It is not limited by time, space, or dimension, and thus, it just is.

Secondly, God is not made up of attributes, but rather, He is His attributes. God does not have the quality of omnibenevolence, but rather, God is omnibenevolence itself. Thus, anything else that possesses benevolence would have to flow forth from the ultimate source of benevolence, omnibenevolence. There cannot be two gods who both possess omnibenevolence, for one would, by nature, be inferior to the other. In the same way, God does not have the quality of omnipotence, but rather, God is omnipotence itself. Thus, anything else that possesses potence(power) would have to flow forth from the ultimate source of potence, omnipotence. Again, there cannot be two gods who both possess omnipotence, for then one would automatically be inferior to the other and thus, not truly omnipotent. Put simply, an all-powerful God cannot be truly all powerful if there are other all-powerful gods, for then one god’s power would be limited by the other. So, there can only be one all-loving, all-powerful God.

Third, God is not perfect, but rather perfection itself. If there were multiple gods, they would differ from one another in personality and essence. Thus, each one’s attributes would differ from the other and since perfection is highest good, only the god superior in personality and essence could truly be said to be perfect. They cannot be equal in personality and essence, for then, they would be one God, and thus, monotheism.

Your Post: First: No, as I already explained, PSR directly contradicts existence of a first cause. We cannot move on to explain anything if we start with accepting a logical contradiction. Either you have to reformulate PSR so it allows for a first cause to exist, or you start with a logical contradiction which, as is proven in mathematics, leads to the conclusion that any possible statement is simultaneously true and false, completely obliterating your world view. Second: Saying that you have different understandings of who this one God is is exactly the same as saying that this is a different God. If I tell you that I think that Jack murdered my neighbor, and you say that, rather, Bob did, we will not mean the same person by "Jack" and "Bob". It is a different thing entirely if I say that Jack murdered my neighbor, and you say, "No, he did not" - here we are talking about the same guy, but have different understandings of what this guy has done.

1.     As I have explained two or three times now, your objections to the formal definition of PSR, that is, that everything in existence has a cause, are misguided. First, this first cause is existence itself, therefore it lies outside of the scope of PSR and cannot be caused by anything, for it is cause itself. Second, polytheism cannot be true, for the reasons shown above. Thus, to claim that “PSR directly contradicts existence of a first cause” is faulty reasoning based upon a false presupposition, that is, that God must be explained by PSR.

2.     Your illustration here is erroneous. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to worship the same God, and thus we are not arguing over which God is real, merely which things about this God are true. I will use the illustration of a person. If three people meet John in the shopping mall, but later disagree about the appearance or actions of John, they are not talking about different people, but rather the truth about this one person. In the same way, all three of the Abrahamic religions worship the same God, but they disagree about the appearance and actions of this God. So no, having different understandings of this one God is not the same as having different Gods. It is merely a question of how to describe this God and all of His divine attributes.

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold

@ProudToBeCatholic said:  God knows the future of each human life

If God knows what we are going to do before we do it, then we cannot be said to be making our own choices.
Is that what you believe?

It seems like you are begging the question.  You have assumed that foreknowledge of the future must be deterministic.  You have assumed to know the future is to cause that future.  Most philosophers would say that you have excluded viable options.  Considering that God is eternal and outside of space time, then he observes all times at once.  It does not logically follow that He must be responsible for every action taken by any being though.  

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold

If a loving God exists, why do babies get cancer?

I love your question because it exposes your inconsistent viewpoints.  Your question presupposes that getting cancer is evil.  But unless you attribute to cancer the status of "evil" then someone getting cancer is just a natural act.  There is no moral condition to it at all.  It is just nature, without a God, there are no absolute moral values.

From the Christian viewpoint, natural events may or may not be 'evil'.  Cancer need not be an 'evil' thing, it can be just a natural thing.  Paul had issues with his eyesight.  He prayed and his eyesight was still poor.  Luke had stomach issues.  Issac was practically blind.  These were not considered punishments from God, but the natural order of things.

You seem to think that God has 'sinned' in some way.  How?  He is the creator and can do with His creation as He sees fit.  If you paint a picture and then tear it up, you have committed no evil against it.  In the same way, God has every right to do whatever He wishes to His creation. Let's assume the worst in your scenario, that the child dies.  From the Christian standpoint the child has left earth and is now in heaven.  The child's eternal soul still lives.  

Your question presupposes a bigger question - why does God allow evil.  And if we look at the thoughts of each person, that question should really become, why does God allow us to exist.  Philosophers have pointed to free will as a reason.  For true love to exist, which many consider the highest good, then free will must be present.  Compelled love is not true love.  If there is no risk of rejection, then it isn't real love.  So it isn't a matter of God not being capable of making a world without evil, which is not an actual thing, but a privation of good, but a matter of God wanting a world with love in it.

MayCaesar

ProudToBeCatholic said:

Hello Jules

Hi Adolf.

ProudToBeCatholic said:

I am not sure if you are trolling right now, but that is the definition of PSR I have remained consistent with throughout this entire debate. The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that everything in existence must have a cause. This is exactly what I stated in your quotation as well: I said: “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is simply that, for every x, there is a y such that y is the sufficient reason for x. Or to put it simply, everything must have a sufficient reason for its existence”. This is exactly the same as stating everything in existence must have a cause. The sufficient reason for somethings existence would be the cause of that thing.

Oh, but the word "sufficient" is what makes all the difference. A sufficient condition is one that assures the outcome; it is not necessarily unique. PSR, if held, would imply that for everything in existence, there is A cause - it would not imply the uniqueness of that cause. Tracing this all the way back, we arrive at the conclusion that the first cause must not be unique - furthermore, the set of all first causes must not even be finite. In fact, it may very well be uncountable, which my intuition tells me would necessarily be the case in your picture of the world. At the very least, I do not see a way to prove it to not be uncountable, even in principle, let alone in practice.
And if the set of first causes is uncountable, then does it really make sense to call them "first causes"?

ProudToBeCatholic said:

I did not provide a new definition, but rather, have remained consistent with the definition of PSR. And you have no valid reason for denying PSR; for two reasons: (A) Everything in existence that we have ever observed has a cause. In fact, as I mentioned before, PSR is a foundational idea to all scientific exploration and discovery. The very reason we have science is practically because of PSR, the attempt of man to find the cause for everything in existence. (B) I already demonstrated that the existence of a first cause does not contradict PSR, for PSR applies to things in existence, not existence itself. The first cause is existence itself, and this is what we call God. With these two points in mind, there is no valid logical reason to deny PSR, for we know it to be true from science and your objection does not hold up under scrutiny.

I have already explained why I see no reason to assume that the PSR holds. To your specific points,

A) not at all; we have observed countless events and phenomena for which a cause has never been found. In fact, we have found some contradictions between causal connections we assume to exist, which happen, for instance, at singularities. And even if that was not the case and we knew a cause for absolutely everything we had ever observed, it would not imply that there will never be observations made in the future breaking off from this trend. You are correct that science implies that everything we study has a cause - and that is exactly its limitation: it makes no sense to think scientifically about things that have no cause. "First cause", therefore, is inherently an unscientific concept.

Hold on here... Existence is a state of being, a property; it is not an entity and cannot be the first cause. You can say that entity A exists. You cannot call existence itself an entity. Whatever your "first cause" is, it must necessarily be in existence, otherwise it does not exist, undermining your argument.

Your final conclusion is unscientific: in science we use Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof, according to which, rather than finding reasons to deny something, we need reasons to accept something. The default position is unacceptance of PSR, and it is up to you to justify its validity. So far you have failed to do so.

ProudToBeCatholic said:

As I have explained twice now, I am not making exceptions for PSR when I speak of a first cause. The problem lies within your misunderstanding of what PSR is. PSR, again, states that everything in existence must have a sufficient reason for its existence. This does not apply to existence itself, for that would be a logical impossibility. Nothing can cause existence, for existence is cause. Asking what causes the existence of existence is an illogical form of argumentation, for existence just is. God is pure existence, the source of all other existence, and thus, He cannot have a cause.

...

The discussion of polytheism is one that has not been brought up yet, but it is worth addressing. Firstly, there cannot be more than one first cause, for this first cause is existence itself. It is an impossibility that there be multiple ‘existences’, for all existence flows from this ultimate source of existence. Existence is being, and therefore, it is all encompassing. It is not limited by time, space, or dimension, and thus, it just is.

Secondly, God is not made up of attributes, but rather, He is His attributes. God does not have the quality of omnibenevolence, but rather, God is omnibenevolence itself. Thus, anything else that possesses benevolence would have to flow forth from the ultimate source of benevolence, omnibenevolence. There cannot be two gods who both possess omnibenevolence, for one would, by nature, be inferior to the other. In the same way, God does not have the quality of omnipotence, but rather, God is omnipotence itself. Thus, anything else that possesses potence(power) would have to flow forth from the ultimate source of potence, omnipotence. Again, there cannot be two gods who both possess omnipotence, for then one would automatically be inferior to the other and thus, not truly omnipotent. Put simply, an all-powerful God cannot be truly all powerful if there are other all-powerful gods, for then one god’s power would be limited by the other. So, there can only be one all-loving, all-powerful God.

Third, God is not perfect, but rather perfection itself. If there were multiple gods, they would differ from one another in personality and essence. Thus, each one’s attributes would differ from the other and since perfection is highest good, only the god superior in personality and essence could truly be said to be perfect. They cannot be equal in personality and essence, for then, they would be one God, and thus, monotheism.

Sorry, but all this sounds like religious word salad to me. I do not understand what you mean when you say that "God is pure existence", or "God is perfection itself", or "God is his attributes". It sounds like you are just calling everything "God". Is it a being, an entity, a... something? Or is it just a newspeak for something very generic?

ProudToBeCatholic said:

1.     As I have explained two or three times now, your objections to the formal definition of PSR, that is, that everything in existence has a cause, are misguided. First, this first cause is existence itself, therefore it lies outside of the scope of PSR and cannot be caused by anything, for it is cause itself. Second, polytheism cannot be true, for the reasons shown above. Thus, to claim that “PSR directly contradicts existence of a first cause” is faulty reasoning based upon a false presupposition, that is, that God must be explained by PSR.

2.     Your illustration here is erroneous. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to worship the same God, and thus we are not arguing over which God is real, merely which things about this God are true. I will use the illustration of a person. If three people meet John in the shopping mall, but later disagree about the appearance or actions of John, they are not talking about different people, but rather the truth about this one person. In the same way, all three of the Abrahamic religions worship the same God, but they disagree about the appearance and actions of this God. So no, having different understandings of this one God is not the same as having different Gods. It is merely a question of how to describe this God and all of His divine attributes.

1. From the PSR's formulation, it seems that everything that lies outside of its scope is not a part of reality.
Polytheism can be true as I explained above: in fact, it seems to make more sense to assume the uncountable set of gods than a finite set of gods, let alone a single god.

2. This discussion seems to be mostly semantic. I would posit, however, that if three people disagree about John's most fundamental properties, such as his gender, or age group, or whether he is a human or a dog - then no, they would not be talking about the same person. It seems strange to assume that Muslim Allah and Christian Yahweh are the same god when Allah has been telling his followers for centuries to slaughter filthy Christian infidels, while Yahweh has been telling his worshippers to organize European-wide crusades against the Allah's followers - was the god a double agent here? But maybe I misunderstand something about the Catholic take on this.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: No Surprise

ProudToBeCatholic said:

Recognizing sarcasm isn't one of your strengths, is it?

MayCaesar

Guys, our secret has been revealed... We will need to take over the world some other time.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Guys, our secret has been revealed... We will need to take over the world some other time. 



Polytheism can be true as I explained above: in fact, it seems to make more sense to assume the uncountable set of gods than a finite set of gods, let alone a single god.

Actually I think Ocam's Razor would suggest that it is more likely 1 God than many.  It is the simpler answer.  It is more likely right.  You would need to show why you need more than 1 God for it to be more likely correct.

It seems strange to assume that Muslim Allah and Christian Yahweh are the same god when Allah has been telling his followers for centuries to slaughter filthy Christian infidels, while Yahweh has been telling his worshippers to organize European-wide crusades against the Allah's followers - was the god a double agent here? 

First, just because someone claims they speak for God doesn't mean they do.  I would argue that the beliefs about God between Muslims and Christians are not compatible.  While they, along with Jewish believers, may be 'people of the book' and arise from a common heritage, their understanding of God is very different.  Christianity primarily teaches in a trinity.  It believes Jesus was God's son whose death and resurrection on the cross are essential for salvation.  Islam does not believe in a trinity, sees Jesus as nothing more than a prophet, and discounts his death and resurrection.  The Christian God is personable, is just and merciful, whereas the Muslim God can choose to tip the scales as He sees fit and isn't personable. 

These are not cosmetic differences, but fundamentally different views of God in my opinion.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin you are bible dumb,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE ABOUT MORALS AND THE SERIAL KILLER JESUS GOD: " It is just nature, without a God, there are no absolute moral values."

You are so correct, because the pseudo-christians like YOU have to follow Jesus' morals that he set forth for you to follow, as in the examples below:

1. "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)

2. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)

3. JESUS STATED: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

4. Jesus replied,  “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.  (Matthew 15: 3-4)

I only included four examples of the absolute morals that pseudo-christians like you have to follow in Jesus' name.  Tell us, since you said without the serial killer Jesus as god there are no absolutely morals, then when did you follow the passages above in making Jesus happy?  When was the last time you had to BEAT a child? Did you or your friend ever have to sell their daughter into slavery? How much do you HATE your parents and children as Jesus says you are to do? Did you ever have to put to death any children that cursed you like Jesus wanted you too?  Huh?

SCARED once again to address your outright Bible ineptness to the content of this post?  LOL!!!

.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Actually I think Ocam's Razor would suggest that it is more likely 1 God than many.  It is the simpler answer.  It is more likely right.  You would need to show why you need more than 1 God for it to be more likely correct.

This does not seem correct to me. Occam's Razor's application is a bit more complex than abstract counting like this. In this case, in particular, the idea is that there is a multitude of gods aligns well with the theory according to which gods are an inherent part of this world, while the idea that there is only one god would require explanation of why more gods cannot exist. 
As an analogy, suppose that you examine a patient and find a previously undocumented virus in his body. Which is more likely: that this is the only person in the world who has ever contracted this virus, or that there are, at least, a few people like that out there? It would be truly outstanding if this virus was specific to this single individual, as that would inevitably require his organism to be outstandingly abnormal in some way.

just_sayin said:

First, just because someone claims they speak for God doesn't mean they do.  I would argue that the beliefs about God between Muslims and Christians are not compatible.  While they, along with Jewish believers, may be 'people of the book' and arise from a common heritage, their understanding of God is very different.  Christianity primarily teaches in a trinity.  It believes Jesus was God's son whose death and resurrection on the cross are essential for salvation.  Islam does not believe in a trinity, sees Jesus as nothing more than a prophet, and discounts his death and resurrection.  The Christian God is personable, is just and merciful, whereas the Muslim God can choose to tip the scales as He sees fit and isn't personable. 

These are not cosmetic differences, but fundamentally different views of God in my opinion.

If this is your view, then you inevitably are faced with the conundrum: by what standard is the correctness of these views determined? Multiple mutually contradictory views of god cannot be true at the same time. What experiment can anyone devise that would settle the dispute between, say, Muslims and Christians?

In science, it is simple: when two scientists assume two mutually contradictory hypotheses, they devise an experiment with two possible outcomes, each compatible with one of the hypotheses. I have never heard of anything in the religious domain playing the same role, other than "holy wars" in which the winning side allegedly enjoyed god's protection.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
This does not seem correct to me. Occam's Razor's application is a bit more complex than abstract counting like this. In this case, in particular, the idea is that there is a multitude of gods aligns well with the theory according to which gods are an inherent part of this world, while the idea that there is only one god would require explanation of why more gods cannot exist. 
As an analogy, suppose that you examine a patient and find a previously undocumented virus in his body. Which is more likely: that this is the only person in the world who has ever contracted this virus, or that there are, at least, a few people like that out there? It would be truly outstanding if this virus was specific to this single individual, as that would inevitably require his organism to be outstandingly abnormal in some way.

Ocam's razor would suggest that there is only 1 God.  In your view, you require multiple spaceless timeless eternal all powerful necessary beings to create the universe.  It seems enough to require 1 infinite necessary being, not multiple.  That requires much more complexity to explain the need of multiple infinite necessary beings.  

If this is your view, then you inevitably are faced with the conundrum: by what standard is the correctness of these views determined? Multiple mutually contradictory views of god cannot be true at the same time. What experiment can anyone devise that would settle the dispute between, say, Muslims and Christians?

In science, it is simple: when two scientists assume two mutually contradictory hypotheses, they devise an experiment with two possible outcomes, each compatible with one of the hypotheses. I have never heard of anything in the religious domain playing the same role, other than "holy wars" in which the winning side allegedly enjoyed god's protection.

If there are mutually contradictory view of god, you are view they can't both be true.  They can all be false, or one can be true, but they all can't be true.  This debate isn't about how to determine which God is the true one.  Briefly if it were true, I'd point out that Christianity is uniquely rooted in the historical event of Jesus' death and resurrection - prove or dispove that and you prove or disprove that faith.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Ocam's razor would suggest that there is only 1 God.  In your view, you require multiple spaceless timeless eternal all powerful necessary beings to create the universe.  It seems enough to require 1 infinite necessary being, not multiple.  That requires much more complexity to explain the need of multiple infinite necessary beings.  

If pure count is the basis of your reasoning, then Occam's razor would suggest that there are 0 gods. Otherwise, multiple gods make more sense than a single god, much like multiple humans make more sense than a single human. When you see a car outside, do you think that one human built it, or a large number of humans contributing to it? It seems to me that building a Universe is easier as a group than as a single individual. Have you ever tried making a complex video game set in a fictional world by yourself? The most immersive virtual worlds such as those of Skyrim or Fallout 4 involved hundreds or thousands of programmers and artists, not one.

"A god can exist" is a statement requiring less complex reasoning to establish than "One and only one god can exist".

just_sayin said:

If there are mutually contradictory view of god, you are view they can't both be true.  They can all be false, or one can be true, but they all can't be true.  This debate isn't about how to determine which God is the true one.  Briefly if it were true, I'd point out that Christianity is uniquely rooted in the historical event of Jesus' death and resurrection - prove or dispove that and you prove or disprove that faith.  

Yet the question of determining the true god is quite relevant to the debate. If there exists no procedure by which the true god can be established, then we are talking about some abstract being that has no connection to reality. On the other hand, if such procedure does exist, then it is a question that can - and should - be tackled scientifically, and given that it has not been, no claims about gods can be made at this point. Certainly the idea that some old fantasy book just happens to contain the accurate description of a being modern science cannot say anything about is bonkers, would you not agree? We never look into 2000+ year old literature to try to understand, say, how computers work - and how gods "work" is an infinitely more difficult question.

I have always found it strange that, when it comes to the most difficult questions in the world such as "what are the origins of the Universe?" or "what should I do to live a good life?", people defer to cavemen's judgement. It would seem that such questions would be the ones warranting application of the most cutting-edge science instead.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
If pure count is the basis of your reasoning, then Occam's razor would suggest that there are 0 gods. Otherwise, multiple gods make more sense than a single god, much like multiple humans make more sense than a single human. When you see a car outside, do you think that one human built it, or a large number of humans contributing to it? It seems to me that building a Universe is easier as a group than as a single individual. Have you ever tried making a complex video game set in a fictional world by yourself? The most immersive virtual worlds such as those of Skyrim or Fallout 4 involved hundreds or thousands of programmers and artists, not one.

"A god can exist" is a statement requiring less complex reasoning to establish than "One and only one god can exist".

Uh, no.  You have it backwards.  You have ignored the obvious issue that it is more complex to suggest that there are multiple eternal self-sufficient necessary beings.  It is much easier to conceive of 1 necessary eternal being than 2 or a million.  You have acted as if Gods are as common as cars.  They aren't.  By logic, you can conclude that a necessary being exists, but you are adding more complexity than is needed by claiming many gods.  Are all of these gods eternal?  If not they can be immediately disqualified from the discussion because they too like the universe had a beginning and are not the source of all creation.  Are all of these gods necessary beings in that their existence is necessary to rationally understand the cause of the universe?  In my opinion you are grasping at straws and making a weak case that omits the obvious weakness.

Yet the question of determining the true god is quite relevant to the debate. If there exists no procedure by which the true god can be established, then we are talking about some abstract being that has no connection to reality. On the other hand, if such procedure does exist, then it is a question that can - and should - be tackled scientifically, and given that it has not been, no claims about gods can be made at this point. Certainly the idea that some old fantasy book just happens to contain the accurate description of a being modern science cannot say anything about is bonkers, would you not agree? 

I don't agree.  Surely you could argue for a specific monotheistic God, however, the debate is not that specific in what it is asking.  It is sufficient to provide evidence of a monotheistic God, though I will admit that I do believe there is evidence for the Christian monotheistic God.  

Take the claims of Christianity, which as I pointed out earlier, are uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  You seem to suggest that "we can't accept the eye witnesses testimony about Jesus because they were his friends" argument.  That's ridiculous. What they saw not only did it inspire them to write about, but many died refusing to recant what they had seen.

Within a hundred years of Jesus' death and resurrection at least 42 different authors wrote about his life and events - this includes eye witnesses, family, friends, as well as enemies and non-Christian historians.  To put that into perspective, about the level of historical evidence we have for Jesus, at the time Jesus lived the most well known person in the world was Tiberias Caesar.  150 years after his death, we have records from just 15 authors who wrote about him.  From a purely historical perspective we have an immense amount of evidence regarding Jesus' life, miracles, death, and resurrection.  

Not only does Jesus brother, James, claim Jesus was resurrected, extra-biblical historians have noted James death and his relationship to Jesus.  We have eyewitness accounts from Mathew, Peter, James, John, and Mark who was present with the 12 disciples for many of the events in the Bible. There are credal statements in the book of 1 Corinthians that are dated at no more than 5 years after the resurrection of Jesus.  We have researched histories about Jesus from Luke who spoke with eye witnesses and recorded what they said.  Every non-Christian reference to Jesus treats him as a real person, not a single one denies his existence.  Further, many acknowledge his miracles and some even reference early Christians' belief in the resurrection.  When you compare that evidence to any other historical event, or person, of that era, it is an overwhelming amount of information in comparison.  

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin you are Bible dumb,

Oh LOOK, just_sayin is once again RUNNING AWAY from another post of mine relative to the morals of her serial killer Jesus God, what's new? NOTHING!  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166452/#Comment_166452

Just_sayin, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, and not a RUN AWAY FROM DISCUSSION FORUM, do you understand pseudo-christian? Huh?

I as an Atheist have made you the blatant biblical fool once again, therefore, will you go into hiding in embarrassment?


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE THE BIBLE DUFUS "JUST_SAYIN" THAT HAS TO RUN AWAY IN EMBARRASSMENT REGARDING THEIR BIBLE, WILL BE ...?

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast ;

just_sayin you are Bible dumb,
Oh LOOK, just_sayin is once again RUNNING AWAY from another post of mine relative to the morals of her serial killer Jesus God, what's new? NOTHING!  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166452/#Comment_166452

Just_sayin, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, and not a RUN AWAY FROM DISCUSSION FORUM, do you understand pseudo-christian? Huh?

I as an Atheist have made you the blatant biblical fool once again, therefore, will you go into hiding in embarrassment?


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE THE BIBLE DUFUS "JUST_SAYIN" THAT HAS TO RUN AWAY IN EMBARRASSMENT REGARDING THEIR BIBLE, WILL BE ...?

You still seem to be butt hurt.  That's probably why that Bible verse about spanking affected you so much.  You seem to want to change the topic of the debate, I don't blame you, you are losing.  This debate is about does a monotheistic God exist.  My challenge to you in the "does a theistic God exist debate" has gone unmet as you have run away.  Or did you just have to go and buy a new tube of butt salve for your wounds?  



In the theistic God debate, I mentioned that miracles show God's existence and even provided scientifically documented examples of 3 modern miracles.  No one has refuted that evidence.  You ran away from the discussion and  tried to change the subject.

Looking up above I mentioned to @JulesKorngold why it is irrational to believe that the universe went back in time to create itself.  The fact that the universe has a beginning is an evidence that God exists.  You could have engaged in that part of the debate but you ran away from that discussion also.

I also discussed with MayCaesar why it is more likely there is just one God than many.  He at least didn't run away from the debate. He made his argument.  Not a good one in my opinion, but at least he made an effort.

I briefly outlined in a previous post some of the historical evidence and witnesses to Jesus' resurrection and miracles, which point to a monotheistic God, you again, possibly too butt hurt from your previous defeats, ran away from that discussion.  When will you actually debate the topic, rather than trying to change the topic?   < the look on 21CenturyIconoclast's face as he can't refute the points brought up in this debate.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Tell the membership, what part of me answering your question, where YOU stated the following: "It is just nature, without a God, there are no absolute moral values."

The link is herewith: https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166452/#Comment_166452

AS SHOWN, YOU RAN AWAY LIKE A LITTLE SCHOOL GIRL AND DID NOT, I REPEAT, DID NOT ADDRESS MY ANSWER TO YOUR OWN COMENT, BUT ARE STILL HIDING FROM IT!!!  LOL!!!

Pseudo-christians like "just_sayin" are so biblically dumb, where "just_sayin" is taking the trophy once again for being the #2 Bible fool of this Religion Forum!

JUST_SAYIN, HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO BE IN HIDING ON THIS POST?


NEXT?

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;In the theistic God debate, I mentioned that miracles show God's existence and even provided scientifically documented examples of 3 modern miracles. 

Well hay wait a minute on that one because you were proven wrong on those scientific evidents because they were all totally un proven and the scientific evidence was totally bogus in all cases and you were explained why that is so so you cant say that any more.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;In the theistic God debate, I mentioned that miracles show God's existence and even provided scientifically documented examples of 3 modern miracles. 

Well hay wait a minute on that one because you were proven wrong on those scientific evidents because they were all totally un proven and the scientific evidence was totally bogus in all cases and you were explained why that is so so you cant say that any more.

I was proven they were wrong?  Sorry, but you are making stuff up.  Again, I'll provide you the evidence of 4 healing/miracles:

1)

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

2)
And a case of miraculous stomach healing after prayer:

Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

3).https://seangeorge.com.au/my-story/my-story/

And the documented evidence here:
https://seangeorge.com.au/my-story/medical-details/

And
4)

Raising the Dead: A Doctor Encounters the Miraculous

In the 4th example the Yale Cardiologist was so overwhelmed that the man came back to life after having died and not only legally declared dead, but dead for 85 minutes, that he wrote a book about it, packed full of the medical documentation.

Are you going to claim they are 'Christian Whackos' to dismiss the documented evidence like Dee tried?  LOL.  Maybe he will provide you with documented evidence that they are Christian whackos?  :] Last I saw, Dee was running away faster than a kid with diarrhea running to the bathroom.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Problems With Belief in God

• The lack of evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a monotheistic god. The universe does not appear to have been designed by a creator, and there is no need to invoke a god to explain its origins or operation.
• The problem of evil. If a monotheistic god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then why does evil exist? This is a question that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries, and there is no satisfactory answer.
• The diversity of religions. There are thousands of different religions in the world, each with its own beliefs about god. This diversity suggests that there is no one true god, or that humans have a natural tendency to create gods in their own image.
• The evolution of religion. There is evidence that religion has evolved over time, just like any other cultural phenomenon. This suggests that religion is not based on objective reality, but is instead a product of human psychology and culture.
• The lack of necessity. There is no need to believe in a monotheistic god. The universe can be explained without invoking a god, and there is no evidence that a god is necessary for the existence of morality, meaning, or purpose in life.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
If pure count is the basis of your reasoning, then Occam's razor would suggest that there are 0 gods. Otherwise, multiple gods make more sense than a single god, much like multiple humans make more sense than a single human. When you see a car outside, do you think that one human built it, or a large number of humans contributing to it? It seems to me that building a Universe is easier as a group than as a single individual. Have you ever tried making a complex video game set in a fictional world by yourself? The most immersive virtual worlds such as those of Skyrim or Fallout 4 involved hundreds or thousands of programmers and artists, not one.

"A god can exist" is a statement requiring less complex reasoning to establish than "One and only one god can exist".

Uh, no.  You have it backwards.  You have ignored the obvious issue that it is more complex to suggest that there are multiple eternal self-sufficient necessary beings.  It is much easier to conceive of 1 necessary eternal being than 2 or a million.  You have acted as if Gods are as common as cars.  They aren't.  By logic, you can conclude that a necessary being exists, but you are adding more complexity than is needed by claiming many gods.  Are all of these gods eternal?  If not they can be immediately disqualified from the discussion because they too like the universe had a beginning and are not the source of all creation.  Are all of these gods necessary beings in that their existence is necessary to rationally understand the cause of the universe?  In my opinion you are grasping at straws and making a weak case that omits the obvious weakness.

Once again, for something to be unique and special, some additional assumptions are required. If there was only one car on Earth, it would be peculiar and require complex explanation; there being a large number of cars is much easier to explain because they are all a product of the same phenomenon. Phenomena that only occur once and never again are intrinsically more complex, than phenomena that occur on regular basis.

You are absolutely right to ask all these questions about the multitude of gods. The simplest resolution to them is the statement that there are no gods. "No gods" is much easier to explain than "multiple gods", and "multiple gods" is much easier to explain than "one god". For if "one god" exists, it must be a product of some phenomenon, and then its reasonable to ask why that phenomenon has not kept producing more and more gods and stopped at exactly one.

just_sayin said:

Yet the question of determining the true god is quite relevant to the debate. If there exists no procedure by which the true god can be established, then we are talking about some abstract being that has no connection to reality. On the other hand, if such procedure does exist, then it is a question that can - and should - be tackled scientifically, and given that it has not been, no claims about gods can be made at this point. Certainly the idea that some old fantasy book just happens to contain the accurate description of a being modern science cannot say anything about is bonkers, would you not agree? 

I don't agree.  Surely you could argue for a specific monotheistic God, however, the debate is not that specific in what it is asking.  It is sufficient to provide evidence of a monotheistic God, though I will admit that I do believe there is evidence for the Christian monotheistic God.  

Take the claims of Christianity, which as I pointed out earlier, are uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  You seem to suggest that "we can't accept the eye witnesses testimony about Jesus because they were his friends" argument.  That's ridiculous. What they saw not only did it inspire them to write about, but many died refusing to recant what they had seen.

Within a hundred years of Jesus' death and resurrection at least 42 different authors wrote about his life and events - this includes eye witnesses, family, friends, as well as enemies and non-Christian historians.  To put that into perspective, about the level of historical evidence we have for Jesus, at the time Jesus lived the most well known person in the world was Tiberias Caesar.  150 years after his death, we have records from just 15 authors who wrote about him.  From a purely historical perspective we have an immense amount of evidence regarding Jesus' life, miracles, death, and resurrection.  

Not only does Jesus brother, James, claim Jesus was resurrected, extra-biblical historians have noted James death and his relationship to Jesus.  We have eyewitness accounts from Mathew, Peter, James, John, and Mark who was present with the 12 disciples for many of the events in the Bible. There are credal statements in the book of 1 Corinthians that are dated at no more than 5 years after the resurrection of Jesus.  We have researched histories about Jesus from Luke who spoke with eye witnesses and recorded what they said.  Every non-Christian reference to Jesus treats him as a real person, not a single one denies his existence.  Further, many acknowledge his miracles and some even reference early Christians' belief in the resurrection.  When you compare that evidence to any other historical event, or person, of that era, it is an overwhelming amount of information in comparison.  

I do not understand how you can provide evidence of something without being able to say anything specific of that something. Evidence necessarily contains some information that can be attributed to that something. I have never heard of any field producing evidence of something so vague that it literally gives you zero information other than that it exists. How do you know that it exists if you do not even know what "it" is? If there is no procedure to discriminate the "god" being Allah from it being Yahweh, then I am not even sure what we are talking about. Seems like a completely made up fantasy concept.

I do not remember calling anyone Jesus' friend. I do know that "eye witness testimonies" do not constitute solid and verifiable evidence. It is used in courts as supplementary evidence because courts, by design, do not seek to determine what is true, but seek to issue the most practical verdict that is most in the spirit of the system of justice - but it is not the same kind of evidence as the one you obtain from direct observation/experimentation.
There have been countless "eye witnesses" of Loch Ness Monster. The Loch Ness Monster, however, does not exist. Or do you think it does? What makes those "eye witnesses"' testimonies less trustworthy than the ones you are referring to?

It does not matter, my friend, how many authors wrote about something. What matters is whether what they wrote can be verified independently or not. It is impossible to verify that zombie Jesus was walking somewhere on some day - but it is absolutely possible to verify that Tiberius was the Roman Emperor at the given point by formulating hypotheses related to his rule and cross-referencing them with other information we have of that period, as well as preceding and following periods. Historical evidence is quite a bit more specific than the one you are referring to.

There are many individuals about whom a lot has been written, yet most of it was fantasy, or, at least, significant exaggeration of reality. Pocahontas is a good example: almost everything written about her is fantasy, and although the most popular story of her life is really good in itself, it happens to have little in common with historically verifiable tragic story that, let us just say, would not exactly make for a politically correct child-friendly Disney cartoon. Jesus, as one of the most popular fiction characters in the history of humanity, certainly has been a subject to endless myths and exaggerations - we, in fact, do not even know for certain if Jesus of Nazareth was the person who inspired all these legends, or if it is a completely fictional character who had no historical counterpart.
This is why it is important to analyze everything scientifically before making conclusions. The further into the past you look, the muddier the waters get, and the more freedom authors have to... make the stories more colorful than they actually were.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
If pure count is the basis of your reasoning, then Occam's razor would suggest that there are 0 gods. Otherwise, multiple gods make more sense than a single god, much like multiple humans make more sense than a single human. When you see a car outside, do you think that one human built it, or a large number of humans contributing to it? It seems to me that building a Universe is easier as a group than as a single individual. Have you ever tried making a complex video game set in a fictional world by yourself? The most immersive virtual worlds such as those of Skyrim or Fallout 4 involved hundreds or thousands of programmers and artists, not one.

"A god can exist" is a statement requiring less complex reasoning to establish than "One and only one god can exist".

Uh, no.  You have it backwards.  You have ignored the obvious issue that it is more complex to suggest that there are multiple eternal self-sufficient necessary beings.  It is much easier to conceive of 1 necessary eternal being than 2 or a million.  You have acted as if Gods are as common as cars.  They aren't.  By logic, you can conclude that a necessary being exists, but you are adding more complexity than is needed by claiming many gods.  Are all of these gods eternal?  If not they can be immediately disqualified from the discussion because they too like the universe had a beginning and are not the source of all creation.  Are all of these gods necessary beings in that their existence is necessary to rationally understand the cause of the universe?  In my opinion you are grasping at straws and making a weak case that omits the obvious weakness.

Once again, for something to be unique and special, some additional assumptions are required. If there was only one car on Earth, it would be peculiar and require complex explanation; there being a large number of cars is much easier to explain because they are all a product of the same phenomenon. Phenomena that only occur once and never again are intrinsically more complex, than phenomena that occur on regular basis.

You are absolutely right to ask all these questions about the multitude of gods. The simplest resolution to them is the statement that there are no gods. "No gods" is much easier to explain than "multiple gods", and "multiple gods" is much easier to explain than "one god". For if "one god" exists, it must be a product of some phenomenon, and then its reasonable to ask why that phenomenon has not kept producing more and more gods and stopped at exactly one.

just_sayin said:

Yet the question of determining the true god is quite relevant to the debate. If there exists no procedure by which the true god can be established, then we are talking about some abstract being that has no connection to reality. On the other hand, if such procedure does exist, then it is a question that can - and should - be tackled scientifically, and given that it has not been, no claims about gods can be made at this point. Certainly the idea that some old fantasy book just happens to contain the accurate description of a being modern science cannot say anything about is bonkers, would you not agree? 

I don't agree.  Surely you could argue for a specific monotheistic God, however, the debate is not that specific in what it is asking.  It is sufficient to provide evidence of a monotheistic God, though I will admit that I do believe there is evidence for the Christian monotheistic God.  

Take the claims of Christianity, which as I pointed out earlier, are uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  You seem to suggest that "we can't accept the eye witnesses testimony about Jesus because they were his friends" argument.  That's ridiculous. What they saw not only did it inspire them to write about, but many died refusing to recant what they had seen.

Within a hundred years of Jesus' death and resurrection at least 42 different authors wrote about his life and events - this includes eye witnesses, family, friends, as well as enemies and non-Christian historians.  To put that into perspective, about the level of historical evidence we have for Jesus, at the time Jesus lived the most well known person in the world was Tiberias Caesar.  150 years after his death, we have records from just 15 authors who wrote about him.  From a purely historical perspective we have an immense amount of evidence regarding Jesus' life, miracles, death, and resurrection.  

Not only does Jesus brother, James, claim Jesus was resurrected, extra-biblical historians have noted James death and his relationship to Jesus.  We have eyewitness accounts from Mathew, Peter, James, John, and Mark who was present with the 12 disciples for many of the events in the Bible. There are credal statements in the book of 1 Corinthians that are dated at no more than 5 years after the resurrection of Jesus.  We have researched histories about Jesus from Luke who spoke with eye witnesses and recorded what they said.  Every non-Christian reference to Jesus treats him as a real person, not a single one denies his existence.  Further, many acknowledge his miracles and some even reference early Christians' belief in the resurrection.  When you compare that evidence to any other historical event, or person, of that era, it is an overwhelming amount of information in comparison.  

I do not understand how you can provide evidence of something without being able to say anything specific of that something. Evidence necessarily contains some information that can be attributed to that something. I have never heard of any field producing evidence of something so vague that it literally gives you zero information other than that it exists. How do you know that it exists if you do not even know what "it" is? If there is no procedure to discriminate the "god" being Allah from it being Yahweh, then I am not even sure what we are talking about. Seems like a completely made up fantasy concept.

I do not remember calling anyone Jesus' friend. I do know that "eye witness testimonies" do not constitute solid and verifiable evidence. It is used in courts as supplementary evidence because courts, by design, do not seek to determine what is true, but seek to issue the most practical verdict that is most in the spirit of the system of justice - but it is not the same kind of evidence as the one you obtain from direct observation/experimentation.
There have been countless "eye witnesses" of Loch Ness Monster. The Loch Ness Monster, however, does not exist. Or do you think it does? What makes those "eye witnesses"' testimonies less trustworthy than the ones you are referring to?

It does not matter, my friend, how many authors wrote about something. What matters is whether what they wrote can be verified independently or not. It is impossible to verify that zombie Jesus was walking somewhere on some day - but it is absolutely possible to verify that Tiberius was the Roman Emperor at the given point by formulating hypotheses related to his rule and cross-referencing them with other information we have of that period, as well as preceding and following periods. Historical evidence is quite a bit more specific than the one you are referring to.

There are many individuals about whom a lot has been written, yet most of it was fantasy, or, at least, significant exaggeration of reality. Pocahontas is a good example: almost everything written about her is fantasy, and although the most popular story of her life is really good in itself, it happens to have little in common with historically verifiable tragic story that, let us just say, would not exactly make for a politically correct child-friendly Disney cartoon. Jesus, as one of the most popular fiction characters in the history of humanity, certainly has been a subject to endless myths and exaggerations - we, in fact, do not even know for certain if Jesus of Nazareth was the person who inspired all these legends, or if it is a completely fictional character who had no historical counterpart.
This is why it is important to analyze everything scientifically before making conclusions. The further into the past you look, the muddier the waters get, and the more freedom authors have to... make the stories more colorful than they actually were.

In this response, you said,  "if one god exists, it must be a product of some phenomenon, and then its reasonable to ask why that phenomenon has not kept producing more and more gods and stopped at exactly one."

However, as the story goes, God did not begin to exist.  God has always existed.  Indeed, if something were to come into existence, like a universe or something of that sort, that would require some kind of phenomenon to cause it's existence.  But that which has always existed does not require a phenomenon to begin to exist.

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

It does not matter whether it has always existed or not: its existence is a product of some phenomenon - perhaps, eternally existing phenomenon. If god "just exists" and that is it, then we are talking riddles here and any logical arguments are irrelevant anyway. I might as well say, "abrakadabra is eternal and any further questioning is pointless" - I will have said exactly as much meaning-wise as you did here.

It is convenient to construct a picture of the world in which everything can be referenced back to some abstract entity called "god", while said "god" is devoid of the need for such a reference. It is also and pointless. This picture of the world is an ivory tower construct that does not actually say anything. It is just a bunch of words defined in terms of each other and completely detached from reality.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

@Sonofason

It does not matter whether it has always existed or not: its existence is a product of some phenomenon - perhaps, eternally existing phenomenon. If god "just exists" and that is it, then we are talking riddles here and any logical arguments are irrelevant anyway. I might as well say, "abrakadabra is eternal and any further questioning is pointless" - I will have said exactly as much meaning-wise as you did here.

It is convenient to construct a picture of the world in which everything can be referenced back to some abstract entity called "god", while said "god" is devoid of the need for such a reference. It is also and pointless. This picture of the world is an ivory tower construct that does not actually say anything. It is just a bunch of words defined in terms of each other and completely detached from reality.

No, you are apparently very confused.  If something has always existed, then there can be no phenomenon responsible for its existence.  The fact that you cannot comprehend that is quite amusing.  I surmise that this is indeed a riddle that you are not capable of solving.  And I agree that even if you could propose a logical argument, it would indeed be irrelevant.  

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

No, you are apparently very confused.  If something has always existed, then there can be no phenomenon responsible for its existence.  The fact that you cannot comprehend that is quite amusing.  I surmise that this is indeed a riddle that you are not capable of solving.  And I agree that even if you could propose a logical argument, it would indeed be irrelevant.  

That is quite an assertion. If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist? There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed? How does this make any sense? There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?

Maybe it is one of those religious things that are not supposed to be understood logically. Like the idea that a person can be his own son, or the idea that hell does not exist, but those who sin end up in hell...

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

No, you are apparently very confused.  If something has always existed, then there can be no phenomenon responsible for its existence.  The fact that you cannot comprehend that is quite amusing.  I surmise that this is indeed a riddle that you are not capable of solving.  And I agree that even if you could propose a logical argument, it would indeed be irrelevant.  

That is quite an assertion. If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist? There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed? How does this make any sense? There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?

Maybe it is one of those religious things that are not supposed to be understood logically. Like the idea that a person can be his own son, or the idea that hell does not exist, but those who sin end up in hell...

"If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist?"  - Philosophers use the term 'necessary being' or 'necessary thing' to describe this.  It logically follows that you can not have an infinite regress of something, that at some point there must be an initial cause - this cause must be uncaused because nothing came before it and caused it.  That's not 'illogical' but deductive reasoning.  

Explain to me your belief about where the universe came from if you believe that things could not always exist.  I'll wait for your answer.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Those philosophers make an unfounded assumption: there is no reason for infinite regress to not be the case. In fact, infinite regress has to be the case if logical reasoning is to be possible at all, for inherent property of logic is connectivity of statements, and a statement that is not connected to any preceding statement is nothing more than empty assertion. If something cannot be derived from anything else, then it is inherently illogical.

To your request, I am unable to do so, for I do not have a "belief about where the universe came from". The whole idea of the Universe "coming from" something makes zero sense to me, in fact. The Universe, by definition, encompasses everything that exists, so whatever anything in it could have possibly come from is a part of it.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

No, you are apparently very confused.  If something has always existed, then there can be no phenomenon responsible for its existence.  The fact that you cannot comprehend that is quite amusing.  I surmise that this is indeed a riddle that you are not capable of solving.  And I agree that even if you could propose a logical argument, it would indeed be irrelevant.  

That is quite an assertion. If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist? There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed? How does this make any sense? There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?

Maybe it is one of those religious things that are not supposed to be understood logically. Like the idea that a person can be his own son, or the idea that hell does not exist, but those who sin end up in hell...

Surely, if something such as fire-breathing dragons have never existed, it would take a phenomenon, a cause for them to begin to exist.  Even if a fire breathing dragon never existed...surely one could begin to exist if it were caused to exist.  But if something has always existed, it needs no cause to exist.

If nothing was in fact something, it would require no phenomenon to begin to exist.  Indeed the absence of something exists everywhere where there is nothing, and there are many spaces where there is not something.  Prior to the universe existing, there was nothing.  What is nothing?  Do you think you know?

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

MayCaesar said:

That is quite an assertion. If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist? There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed? How does this make any sense? There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?

Maybe it is one of those religious things that are not supposed to be understood logically. Like the idea that a person can be his own son, or the idea that hell does not exist, but those who sin end up in hell...

Surely, if something such as fire-breathing dragons have never existed, it would take a phenomenon, a cause for them to begin to exist.  Even if a fire breathing dragon never existed...surely one could begin to exist if it were caused to exist.  But if something has always existed, it needs no cause to exist.

If nothing was in fact something, it would require no phenomenon to begin to exist.  Indeed the absence of something exists everywhere where there is nothing, and there are many spaces where there is not something.  Prior to the universe existing, there was nothing.  What is nothing?  Do you think you know?

Eh, no, do not dodge the question. I will repeat it: "There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed?" And another one: "There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?"

As for your second point, you are making the same blunder as most theists trying to refute the Big Bang Theory with some simple trick. "Prior to the universe existing, there was nothing" is not a sentence that makes a lot of sense in the context of what is known about the Universe's history, which is that time itself is intrinsically connected to the Universe, and the sentence "prior to the Universe existing" makes as much sense as "the positive integer preceding 1".

To your last question, yes, I know what "nothing" is: it is negation of "something". What I do not know is what "supernatural" is, which, by definition, is something that is not a part of this nature, but yet somehow influences it. To me this concept seems to be self-contradictory.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

MayCaesar said:

That is quite an assertion. If there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of something, then how can it exist? There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed? How does this make any sense? There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?

Maybe it is one of those religious things that are not supposed to be understood logically. Like the idea that a person can be his own son, or the idea that hell does not exist, but those who sin end up in hell...

Surely, if something such as fire-breathing dragons have never existed, it would take a phenomenon, a cause for them to begin to exist.  Even if a fire breathing dragon never existed...surely one could begin to exist if it were caused to exist.  But if something has always existed, it needs no cause to exist.

If nothing was in fact something, it would require no phenomenon to begin to exist.  Indeed the absence of something exists everywhere where there is nothing, and there are many spaces where there is not something.  Prior to the universe existing, there was nothing.  What is nothing?  Do you think you know?

Eh, no, do not dodge the question. I will repeat it: "There is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, hence fire-breathing dragons do not exist - but, according to you, they may still exist as long as they have always existed?" And another one: "There is no phenomenon responsible for the possibility that 1+1=3, but 1+1=3 may still hold if it has always held?"

As for your second point, you are making the same blunder as most theists trying to refute the Big Bang Theory with some simple trick. "Prior to the universe existing, there was nothing" is not a sentence that makes a lot of sense in the context of what is known about the Universe's history, which is that time itself is intrinsically connected to the Universe, and the sentence "prior to the Universe existing" makes as much sense as "the positive integer preceding 1".

To your last question, yes, I know what "nothing" is: it is negation of "something". What I do not know is what "supernatural" is, which, by definition, is something that is not a part of this nature, but yet somehow influences it. To me this concept seems to be self-contradictory.

Actually, you really should read more carefully.  Comprehension is crucial in a debate.
I never said fire-breathing dragons exist.  I never said there has ever been a phenomenon that has caused an existence of fire-breathing dragons.  
Nor have I said that fire-breathing dragons have always existed.  
Indeed, IF fire-breathing dragons exist, they exist because there either was a phenomenon that caused their existence, or they have always existed.  And that is a logical statement.  Whether they exist, I'm sure you don't know.  Whether they have ever existed, I'm sure you don't know.  If they shall ever exist, I'm sure you don't know.
And if God exists, you are oblivious to it.

If there was no prior to the universe existing; and of course we know the universe had a beginning; what do you suppose was the phenomenon that caused the universe to begin?  How could the universe have begun to exist, if prior to it's existence there was no time for phenomenon to cause its existence?  I know your stumped...because you actually know nothing about the universe.  And you know nothing about the existence of time, and whether or not time predates the existence of the universe.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the supernatural.  Surely, I did not mention it.  There can be nothing super natural.  
If God exists, I am quite certain that is natural.  
If human beings build cities, I am quite certain that is also natural.
There is nothing in existence that is unnatural.

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

Actually, you really should read more carefully.  Comprehension is crucial in a debate.

I never said fire-breathing dragons exist.  I never said there has ever been a phenomenon that has caused an existence of fire-breathing dragons.  
Nor have I said that fire-breathing dragons have always existed.  
Indeed, IF fire-breathing dragons exist, they exist because there either was a phenomenon that caused their existence, or they have always existed.  And that is a logical statement.  Whether they exist, I'm sure you don't know.  Whether they have ever existed, I'm sure you don't know.  If they shall ever exist, I'm sure you don't know.
And if God exists, you are oblivious to it.

If there was no prior to the universe existing; and of course we know the universe had a beginning; what do you suppose was the phenomenon that caused the universe to begin?  How could the universe have begun to exist, if prior to it's existence there was no time for phenomenon to cause its existence?  I know your stumped...because you actually know nothing about the universe.  And you know nothing about the existence of time, and whether or not time predates the existence of the universe.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the supernatural.  Surely, I did not mention it.  There can be nothing super natural.  
If God exists, I am quite certain that is natural.  
If human beings build cities, I am quite certain that is also natural.
There is nothing in existence that is unnatural.

In other words, you agree with me that fire-breathing dragons cannot exist if they have not existed at some point, but can exist if they have always existed, correct? Do you not find this conclusion a bit bizarre, considering that eternally-existing fire-breathing dragons intuitively are less likely than temporarily-existing fire-breathing dragons?
And I still would like to see my question about 1+1=3 answered.

Once again, you do not understand what the Big Bang Theory exactly states. It does not state that "the Universe had a beginning" in the sense of there being a period of time the first part of which the Universe did not exist and the second part of which it did. It does state that there is a certain point in time at which we can start measuring the timeline of our Universe - but it makes no sense to talk about anything "before" that time point. The Universe only "began" to exist at that point in the sense in which time itself became a thing.
I am not stumped for I actually did research in this field. It is one of those cases where the less you know about something, the more you think you know and the less you think others know. The reality is, your knowledge of the Big Bang Theory is limited to the strawmanned version of it fundamentalist Christians like to preach - version that has nothing in common with the actual scientific theory.

If god is natural, then it is a part of nature. Yet you seem to claim that it created nature... How can something that is a part of nature create it? If it was already a part of nature, then nature already existed, hence it cannot be created, for for something to be created, it has to not exist prior to the moment of creation.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

Actually, you really should read more carefully.  Comprehension is crucial in a debate.

I never said fire-breathing dragons exist.  I never said there has ever been a phenomenon that has caused an existence of fire-breathing dragons.  
Nor have I said that fire-breathing dragons have always existed.  
Indeed, IF fire-breathing dragons exist, they exist because there either was a phenomenon that caused their existence, or they have always existed.  And that is a logical statement.  Whether they exist, I'm sure you don't know.  Whether they have ever existed, I'm sure you don't know.  If they shall ever exist, I'm sure you don't know.
And if God exists, you are oblivious to it.

If there was no prior to the universe existing; and of course we know the universe had a beginning; what do you suppose was the phenomenon that caused the universe to begin?  How could the universe have begun to exist, if prior to it's existence there was no time for phenomenon to cause its existence?  I know your stumped...because you actually know nothing about the universe.  And you know nothing about the existence of time, and whether or not time predates the existence of the universe.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the supernatural.  Surely, I did not mention it.  There can be nothing super natural.  
If God exists, I am quite certain that is natural.  
If human beings build cities, I am quite certain that is also natural.
There is nothing in existence that is unnatural.

In other words, you agree with me that fire-breathing dragons cannot exist if they have not existed at some point, but can exist if they have always existed, correct? Do you not find this conclusion a bit bizarre, considering that eternally-existing fire-breathing dragons intuitively are less likely than temporarily-existing fire-breathing dragons?
And I still would like to see my question about 1+1=3 answered.

Once again, you do not understand what the Big Bang Theory exactly states. It does not state that "the Universe had a beginning" in the sense of there being a period of time the first part of which the Universe did not exist and the second part of which it did. It does state that there is a certain point in time at which we can start measuring the timeline of our Universe - but it makes no sense to talk about anything "before" that time point. The Universe only "began" to exist at that point in the sense in which time itself became a thing.
I am not stumped for I actually did research in this field. It is one of those cases where the less you know about something, the more you think you know and the less you think others know. The reality is, your knowledge of the Big Bang Theory is limited to the strawmanned version of it fundamentalist Christians like to preach - version that has nothing in common with the actual scientific theory.

If god is natural, then it is a part of nature. Yet you seem to claim that it created nature... How can something that is a part of nature create it? If it was already a part of nature, then nature already existed, hence it cannot be created, for for something to be created, it has to not exist prior to the moment of creation.

No, I would not say that fire-breathing dragons cannot exist if they have not existed at some point.  I might say that fire-breathing dragons DO NOT exist if they HAVE NOT existed at some point.  But fire-breathing dragons COULD exist at some point, even if they have never existed in the past.  There was a point in time when human beings did not exist.  At that point in time human beings could exist in the future even though they had not existed at any point prior to their existence.  And yes, if fire-breathing dragons have always existed, they very well ought to exist now. 

So you believe that if a God exists that He is more likely to be a temporarily existing God, as opposed to an eternally existing God?  I do not see the logic as to why it is intuitively more likely to have temporarily existing beings as opposed to eternally existing beings.  You continue to insinuate that time did not exist prior to this strange notion of a universe existing though not really existing, because there was no existing time in which to consider the previously existing universe?  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Time exists regardless of the presence of a universe.  Or the universe is eternal.  However, if the universe is eternal, like God, it would not require a cause...and I know you have trouble comprehending that notion...So now what?

And now you have come to realize that nature is also eternal.

Agreed...nature is a word.  Human beings occur in nature, yet nothing human is considered natural.

nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

If you read carefully this definition of natural, you will see that God can exist in nature, and He can exist without the existence of nature.

If God had not created nature, he would be existing without nature.
Since God created nature, He now exists IN nature.

As I said...there is nothing supernatural about the existence of God.

MayCaesar

Sonofason said:

No, I would not say that fire-breathing dragons cannot exist if they have not existed at some point.  I might say that fire-breathing dragons DO NOT exist if they HAVE NOT existed at some point.  But fire-breathing dragons COULD exist at some point, even if they have never existed in the past.  There was a point in time when human beings did not exist.  At that point in time human beings could exist in the future even though they had not existed at any point prior to their existence.  And yes, if fire-breathing dragons have always existed, they very well ought to exist now. 

So you believe that if a God exists that He is more likely to be a temporarily existing God, as opposed to an eternally existing God?  I do not see the logic as to why it is intuitively more likely to have temporarily existing beings as opposed to eternally existing beings.  You continue to insinuate that time did not exist prior to this strange notion of a universe existing though not really existing, because there was no existing time in which to consider the previously existing universe?  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Time exists regardless of the presence of a universe.  Or the universe is eternal.  However, if the universe is eternal, like God, it would not require a cause...and I know you have trouble comprehending that notion...So now what?

And now you have come to realize that nature is also eternal.

Agreed...nature is a word.  Human beings occur in nature, yet nothing human is considered natural.

nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

If you read carefully this definition of natural, you will see that God can exist in nature, and He can exist without the existence of nature.

If God had not created nature, he would be existing without nature.
Since God created nature, He now exists IN nature.

As I said...there is nothing supernatural about the existence of God.

You are missing the point. The point is that, according to your logic, if there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, then they may only have always existed - yet if there is, then they must have existed only temporarily. Temporary existence is clearly a weaker property than eternal existence, yet, according to your reasoning, eternal existence is more likely than temporary existence - this violates basic logical rule according to which a subset of a set must have a smaller power than the set. Events A and B must have occurred with no bigger probability than event A alone.

I do not know if a temporarily existing god is more likely to exist than an eternally existing god period. I do think, however, that god existing without any reason has the 0 probability, while god existing for some reason has the non-zero probability, hence being more likely - and, given the connection you made between existence of a phenomenon responsible for god's existence and its temporality, this necessarily leads to the conclusion that an eternally existing god is impossible, while a temporarily existing god might be possible.

You are dead wrong about time. Spacetime is a property of the Universe, and in the absence of the Universe there is no space or time, and the concept of time loses any meaning. Just think about what it would mean to have no Universe, but have time... in what sense can time exist? There is no Universe, hence there are no events, hence there are no sequences of events, hence saying that something happened before something else makes no sense, hence "time" makes no sense.

You are changing your definition of "natural" now. Here is your what you originally wrote:

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the supernatural.  Surely, I did not mention it.  There can be nothing super natural.  
If God exists, I am quite certain that is natural.  
If human beings build cities, I am quite certain that is also natural.
There is nothing in existence that is unnatural.

This is incompatible with your newer claim that something made or caused by humankind is not natural.

Sonofason

MayCaesar said:

Sonofason said:

No, I would not say that fire-breathing dragons cannot exist if they have not existed at some point.  I might say that fire-breathing dragons DO NOT exist if they HAVE NOT existed at some point.  But fire-breathing dragons COULD exist at some point, even if they have never existed in the past.  There was a point in time when human beings did not exist.  At that point in time human beings could exist in the future even though they had not existed at any point prior to their existence.  And yes, if fire-breathing dragons have always existed, they very well ought to exist now. 

So you believe that if a God exists that He is more likely to be a temporarily existing God, as opposed to an eternally existing God?  I do not see the logic as to why it is intuitively more likely to have temporarily existing beings as opposed to eternally existing beings.  You continue to insinuate that time did not exist prior to this strange notion of a universe existing though not really existing, because there was no existing time in which to consider the previously existing universe?  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Time exists regardless of the presence of a universe.  Or the universe is eternal.  However, if the universe is eternal, like God, it would not require a cause...and I know you have trouble comprehending that notion...So now what?

And now you have come to realize that nature is also eternal.

Agreed...nature is a word.  Human beings occur in nature, yet nothing human is considered natural.

nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind

If you read carefully this definition of natural, you will see that God can exist in nature, and He can exist without the existence of nature.

If God had not created nature, he would be existing without nature.
Since God created nature, He now exists IN nature.

As I said...there is nothing supernatural about the existence of God.

You are missing the point. The point is that, according to your logic, if there is no phenomenon responsible for existence of fire-breathing dragons, then they may only have always existed - yet if there is, then they must have existed only temporarily. Temporary existence is clearly a weaker property than eternal existence, yet, according to your reasoning, eternal existence is more likely than temporary existence - this violates basic logical rule according to which a subset of a set must have a smaller power than the set. Events A and B must have occurred with no bigger probability than event A alone.

I do not know if a temporarily existing god is more likely to exist than an eternally existing god period. I do think, however, that god existing without any reason has the 0 probability, while god existing for some reason has the non-zero probability, hence being more likely - and, given the connection you made between existence of a phenomenon responsible for god's existence and its temporality, this necessarily leads to the conclusion that an eternally existing god is impossible, while a temporarily existing god might be possible.

You are dead wrong about time. Spacetime is a property of the Universe, and in the absence of the Universe there is no space or time, and the concept of time loses any meaning. Just think about what it would mean to have no Universe, but have time... in what sense can time exist? There is no Universe, hence there are no events, hence there are no sequences of events, hence saying that something happened before something else makes no sense, hence "time" makes no sense.

You are changing your definition of "natural" now. Here is your what you originally wrote:

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the supernatural.  Surely, I did not mention it.  There can be nothing super natural.  
If God exists, I am quite certain that is natural.  
If human beings build cities, I am quite certain that is also natural.
There is nothing in existence that is unnatural.

This is incompatible with your newer claim that something made or caused by humankind is not natural.

I agree...it is a flawed definition.  Human beings are completely natural, despite what you and everyone else might believe the definition of natural is.
God is eternal.  Thus nature is eternal, since God created nature.  Time exists despite the universe.  If you want me to believe otherwise, you'll have to prove that time does not exist in the absence of a universe.  I'm quite sure you cannot do that.  It is a theory, and it is a flawed theory, just as the definition of natural.
Nature and natural are merely words.  Natural can exist without nature.  It can be completely natural for God to create nature.

MayCaesar

@Sonofason

I am sorry, but if this discussion is going to be on the level of "these are merely words", then I am completely disinterested in it. The most basic premise of any meaningful verbal communication between humans is that the humans have a shared understanding of words, and if that is not the case, then communication is pointless.
You defined "natural" a certain way, and I went by your definition. You did not like where that definition led, so you swapped it on the fly. I am happy to see someone repairing their argument - but not to see someone pretend as if the original argument was correct as well and I merely misunderstood it, which is demonstrably not the case.

As for your time question, I believe I have explained my argument quite well. Try to define the concept of time that can exists without a Universe to embed it in. In what sense can you say that something occurs before something else if there is nothing to occur and nowhere for it to occur? The proof you are seeking is in the very definition of "time".
If the theory is flawed, then you are welcome to point out the flaws that make it so. As far as I can tell, it derives strictly from the definition of "time", and the derivation is logically flawless.

Barnardot

@Sonofason ;Nature and natural are merely words. 

So is God merely a word accept that there is such things as natural and nature.