ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
Re: Test of ultimate authority ...
Re: Test of ultimate authority ...
Says who? How do you justify this claim?!
So are you!
"Rational" as in based on reason? To whom (whose reasoning) must my accounting conform, and how did their reasoning become authoritative?
This is where I think all of these presuppositionalist worldviews lose me. I have been assuming that you concur with the worldviews of Van Til and Bahnsen. Correct me if I am wrong. These worldviews claim to presuppose the Christian Triune God as the ultimate authority - a higher authority than logic itself. One of the problems with this is that Van Til and Bahnsen have chosen this worldview by evaluating it using their human reasoning. How have they justified their reasoning?
In my worldview, I would like to grant myself ultimate authority - which is definitely higher than your autonomous human reasoning. Once this is granted, your ability to refute the worldview vanishes. You cannot tell me that "I must explain how I define universals" or require me to prove anything else, since these requests are drawn from your fallible reasoning facility and your unauthoritative system of logic. I have no need to answer, or I can answer absolutely anything whatsoever - with ultimate authority.
How does your worldview account for the "intelligibility of human experience"?
Re: Test of ultimate authority ...
Says who? How do you justify this claim?!
So are you!
"Rational" as in based on reason? To whom (whose reasoning) must my accounting conform, and how did their reasoning become authoritative?
This is where I think all of these presuppositionalist worldviews lose me. I have been assuming that you concur with the worldviews of Van Til and Bahnsen. Correct me if I am wrong. These worldviews claim to presuppose the Christian Triune God as the ultimate authority - a higher authority than logic itself. One of the problems with this is that Van Til and Bahnsen have chosen this worldview by evaluating it using their human reasoning. How have they justified their reasoning?
In my worldview, I would like to grant myself ultimate authority - which is definitely higher than your autonomous human reasoning. Once this is granted, your ability to refute the worldview vanishes. You cannot tell me that "I must explain how I define universals" or require me to prove anything else, since these requests are drawn from your fallible reasoning facility and your unauthoritative system of logic. I have no need to answer, or I can answer absolutely anything whatsoever - with ultimate authority.
How does your worldview account for the "intelligibility of human experience"?
Hi RogerB
“Don't you see that you are blind to the truth? Satan has control of your mind. You're not a 'thinker", you are merely following Satan's rule. God is right in front of your face! Open your eyes!!”
If Satan :devil: is causing so much bother, why doesn’t God simply blink him out of existence now?
KC
“Don't you see that you are blind to the truth? Satan has control of your mind. You're not a 'thinker", you are merely following Satan's rule. God is right in front of your face! Open your eyes!!”
If Satan :devil: is causing so much bother, why doesn’t God simply blink him out of existence now?
KC
Zakath
Resident Atheist
If there was a deity or devil, why would the latter waste time on someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god? From your POV, in the case of an atheist, the devil's already won.
Now, to blind reliigionists... that's a fruitful game for a divine adversary... :think:
Rogerb posts
What a ridiculous statement. For one Satan is just as ludicrous and entity as God. Two Satan can somehow remove my free will.. when God assures it remains intact ?
The true irony is…
It is Christians like you that make people atheists !
If anyone here is doing the devils work.. IT IS YOU..
What a ridiculous statement. For one Satan is just as ludicrous and entity as God. Two Satan can somehow remove my free will.. when God assures it remains intact ?
The true irony is…
It is Christians like you that make people atheists !
If anyone here is doing the devils work.. IT IS YOU..
Definition, please.
Definition, please.
I'm sorry for my absence, folks. I've been unusually busy lately. This is directed to Heusdens's response to my question. I asked him to define "natural." His response:
Heusdens writes:
Heusdens writes:
Heusdens writes:
Jim
Definition, please.
I'm sorry for my absence, folks. I've been unusually busy lately. This is directed to Heusdens's response to my question. I asked him to define "natural." His response:
How is that relevant?
Heusdens writes:
Have you tested your theory?
Heusdens writes:
How do you know this?
Heusdens writes:
You didn't answer my question. Define "natural." Thanks.
Jim
Back to Mr. Ben ...
Back to Mr. Ben ...
Mr. Ben writes:
Mr. Ben writes:
Jim previously wrote: To answer your question, the Triune God can account for the fundamental philosophical problems of unity-diversity, universals-particulars, the many and the one, and mind-body dichotomy. Thus, logical laws, mathematical relationships, and scientific inquiry make sense. Any unitarian monolithic solution that is proposed is inadequate to address these issue. Flash is thereby disqualified.
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes.
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: You further expose a horribly simplistic understanding of this debate. You need to go back and read some of my previous posts, Mr. Ben. Merely inventing a supreme being that is "rational and logical" doesn't cut it.
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: I didn't make it up, Mr. Ben. It comes from the authoritative source that I believe to be the Word of God.
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: Of all the atheists I've debated, there is a certain kind that inevitably shows himself to be an embarrassment to the rest. These are the kind who just can't get themselves to respect the debate, to deal honorably with others of differing opinions, and continually make bald unsupported assertions without debate. I find it repugnant and yet another example of what atheism has to offer.
Mr. Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben continues:
Jim wrote: Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name.
Mr Ben then wrotes: No, flash accounts for all the unanswered questions in existence..
Jim wrote:You can't just make the assertion, Mr Ben. You have to explain and show why it would be reasonable to think your assertion has any merit. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr. Ben writes:
Mr. Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes;
Jim
Back to Mr. Ben ...
Mr. Ben writes:
Why do you assume this? God does not give those answers, and for you to argue that way indicates that you prefer to debate a straw man. Otherwise, you might have actually asked a question rather than make this assumption. I will grant that there are some questions that God does not answer, like "Where did God come from?" But for you assume that God says "I'm incomprehensible, BUZZ OFF" indicates to me that you're a loafer. Ask questions, Mr Ben. Ask for definitions. Come join this debate, and stop making up own opponents that are far easier to knock down.
Mr. Ben writes:
This is funny coming from someone who makes up imaginary opponents. Let's just assume for a second that I made up God. At least I'm am willing and able to show how my imaginary God accounts for reality and our experience of it. For you to merely state "Great Green God of Reptelon 7 accounts for all of reality" isn't sufficient. You have to explain. Otherwise, you lose.
Jim previously wrote: To answer your question, the Triune God can account for the fundamental philosophical problems of unity-diversity, universals-particulars, the many and the one, and mind-body dichotomy. Thus, logical laws, mathematical relationships, and scientific inquiry make sense. Any unitarian monolithic solution that is proposed is inadequate to address these issue. Flash is thereby disqualified.
Mr Ben writes:
The words and the sentences have meaning, Mr. Ben. If you're not familiar with them, you need only to ask and I will clarify. The Trinity is the Godhead as three-in-one. God is inherently a many-and-one Being, and thus His very nature and character can account for this phenomenon in nature. Is Flash a trinity? If so, then maybe you've got something there. But if he is a singular entity, then you are claiming that a unitarian/monolithic being can address this issue. He cannot by his very nature and character. Let me know if any of that seems too arcane.
Jim wrote: But if there is a rational and logical God who created the universe, then it follows that the universe He created reflects those attributes.
Mr Ben writes:
There is every reason to believe this. There is no rational reason not to believe it. By rejecting this, you sacrifice rationality on the altar of empiricism because you cannot justify or account for empiricism itself. You must blindly rely upon your own faith-based assumption that empiricism is true and that the laws of induction that make sense of it are uniformly reliable and comport with reality.
Jim wrote: You further expose a horribly simplistic understanding of this debate. You need to go back and read some of my previous posts, Mr. Ben. Merely inventing a supreme being that is "rational and logical" doesn't cut it.
Mr Ben writes:
If you don't like it, go away. Rational men will do just fine without the likes of those who cannot keep their emotions in check.
Mr Ben writes:
Do you really think "any old attribute" can be assigned to God? Make a list of attributes you think a god would need to have to account for reality. I dare you.
Jim wrote: I didn't make it up, Mr. Ben. It comes from the authoritative source that I believe to be the Word of God.
Mr Ben writes:
You further prove that you cannot handle this debate. Take your ball and bat and go home, Mr. Ben.
Jim wrote: Of all the atheists I've debated, there is a certain kind that inevitably shows himself to be an embarrassment to the rest. These are the kind who just can't get themselves to respect the debate, to deal honorably with others of differing opinions, and continually make bald unsupported assertions without debate. I find it repugnant and yet another example of what atheism has to offer.
Mr. Ben writes:
Of course not! Who is feeding you these lines? Some atheist Jedi Yoda? Some atheist sensei? Obviously it is not someone who is reading this debate.
Mr Ben writes:
Let's say my argument isn't true. Now it's your turn. What's the pre-condition for these phenomena in nature, and how does that precondition account for these natural phenomena?
Mr Ben writes:
Oh, there is. It's staring you in the face. Look. Right there. See it? Evidence. E-vi-dence. That word has meaning. That word brings all kinds of things to mind, doesn't it? Each letter is distinguished from the other, by position, by morphology. Even the gaps between the letters have meaning. Why is that, Mr. Ben? And why do you recognize the distinctions between these letters? What about the process by which you ascertain the meanings of these semiotic structures? Lifeless matter just happened upon this ability by chance and by time? It's all around you, Mr Ben, it's in your face, and you work aggressively, feverishly, to deny it. Put your fingers in your ears, clench your eyelids shut, and keep saying to yourself, "God isn't real. I know He isn't real. God doesn't exist. Reason sprang out of chaos. Things can naturally become their opposites. We don't need God. God is unnecessary. We explain everything just fine without Him." Then, by every sentence that came out of your mouth, you will have refuted every sentence that came out of your mouth. Because there can be no sentences where there are not particulars. And there can be no interpretation where there are no universals. And there can be no intelligibility without the precondition that brings the two together, namely the existence and attributes of God, which I've described, and will describe again if you would like to be reminded.
Mr Ben continues:
Once again, the atheists must admit: "We live by faith alone."
Jim wrote: Now, you may wish to come up with your own god or blark or whatever and give similar descriptive bases for our experience. But if you do so, and try to maintain coherency and consistency with human experience, then you'll end up describing the same God that I did, except you'll just give him a different name.
Mr Ben then wrotes: No, flash accounts for all the unanswered questions in existence..
Jim wrote:You can't just make the assertion, Mr Ben. You have to explain and show why it would be reasonable to think your assertion has any merit. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Mr Ben writes:
I have explained it. Shall I cut/paste it all here again?
Mr Ben writes:
I'm agitated at mere assertions without explanation. Now you say "magical powers." Fine. Describe them. What do these powers do and how do they meet the precondition? I have answered these questions. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.
Mr. Ben writes:
This always cracks me up. You're an atheist, Mr. Ben, claiming the existence of an ultimate authority that you do not even believe, without debate. Why is it that some atheists can't stand their ground and debate their own position? Why do they have to resort to ludicrous imaginary scenarios or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever when the heat gets turned up?
Mr. Ben writes:
These are two different questions, Mr. Ben. Existence is one thing, but accounting for the phenomena of reality is another. I've asked you how your Flash religion answers the latter.
Mr Ben writes:
It may seem that way to you, Mr. Ben, but it backfires on you. Every time you retreat to some other absurd idea, it smacks of that very thing: A retreat.
Mr Ben writes:
No, you merely came up with a name. You've accounted for nothing, you've not adequately connected this Flash religion with reality, let alone providing an adequate precondition of it based Flash's ultimate authority.
Mr ben writes:
Why is this a complaint? Isn't your argument based on the a-priori assumption that He does NOT exist? Now what? We need to investigate whose a-priori view is correct and actually comports with reality. Yours is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience. Mine does not. You may keep yours if you like, but don't call it rational and scientific, because it's blind faith. Mine, on the other hand, is not only rational and scientific, it actually explains rationality and science. Pretty good, huh?
Mr Ben writes:
If He does, then reality makes sense. If he doesn't, you have no certainty whatsoever, in even the simplest of predication or arithmetic or reasoning. Your view undermines human experience.
Mr Ben writes:
Not at all. Did this come from your atheist swami again? He should read this before he give you suggestions about what sentences to write.
Mr Ben writes:
Then offer it up! Let's hear the characteristics and attributes of this being/explanation. I've given you those features about God that accounts for reality. Let's hear yours about your "other old imaginary being."
Mr Ben writes;
See what I mean? Mr. Ben, try to get this. You cannot just assert. You must show. If you cannot show, you must get back on the porch and leave the big dogs alone.
Jim
Daddy is a big meanie!
Daddy is a big meanie!
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
By the way, each of these answers comes either directly, or are derived from, principles taught in the Bible.
Mr Ben writes:
Jim
Daddy is a big meanie!
Mr Ben writes:
The answer is that God, as Creator, made His creation in accordance with His own nature and character. God is rational, and the laws of logic reflect His rational nature and character. Thus, by creating the universe, it follows that the natural order models these attributes.
Mr Ben writes:
The answer is that God, as Creator, knows His own mind, and because He is a Triune Being, He can know particulars and universals that are required to understand cause and effect. By creating as He has done, His creation will mirror that same causality.
Mr Ben writes:
The answer is because God, as Creator, maintains and sustains every atom in the universe. The coherence of the universe depends upon His transcendent power to hold it all together. As the "glue" that binds reality, likewise the generalizations we hold true will continue as such.
Mr Ben writes:
God did not create logic. Logic is derived from God's nature. God is the source of logic, but not the Creator of it. Just as God is the source of love, and goodness, but He did not "create" them, per se. However, by creating the universe, it follows that God would create goodness and things capable of love.
Mr Ben writes:
Just as number 4, above, these laws were not created. They derive from God's nature.
Mr Ben writes:
No answer is given to this question other than God created for His own good pleasure.
By the way, each of these answers comes either directly, or are derived from, principles taught in the Bible.
Mr Ben writes:
There you go. This sums up nicely Mr Ben's preference for arguing with imaginary opponents. He hasn't respected the debate enough to even find out (or to pay attention to) what I believe about the true God for Whom I am arguing. No wonder Mr. Ben hates God so much. If this were my perception of God, I would hate Him, too. But notice, this is very similar to how an unruly child views his conscientious parent. That says quite a bit, doesn't it?
Jim
Last edited:
Mr. Ben
New member
This is substantially the same as the answer flash gave.
You are assuming he exists, assuming he is rational, assuming that he has a character, assuming that he made the laws of logic, assuming he created the universe, and assuming that it follows that the universe should model these attributes.
Soooo.. based on all of these unfounded and unsupported assumptions, all philosophically unaswerable questions are then answered to your satisfaction.
I can cut out the middle man. Why not just assume that all the questions are answered.
This is also substantially the same as the answer flash gave.
But how does he know he will continue to do this? Maybe tomorrow God will cease to exist.
Your answer may serve to define the question out of existence to your own satisfaction (as you seem to have done), but not to anyone elses.
So logic is part of the nature of God. If that is so, then logic could also simply be part of the nature of the universe. Again, why the unecessary imaginary middle man.
How are they part of God's nature. Why are they part of god's nature. Why are these particular laws part of God's nature and not others. How precisely did God's nature turn into the real universe. By what process did it occur?
It seems that God's nature needs justification as much as anything else.
But why does God exist? And who created him? You seem to say everything that exists must have an explanation. But if God doesn't.. why does he escape the need for explanation when the universe does not? It seems that perhaps we can save a step and just assume the universe needs no explanation.
The real question to be asked is "what is the point of all of this rigamarole ultimately?" God exists.. what's his purpose for existing? If we require a God to give us purpose, then so does he.
That's great. But it doesn't really make any difference.
Your answers are basically identical to flash's answers. Your God answers no questions.. but simply allows you to claim that he does. In reality, you have no more answers than any one of us.. all you have is the self satisfied belief that you do.
Heh. Hate who exactly?
Hate who?
Actually it's similar to how an adult views a children's fairy tale.
Last edited:
Mr. Ben
New member
Yes. I'm not asking you the right questions that will allow you to post the long jargon laden answers you'd prefer to post.
Well I'm sorry Jim, but I prefer to address the central issues directly, and avoid the confusing jargon that muddies up the waters.
If I represent your position correctly, and stripped of its jargon it appears silly, well then that's just not my fault. It may appear to you as satire, but I believe it is a dead on accurate description of your positions.
Now if you have an answer to the question of where does God come from that is substantially different from "such questions should not be asked", or "we don't understand the ineffable nature of god" or "well God just exists, end of the story" then I'm all ears. I am not impressed by empty rhetoric full of $50 words.
Big deal. An imaginary God that can explain everything.
At least I'm not going to add to the confusion by positing yet another imaginary entity into the equation which ultimately leaves even more unanswerable questions.
The "reason" why the Great Green God of Reptelon 7 explains all answers to all questions is in his qaudric nature. This nature is both sentient and non-sentient.. actual and non actual.. he provides the bridge between the particular and the ideal. It is not that he "created" the universe, but that the universe is an expression of his nature. A merely triune God is incapble of providing these imaginary properties and is therefore not capable of being an adequate imaginary answer to life's real questions.
In any case, the reptillian God is not interested in human beings, and will not save them. He is the God of Reptelon, and the fact that humans live here on earth is of little consequence to him. But he does provide the foundation for reality, logic, and causality through his quadric nature.
No a triune God is not enough. It must be quadric. Only the God of Reptelon has an adequate number of manifestations necessary to explain the universals-particulars AND the university-diversity AND many and one, AND the mind-body dichotomy. There are FOUR answers, and therefore it is necessary for there to be FOUR manifestations, not three. A trinity has only three manifestations.
Sorry Jim, you'll have to try again.
No, because flash is also a pentarchic manifested entity. He therefore has one extra manifestation that allows him to answer questions that are not aspects of this universe, but of another universe entirely. Compare this to only the triune nature of your God. I'm sure you'll see that pentarchic manifestations are superior.
I absolutely dispute this. But go ahead.. lets hear if there is any substance at all to this "triune" nonsense.
Yes, I am aware of that bit of christian doctrine.
Flash is a quadric. He has five manifestations (labeled "flash1" through "flash5"). Because of his five manifestations (of which you see only one), he is more than adequate to explain all philosophical connundrums.
Next.
Sure he can. Can you prove that he can't. He has the requisite number of manifestations.. even an extra one (there must be four you know).
And if there is a rational and logical Green God of Reptelon, it would be logical to assume that the universe would reflect those attributes as well. Therefore there IS a Green God of Reptelon.
See the problem Jim?
Sure I can. It works.
I don't have "faith" that it works.. it just does. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
If this is too simple for you and you require more jargon which basically states the same thing.. you can take a look at philosophical pragmatism, utiltarianism, naturalism, etc. You seem to be overly impressed with jargon.
Jim, the debate is horribly simple.
1. You can not prove God exists.
2. Therefore he can not be the answer to any philosophical problems.
3. Therefore the problems remain problems.
The other flaws in your argument are.
1. You haven't really proven that your particular God needs to be the one to answer all the problems. Your appeals to the "triune" nature of your God are inadequate because they are not lucid arguments. It also fails when we posit other "triune", "quadrune", or "pentune" gods that are not your particular God.
2. You haven't demonstrated that the problems are actually answered except by "stating" that they are. There is no evidence of these problems actually being adequately answered at all even with your God.
3. You deny any reasonable explanation for accepting logic, causality, etc. outside of a belief in your particular version of God a-priori.
That's the first statement you've made I can wholeheartedly agree with. My inventions are merely to show the absurdity of your inventions.
Oh.. I think I'm enjoying this debate.
My list:
1. It accounts for reality.
I know you believe the Bible is the word of God, but that is not really cogent to the discussion.
You state that God accounts for all of reality.. but that ONLY works if he exists. You can not prove that he exists, yet you rest your entire argument on that one single fact.
Therefore you are demanding that we accept the existence of God as a pre-condition to your arguments.
Simple answer.. we don't know. It just works.
How's that?
If you'd like.. I could make something up for you though.
Because I have a brain perhaps? It's a handy product of 2 billion years of evolution. The words have meaning because they are communication, also another product of evolution.
Evolution is not evidence for God. Of course it is also not evidence against God either really.. just Genesis.
Synchronous firing of neural networks in the brain.
No, by mutation and natural selection. Hardly chance.
He may be real, but I don't believe in your particular version of him. He is self contradictory, and does things that don't make a whole lot of sense to me. He seems to match the pattern of a mythical figure in a set of legendary stories, which is what I figure he probably is.
Not only did reason spring out of chaos, but we actually have physical evidence of how it did. But what's evidence compared to what is written in a book that may or may not be the word of what may or may not be God?
Yeah.. seems so, except for the bit about the opposites... where'd you get that part?
Yes, that's very true.
Since any one will do that answers the question, it really doesn't matter which one we come up with.
Yes, he is a triune God. But as I've already explained.. a triune God simply does not have enough manifestations to answer these connundrums. He must have at least four manifestations.. so that would rule out the christian God.
...
Anyhow.. I'm tired.. I'll have to pick this up some other time.
Last edited:
Issues ...
Issues ...
Hi Mr Ben,
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr. Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: By the way, each of these answers comes either directly, or are derived from, principles taught in the Bible.
Mr Ben writes:
Mr Ben writes:
Jim wrote: But notice, this is very similar to how an unruly child views his conscientious parent. That says quite a bit, doesn't it?
Mr Ben writes:
Jim
Issues ...
Hi Mr Ben,
Mr Ben writes:
How do you figure? Why then didn't Flash say, "The answer is that Flash, as Creator, made his creation in accordance with his own nature and character. Flash is rational, and the laws of logic reflect his rational nature and character. Thus, by creating the universe, it follows that the natural order models these attributes"? If you had made that statement, you would have had something worth pursuing. Standing alone, the statement makes sense and could have been discussed. Of course, you realize you can't copy it without affirming God's existence, so you shuck and jive, inventing up these inanities which only make your case worse. [Note to Mr. Ben: Here is where you say, "So do you," and in a futile effort to convince yourself that atheism is only a little more rational and that God doesn't exist.]
Mr Ben writes:
I don't assume this. I know this to be true. But for now, that's beside the point. The question is not what I assume, Mr. Ben, but what assumptions can be rationally justified and comport with human experience. Your assumptions are irrational and undermine human experience. If that's a worldview you prefer, that's fine, but don't strut around proclaiming your view is scientific and rational. It's not. It's question-begging, which your own worldview doesn't allow (more incoherency).
Mr Ben writes:
Of course. You cannot deny that God sufficiently grounds and explains our experience in reality. This is well-founded and supported by the fact that no other worldview can sufficiently account for them, as you continue to demonstrate everytime you provide an only slightly modified version of my worldview.
Mr Ben writes:
Go ahead. Then go away. There's no need to debate if you're going to be irrational.
Mr ben writes:
The fact that you don't see the significant difference between perfect triunity and superfluous quadracity shows that you don't know what you're talking about. You cannot deny the cogency and consistency of these claims, so you resort to these sloppy assertions as if they answer the question put to you.
Mr Ben writes:
Good question. The Bible indicates if God would somehow cease to exist, then all of His creation, which He sustains at every moment universally, would obliterate. But God is eternal and self-sufficient, and so your proposition is an impossibility.
Mr Ben writes:
This is one of the contradictions that atheists believe: Acausal chance becomes causal laws.
Mr Ben writes:
They are not "part of" God's nature, but a reflection of God's nature. God's nature is coherent and consistent. His creation reflects that coherence and consistency, and hence the law-like features of the natural order.
Mr Ben writes:
What others?
Mr Ben writes:
Are you deliberately mischaracterizing this? If you had to guess, how do you think God would do this (hypothetically speaking in your case, of course)?
Mr Ben writes:
We have sufficient information to tell us that God is good, inherently righteous and just, coherent and consistent and unchanging in His essential attributes and character. That is sufficient justification.
Mr Ben writes:
No one created God. God is ultimate and self-sufficient.
Mr. Ben writes:
No, not for this discussion. If we're going to debate whether or not atheism is possible, then we have to deal with fundamental epistemological matters such as those things that make human experience intelligible.
Mr Ben writes:
As a thinking man are you satisfied with that? This is why atheism is impossible.
Mr Ben writes:
Interesting question. what's your answer on your worldview (your actual view, not the one you've made up).
Mr Ben writes:
We're not given that answer.
Mr Ben writes:
We naturally require it because God gave it in the first place. Why, logically speaking, should God require that He be given a purpose? If He is self-sufficient, then He requires nothing outside of Himself. If God is consistent and the Bible is His Word, then we would logically expect God to give no reason other than His good pleasure in creating the universe. And that's exactly what we find there.
Jim wrote: By the way, each of these answers comes either directly, or are derived from, principles taught in the Bible.
Mr Ben writes:
Sure it does. It shows that these are not something I myself have invented, but are long-established truths recorded by ancient men under the inspiration of God. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it makes a difference.
Mr Ben writes:
I know it's unpleasant, Mr. Ben, but you need to think about what you're saying. Suppose God exists, for the sake of argument. What kind of answer would you expect from Him to your questions?
Jim wrote: But notice, this is very similar to how an unruly child views his conscientious parent. That says quite a bit, doesn't it?
Mr Ben writes:
Is that how you treat children? Do you give answers like "1. Because I have power beyond your comprehension. 2. Because I said so. 3. Because I said so. 4. With powers beyond your comprehension. 5. With powers beyond your comprehension. 6. Because I made it so"? Either way you look at it, you've got issues, dude.
Jim
Last edited:
attention
New member
Re: Issues ...
Re: Issues ...
This property of God inTheism makes it to an entity that has the same significance for the world as Matter in Materialism, namely it is the primary substance or entity of the world, that is not dependend on something else, but everything is dependend on God cq. matter.
Actually God and Matter ARE in a philosophical sense the same substance (omnipotent, infinite and eternal). Only materialism does not attribute any form of personality and/or consciousness (will, purpose, intend) to matter, since they somehow do not show up, but are man's own reflections on matter.
It is interesting to note that man's notion of what the world itself was made of and both religion arose about the same time.
Jewish tradition came up with the notion of God, and Greek philosophy came up with the notion of matter (made of "atoms" although they had no idea what atoms looked like, they could not observe them yet).
Actually God and matter must be the same thing, cause the world does not exist in two seperate and distinct ways.
And the difference between God and matter, well that is just a humanly interpretation. Nowadays we would not attribute will, intend or purpose to an unpersonal proces, although the existence of matter itself, as the cause and reason of our being here, can be interpreted as our reason or cause of existence in the first place, which is a fact that matters to us.
But don't be affraid: the world itself lays in good hands, cause (acc. to Theism) God and (according to Materialism) matter can not cease to exist, ever!
You refer here probably to some Idealist interpretations of for example quantum mechanics, that state that at that level nature functions 'a-causal', and comes with Idealist notions that the 'wave function collapses' due to the consciouss observation of it.
That aren't Materialist notions of how nature works, but are all Idealist notions. And as we all know, those notions all lead to God in some or other way...
According to materialism matter is causal in every aspect and matter is infinitely divisable.
We face just practical limits in establish the proof for that, since obviously, there are practical limits of observation and there always will be.
Re: Issues ...
This property of God inTheism makes it to an entity that has the same significance for the world as Matter in Materialism, namely it is the primary substance or entity of the world, that is not dependend on something else, but everything is dependend on God cq. matter.
Actually God and Matter ARE in a philosophical sense the same substance (omnipotent, infinite and eternal). Only materialism does not attribute any form of personality and/or consciousness (will, purpose, intend) to matter, since they somehow do not show up, but are man's own reflections on matter.
It is interesting to note that man's notion of what the world itself was made of and both religion arose about the same time.
Jewish tradition came up with the notion of God, and Greek philosophy came up with the notion of matter (made of "atoms" although they had no idea what atoms looked like, they could not observe them yet).
Actually God and matter must be the same thing, cause the world does not exist in two seperate and distinct ways.
And the difference between God and matter, well that is just a humanly interpretation. Nowadays we would not attribute will, intend or purpose to an unpersonal proces, although the existence of matter itself, as the cause and reason of our being here, can be interpreted as our reason or cause of existence in the first place, which is a fact that matters to us.
But don't be affraid: the world itself lays in good hands, cause (acc. to Theism) God and (according to Materialism) matter can not cease to exist, ever!
You refer here probably to some Idealist interpretations of for example quantum mechanics, that state that at that level nature functions 'a-causal', and comes with Idealist notions that the 'wave function collapses' due to the consciouss observation of it.
That aren't Materialist notions of how nature works, but are all Idealist notions. And as we all know, those notions all lead to God in some or other way...
According to materialism matter is causal in every aspect and matter is infinitely divisable.
We face just practical limits in establish the proof for that, since obviously, there are practical limits of observation and there always will be.
Last edited:
Mr. Ben
New member
There is one difference between God and Flash. Flash is known to exist, so his rational nature and character CAN be used to explain all unanswerable metaphysical questions (were these questions actually answerable in this way).
God has not been shown to exist, therefore he can not answer any philosophical questions.
In other words Jim.. FIRST prove that God exists, then you can go ahead and explain how he solves all metaphysical problems.
No they aren't. You're opinion about my assumptions is shared by you alone, and soley because you wish to posit a divine entity.
It is.
It is entirely coherent. We perceive, we thing, we make inferences from perception, these inferences define our view of the world. There is nothing more that needs to be said about it really. All other questions are really meaningless from an existential standpoint. It makes no real difference what their answers might be, or if they are answerable.
Not all questions that can be asked need answers, or even have worthwhile answers, even when it appears that they must. Many questions are merely artifacts of the way we think about things.
For example: absolute truth is a superlative. We use symbolic superlatives similarly to how mathematicians use imaginary numbers, or the various incarnations of infinity. They are useful when thinking about real things and comparing them to ideals, yet the ideals themselves are symbolic abstractions. Mechanical systems in our mind use thes abstractions to convolve information. But there are no existing superlatives in reality.. only as pathways in our neural networks, and to speak of "absolute" truth is to be mistaken about what "absolute" and "truth" actually are.
Sure I can. He can not know that he will continue forever, or that his reality is as it seems. You simply "say" that he does but never explain how. But Jim.. you know what.. I don't believe you.
Slightly? You mean that the fact that I posit innumerable other Gods that in no way resemble the Christian God of the Bible except for the fact that I arbitrarily define them to answer all metaphysical problems makes them "slightly modified". I think not.
Irrational. Heaven forbid a debate which centers around one single unfounded a-priori assumption would venture into irrationality.
My point is that you are throwing around nonsense pretending it's something meaningful. I'm just satirizing it to demonstrate its absurdity.
I hereby deny the cogency and consistency of your claims concerning the triune nature of God. Please submit some sort of well reasoned argument that consists of more than a few $50 dollar words and I'll reconsider my position.
1. There is no reason to believe that the non existence of God would mean the non existence of the universe.
2. There is no reason to believe that God is eternal, or self-sufficient.
3. There is no reason to believe that he sustains everything at every moment.
4. There is no reason to believe any specific thing the Bible says unless it is corroborated with historical or scientific evidence.
Yes, this is called self organization.. and it is a property of any rule based system with the right parameters.
Except that we have not established God's nature, that the universe is related in any way to it, or even the existence of God. Therefore we're back to square one Jim.
Assertion is not evidence.
Well, since we see the evidence from the universe itself around us, and we would assume God is not a deceiver, I would expect God (if he exists at all) would use natural processes to create the universe.
If God does not exist, then the universe simply came about some other way which we are not yet (and may never be) aware of.
I am not particularly concerned with unanswered questions. It is irrational to believe that all questions that can be posed have answers, and that we can know these answers. It is perfectly okay to say "we don't know", and not have to make things up to feel good about it.
I don't believe the God of the Bible is inherently Good, righteous, just, or even coherent. And I don't see how you could read the same book I have and still say this.
No, the universe is ultimate and self-sufficient because it's initial state is so simple. Something as complex as God however requires a creator.
Brains make things intelligible.
I am satisfied with the answer "we don't know", because it's the best answer.
Personally, I like being alive. That is sufficient for me.
You on the other hand are merely a puppet in a show that ultimately has no meaning whatsoever. If God does not have a purpose, then nothing he does has any purpose, which means you have no purpose either.
Yes, this is the stock response for any difficult question about God.
No, we do not require a purpose.
Purpose is reserved as a lable for those elements of a system which serve to maintain such systems in homeostatic equilibrium. If an object is not a part of such a system, the word does not apply. The word simply doesn't apply to things such as the "universe", or "life" like it does to "leg", or "government", or "hammer".
And I require nothing more than my own good pleasure to be alive. All humans are self sufficient. Their reason for being is being itself.
Yet when we look back at God, he has gone to a great deal of trouble to do all of this "supposedly", and for what? Who knows. Why would such a thing give any supreme being pleasure? He knows what will happen, so there are no suprises. He is self-sufficient, so there is no need to create a universe as an extension to himself. If life is merely a diversion for God, what does that make us? A cosmic drama played out for his entertainment?
I would expect him to state "the reason why we can know that causality is consistent always is specifically X" (where X is not "because I am God and I made it that way"). Or "the reason why there is something rather than nothing is Y" (again, where Y is not "because I am God and this is my nature"). In other words REAL answers to these questions, not just fobbing us off with It is my nature, or telling us it is beyond our comprehension.
These are all characteristic of fairy tales. They require suspension of disbelief. You have suspended your disbelief Jim, so you are able to accept as a precondition that God exists. This is the only way that any of what you are saying makes any sense.
Again, if God does not exist, he can not solve any philosophical connundrums. There is no evidence that such a being exists, therefore the metaphysical problems remain open.
I would certainly like to hear a good well reasoned explanation as to why inference from causality is absolutely justified (not via experience only). If you could get your God to describe specifically and directly why this would be so (rather than "it is part of his nature", or "it is his will", or "because of the triune nature is both abstract and particular"). I want a "real" answer to the question.
Last edited:
attention
New member
You can ASK him that, but I hope you understand he can not ANSWER that question ever, since the fact is that God does not exist apart from those metaphysical questions, but in fact embodies al such metaphysical stuff.
We happen to be a being that can ask more questions then we can solve, and since that situation dissatifies us, we (or some of us) invent a hypothetical being, that embodies al the answers to such questions.
Which therefore makes it kind of impossible to take God apart and proof it's existence apart from those metaphysical questions.
Not the invention or denial of the existence of God as embodiment of such questions are able of solving anything to these metaphysical questions.
The only thing of interest are the metaphysical questions themselves, and we have to ask ourselves, if they have a possibility of being anwered at all, and/or if the questions themselves have any meaning at all.
And the question is also of course, of knowing all the answers to those questions would in itself be meaningfull. It might be the other way around, as long as there are questions which are not answered, we continue to find them. To know all the answers to all the questions, is probaly the most devastating that could ever happen to us, and would take the meaning out of our lives.
Last edited:
Mr. Coffee
New member
But we do not come to be without others, and it is in communication that we learn to think. If any idea or experience is significant to us, it comes with a burning desire to be shared... and justified.
If we're honest, we are dissatisfied with the simple answers of consumerism and thoughtless proselytes and scientific reductionists, because our yearning continually transcends every physical object we give it, and the answers only raise questions. And even if we say that the big questions have no meaning or relevance, we are inviting others to choose a point of view, and we play the game that never ends. Every pat answer will appear ridiculous against this unlimited horizon of meaning-possibility, because we are fundamentlly open to the infinite, and this is the relevance of our God-talk. It's the questioning.
I am not saying that we cannot know things. What I mean is that there is always more to be said. I also want to say that God is not the answer to a question, and I don't think that the traditional proofs are airtight or even very meaningful, actually. We have to deal with God in our openess to inexhaustible inquiry and appreciation, before it's articulated in specific questions.
Last edited:
Emmaus Road
New member
In following Descartes, and Newton...we live in a Mechanical Universe. The laws of nature are in operation, gravity, biology, physics rule our reality. God does not say to the sun every day...Rise! It does so because the laws of nature are in effect.
None of this detracts from God.
Sure...given enough time we are a "mathimatical probality", but are we...?
We seem to be the only creatures aware of our own mortality.
Then there is Anslem's argument..
Anselm's Ontological Argument, stated in argument form, reads:
(premise 1) God is that than which none greater can be conceived.
(premise 2) If god did not exist, something greater than god would exist.
(premise 3) But no greater thing than god can be conceived.
(conclusion) Therefore, god exists.
None of this detracts from God.
Sure...given enough time we are a "mathimatical probality", but are we...?
We seem to be the only creatures aware of our own mortality.
Then there is Anslem's argument..
Anselm's Ontological Argument, stated in argument form, reads:
(premise 1) God is that than which none greater can be conceived.
(premise 2) If god did not exist, something greater than god would exist.
(premise 3) But no greater thing than god can be conceived.
(conclusion) Therefore, god exists.