Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[PureX]

Have you ever applied your "logic" to your god?
If something can't come from nothing, whence
came your god?

Don't know. God is a 'supernatural' mystery. Whereas the universe spontaneously exploding into being from nothing is logically impossible. So is the idea that the universe is perpetual. So the supernatural mystery is the only option left that is not logically impossible. It is logically possible that God is perpetual while the universe it originated is not.

But if your god can exist for
all eternity backwards & forwards in tome,
then why can't the material world?

A 'supernatural' mystery source (God) wouldn't exist "in time" or be constrained by nature. The universe clearly does exist in time, and is constrained by nature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't know. God is a 'supernatural' mystery.

That says nothing.
I could say the material world is a mystery.
This too says nothing.

Either your god is eternal, or it had a beginning.
If it had a beginning, it either started from nothing
or from something.
If your god exist by one of these possibilities, then
so can the material world....all without a god.

Whereas the universe spontaneously exploding into being from nothing is logically impossible.

No one knows that it "exploded" from nothing.
That is an unverifiable theory (despite having some
usefulness). What "something" could've been
there is unknown. So you've a bad premise.

So is the idea that the universe is perpetual.

Why presume this is The Truth?

So the supernatural mystery is the only option left that is not logically impossible. It is logically possible that God is perpetual while the universe it originated is not.

You've not yet employed logic.
Just made claims.

A 'supernatural' mystery source (God) wouldn't exist "in time" or be constrained by nature.

Another unsupportable premise.

The universe clearly does exist in time, and is constrained by nature.

Some people deny even that.
How can you prove them wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Don't know. God is a 'supernatural' mystery.

That means it's an imagined mystery, not some scenario where facts and observataions can't be expalined. The mystery only concerns believers.

Whereas the universe spontaneously exploding into being from nothing is logically impossible.

It's a good thing the Big bang doesn't claim this. There was a singularity that suddenly expanded (explosion is not accurate). What circumstances existed at the event is not known, and there is no reason to assume a supernatural over a natural instability of the singularity.

So is the idea that the universe is perpetual.

It's more plausible than a cause that isn't known to exist or is plausible.

So the supernatural mystery is the only option left that is not logically impossible.

How is a supernatural cause a logical possibility? Logic requires facts, and no contrary facts that prevents the conclusion you want.

It is logically possible that God is perpetual while the universe it originated is not.

No gods are known to exist, so at best you are making a massive assumption. What facts give you a reason to make any assumption of a supernatural cause? History shows a pattern of supernatural causes being debunked over and over again.

A 'supernatural' mystery source (God) wouldn't exist "in time" or be constrained by nature.

This is a guess, not a fact. Where are your facts?

The universe clearly does exist in time, and is constrained by nature.

And that is where we get actual answers to actual mysteries.

 

[Koldo]

Again, you can't seem to cognate the logic behind it. That something couldn't logically come from nothing.

But I don't presume that something came out of nothing, as far as the origin of existence is concerned. To say that the first thing that ever existed came out of nothing would entail saying that there was this place called 'nothing' that existed and from which something could come from. But 'nothing' is not a place, for if it was it would be something rather than nothing.

The conclusion is thus that existence must have always existed. However...

And that perpetuity doesn't logically manifest as change. Leaving a deliberate creative act as the only logical remaining possibility. You can keep tryng to ignore this till the cows fly but until you can propose an equally logical alternative your just stuck on baseless repeat.

...this doesn't mean that the universe must have been generated by a deliberate creative act.

There is also no reason to presume that your perpetual "nothing" ever existed. Here's how many people presume God did it: They imagine there was a massive emptiness in existence, akin to a black canvas, and that God painted the universe into this existence on this canvas. But there's no reason to presume this black canvas existed. Plus, this black canvas is equivalent to presuming that 'nothing' itself could be a place, but as I have said, that can not be so, for only something can be a place. The actual nothingness must therefore have never existed. Something therefore existed at the beginning of time (if such a beginning exists) and it didn't come from anywhere.

No, I am talking about the logical necessity for one. We know nothing of this "creator of the universe" except that logic demands there be one.

There is no God conception "baseline" being offered. So your constantly referring to religious diversity is both pointless and irrelevant.

But you are offering a baseline. You are saying that God is the creator of the universe, at the very least.

 

[PureX]

That says nothing.
I could say the material world is a mystery.
This too says nothing.

Both are a mystery, to us. All we have are questions and logic. But absolutely nothing in the natural realm of existence indicates that it is or has ever been logically possible for something to come from nothing. And nothing in the natural realm of existence indicates that perpetuity would express change. So there is only one logical possibility left. That doesn't mean it's the answer. It's just the only possibility that remains logically possible.

Either your god is eternal, or it had a beginning.
If it had a beginning, it either started from nothing
or from something.
If your god exist by one of these possibilities, then
so can the material world....all without a god.

Anything that exists beyond the confines of time is by definition "eternal".

No one knows that it "exploded"(into being) from nothing.

Of course not. That would be logically impossible.

That is an unverifiable theory (despite having some
usefulness).

Verification, in this query, is beyond the scope of human possibility.

What "something" could've been
there is unknown. So you've a bad premise.

It's ALL unknown. That doesn't diminish the validity of logical reasoning.

Why presume this is The Truth?

No reason at all. And no one is claiming it to be "the truth". It is simply a logically valid proposition.

You've not yet employed logic.
Just made claims.

I stated the logic supporting the proposition many, many times now.

I can see that you're just going to continue spitting wildly into the wind because you have no alternative to pose, and no logical rebuttal, so I think we're done here.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Having long ago waded through Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason, this discussion reminds me that without reference to actual factual data, all reason (Logic) can do is to make sure it builds sound logical structures. Any reasoning that is not rooted in empirical fact is an ungrounded flight of fancy. Perhaps your model is flawlessly logical. Perhaps it is not. But it is rooted in assumptions that cannot be empirically demonstrated: That an uncaused cause is responsible for our existence. You can reason from such an assumption, but there is no empirical evidence to support it. It therefore deserves to be acknowledged as a logical flight of fancy.

In my opinion; mileage may vary.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Anything that exists beyond the confines of time is by definition "eternal".

Maybe time is eternal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both are a mystery, to us.

It's a mystery to you.
I just accept it as is.
Although it's complicated....very complicated.

All we have are questions and logic. But absolutely nothing in the natural realm of existence indicates that it is or has ever been logically possible for something to come from nothing. And nothing in the natural realm of existence indicates that perpetuity would express change. So there is only one logical possibility left. That doesn't mean it's the answer. It's just the only possibility that remains logically possible.

I'm not seeing any cromulent premises from
which you use logic to deduce your claims.

Anything that exists beyond the confines of time is by definition "eternal".

Of course not. That would be logically impossible.

Verification, in this query, is beyond the scope of human possibility.

It's ALL unknown. That doesn't diminish the validity of logical reasoning.

No reason at all. And no one is claiming it to be "the truth". It is simply a logically valid proposition.

I stated the logic supporting the proposition many, many times now.

I can see that you're just going to continue spitting wildly into the wind because you have no alternative to pose, and no logical rebuttal, so I think we're done here.

I "spit" wildly because I cover all the possible
premises that come to mind. You've no rational
basis to reject one or assume the other.

Oh, we're not done.
I don't know when I'll be inspired to weigh
in again, but it's bound to happen. A post
will compel me to stir the pot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Having long ago waded through Kant's The Critique of Pure Reason, this discussion reminds me that without reference to actual factual data, all reason (Logic) can do is to make sure it builds sound logical structures. Any reasoning that is not rooted in empirical fact is an ungrounded flight of fancy. Perhaps your model is flawlessly logical. Perhaps it is not. But it is rooted in assumptions that cannot be empirically demonstrated: That an uncaused cause is responsible for our existence. You can reason from such an assumption, but there is no empirical evidence to support it. It therefore deserves to be acknowledged as a logical flight of fancy.

In my opinion; mileage may vary.

A few shaky premises.
A reference to cosmology.
Manipulate some concepts.
Call it "logic".
And hey presto!
We have The Truth.

 

[PureX]

But I don't presume that something came out of nothing, as far as the origin of existence is concerned. To say that the first thing that ever existed came out of nothing would entail saying that there was this place called 'nothing' that existed and from which something could come from. But 'nothing' is not a place, for if it was it would be something rather than nothing.

You're just grasping at semantic straws, here. Space and time are part of that which came into being as the universe. These therefor do not apply to whatever state originated, transcends, and/or is otherwise apart from the universe that we exist within. So you can't use the "laws" of this universe to debate the logic of it's origination.

The conclusion is thus that existence must have always existed. However...

We have no idea what all "exists", or if anything "exists" apart from or beyond or before the existence of the universe. Again, this becomes a semantic argument that cannot be established because the words are representations of the logic of the universe we're living in. And we can't know how they would or should apply to any possible "existence" beyond or apart from this one. It becomes an incoherent formula of this existence existing within some greater existence existing within some even greater existence ... you get the point.

...this doesn't mean that the universe must have been generated by a deliberate creative act.

That is not the proposition being posed. What is being posed is that the only alternative that's logically viable from our very limited perspective is the 'mysterious supernatural originator' proposition.

There is also no reason to presume that your perpetual "nothing" ever existed.

No one is proposing any "perpetual nothing". Although, THAT would be a logical ideal state. It just wouldn't originate in the universe that we currently inhabit.

Here's how many people presume God did it: They imagine there was a massive emptiness in existence, akin to a black canvas, and that God painted the universe into this existence on this canvas. But there's no reason to presume this black canvas existed.

People can imagine anything they want. It's irrelevant. The theist proposition stands. You can either offer a more logical alternative, or you can logically refute the one before you. Or you can accept that the theist proposition stands. After that, you're free to imaging anything you want. And so is everyone else.

But you are offering a baseline. You are saying that God is the creator of the universe, at the very least.

I'm not saying anything. I'm simply pointing out and clarifying, and then re-clarifying, and re-clarifying, and re-clarifying the theist proposition. If you can't bring yourself to use the term "God", then don't. It doesn't matter because it's just a word that's being used to refer to the (logically necessary) mystery source for existence as we know it.

 

[Koldo]

You're just grasping at semantic straws, here. Space and time are part of that which came into being as the universe. These therefor do not apply to whatever state originated, transcends, and/or is otherwise apart from the universe that we exist within. So you can't use the "laws" of this universe to debate the logic of it's origination.

Where did I mention the laws of this universe on that part of my post? And what laws was I referring to?

We have no idea what all "exists", or if anything "exists" apart from or beyond or before the existence of the universe. Again, this becomes a semantic argument that cannot be established because the words are representations of the logic of the universe we're living in. And we can't know how they would or should apply to any possible "existence" beyond or apart from this one. It becomes an incoherent formula of this existence existing within some greater existence existing within some even greater existence ... you get the point.

What does any of this has to do with me saying that something must have always existed?

That is not the proposition being posed. What is being posed is that the only alternative that's logically viable from our very limited perspective is the 'mysterious supernatural originator' proposition.

Do I need to quote the post where you have said that a deliberate creative act must have happened?

No one is proposing any "perpetual nothing". Although, THAT would be a logical ideal state. It just wouldn't originate in the universe that we currently inhabit.

People can imagine anything they want. It's irrelevant. The theist proposition stands. You can either offer a more logical alternative, or you can logically refute the one before you. Or you can accept that the theist proposition stands. After that, you're free to imaging anything you want. And so is everyone else.

I'm not saying anything. I'm simply pointing out and clarifying, and then re-clarifying, and re-clarifying, and re-clarifying the theist proposition. If you can't bring yourself to use the term "God", then don't. It doesn't matter because it's just a word that's being used to refer to the (logically necessary) mystery source for existence as we know it.

As I have already explained:

1) By saying that God is the mystery source of existence... that is you offering a baseline for what god is.
2) There is zilch logical necessity for a supernatural source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The alternative is neither to believe nor disbelieve.

You've described agnostic atheism, or the position that since gods can neither be ruled in or out, there is no reason to believe in them nor any way to say that they don't exist.

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together. And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process

I don't believe you read that. I can believe, however that what you read became that in your head.

Almost all atheists will tell you that they are atheists because they are empiricists and critical thinkers, and that entails rejecting all god claims and religious doctrine for lack of sufficient evidence to believe them.

And there are no personal unresolvable issues with religions if one chooses to ignore them. There are, however, multiple persistent issues due to religion that unbelievers have difficulty avoiding such as the war on women's rights in the West and Islamic terrorism (Hamas).

When I was a small child I had a personal experience of God. It was both amazing and inexplicable, and I cannot explain it to this day. But I can say that it was not religious at all. I sensed no "all powerful, all knowing, all judgmental" being. Only an intense love and joy coming from "it", for MY existence.

I can explain it. You had a spiritual experience and decided that it was a message from a god. It happens all of the time. The trick is to resist making such guesses.

It’s irrational.

What's irrational is your contempt for atheists and your penchant for starting threads to complain about how much you disapprove of them. You refer to atheism as being due to people having issues with religions, but perhaps you should look into what YOUR issues are that motivate your antipathy for atheists.

I don't hate atheists at all.

As I just noted, contempt is probably a better word for your relationship with atheism and atheists.

I think this conversation is going to be way over your head.

Nothing you write is difficult to understand except perhaps why you write it. However, the concept of agnostic atheism seems to continually elude you as well as why atheists are atheists.

You seem to be having great difficulty grasping that I don’t care what anyone believes

There you go again with your arrogance and sense of superiority. And you are obviously unaware of yourself. You've started multiple threads to lament how atheists process information and their rejection of god claims.

Theism is not about who believes what. And so neither is atheism.

That's incorrect. How could it be more wrong? The two words are defined according to the holding of a god belief or not.

It's ALL make-believe. But it's all we have. So it becomes our 'truth' even though we really have no idea how true it really is.

That sounds like a you problem. I have no problems in that area. You've embraced a kind of epistemic nihilism that has you believing that if everything about reality can't be known, nothing can be known.

All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is a correct idea, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is incorrect. Don't undermine your own mind by thinking that if you can't get outside of it to experience absolute, objective, or ultimate reality, that what you can know is inadequate.

Over 200 posts in and I'm still waiting for a logical rebuttal, from ANYONE. But nope.

Then you're wearing a faith-based confirmation bias that filters that out for you and shows you what you want to see - that your great mind cannot be successfully rebutted by atheists, who are irrational and all have issues with religion. The rebuttals are here, but you've offered no counterargument to them. Why? One can't successfully falsify a correct statement.

Still mostly just whining and complaining and personal slurs.

Only from you.

 

[Alien826]

Anything that exists beyond the confines of time is by definition "eternal".

The word "eternal" assumes time, in that it means "lasting forever".

It's very difficult to define what "beyond the confines of time" might mean. What is time? I once heard a physicist (?) try to answer that question. He said that time "is that which is measured by a clock". It's a slippery concept, but it seems to come down to a concept of how quickly change occurs. I can only suppose that something that was not subject to time would be totally unchanging and therefore incapable of an act of creation, or simply non-existent.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is time?

Time is change.

 

[Revoltingest]

The word "eternal" assumes time, in that it means "lasting forever".

It's very difficult to define what "beyond the confines of time" might mean. What is time? I once heard a physicist (?) try to answer that question. He said that time "is that which is measured by a clock". It's a slippery concept, but it seems to come down to a concept of how quickly change occurs. I can only suppose that something that was not subject to time would be totally unchanging and therefore incapable of an act of creation, or simply non-existent.

My attempt to define "time"....

Time is the "distance" between sequential 3 physical
dimensional states of the material world.
It is our 4th dimension.

In Flatland...

Flatland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....time would be the "distance" between sequential planes of existence.
It is their 3rd dimension.

In Lineland....
Well, you get the picture.
(Lineland was mentioned in Flatland.)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Time is what's there to keep everything from happening at once...

 

[siti]

The "gap" (existential mystery source) exists. And it is "supernatural" by definition as it exists apart from (is responsible for) the "natural" universe.

Well that's definitely not logical...by what logical argument is it necessarily supernatural because we don't (yet) a naturalistic explanation?

It is not logical that the universe generated itself out of nothing.

OK...but

Nor is it logical that a universe of constant change is an expression of perpetuity.

...again, by what logical argument can it be established that a universe of constant change is not "an expression of perpetuity"? Indeed, it is very difficult to imagine "constant change" starting from "no change" - that's way more illogical to my mind.

Leaving only some external creative source as the only logical option.

Nope...that's basically a cosmological argument of the Thomas Aquinas/William Lane Craig variety...

1. whatever exists has a cause
2. there cannot be an infinite/eternal sequence of causes
3. therefore there must be a first cause which we call 'god'

OR

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause which call 'god'

But there is no logical reason to assume the second premise in either case...we simply don't know that the universe is not eternal.

Additionally, I could never see how replacing an eternal sequence of cause and effect with an eternal creator helps at all...from a purely logical viewpoint surely one is exactly as plausible/implausible as the other.

 

[siti]

I can only suppose that something that was not subject to time would be totally unchanging and therefore incapable of an act of creation, or simply non-existent.

Absolutely...that's what i was trying to say just now...how can change come from changelessness?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is the problem
We can say that you do 'straw man' on the basis of 'ad hominem'.

That makes no sense.

It's simple:
Atheists don't like to accept rephrased definitions when they are being challanged.It has nothing to do with skeptical thinking , since we don't think that your questions are not valid.We do encounter the challanges that are being put in front of us.
Maybe not at the moment , but we do give answers with time.
You don't like how you see them.

It seems that method is neccessary when it feeds certain pre-conditions that do not have to be neccessary while in the same time others are being acused of using the same methods.

'One of the biggest downsides of utilizing paraphrasing is that it makes you to completely rely on someone else's content. You don't have your own ideas or thoughts. This stunts your own knowledge growth and academic writing skills. That's why it is always recommended to only utilize paraphrasing when the need arises.'

And that is why when we say : "ok , we take all those definitions as valid , and we say to you 'This is your viewpoint when adressing the most fundemental question of existence; this is what you belive'."

And you say : 'No,...'

And we say 'Ok , Sorry we taught you belived it.'

The difference is that @PureX not once, ever, said "ok, sorry we taught you believed it".
Instead, he doubles down on his misrepresentations every time.

Which transforms in these kind of answers.
Do you think that your choice is compromised; when you look at his different definitions?

My choices are my choices and they are not impacted by other people's strawmen.

And even when we rephrace it , what's the problem ?

The problem is that it misrepresents what my views actually are...

Is the term 'Atheists' labeled by Atheists criteria?

I posted a screenshot from the dictionary. These are not "my" criteria.

Why should we even take anything you say as serious , since we can demonstrate the oposite?

Do you take the english language serious as defined by english dictionaries?

Yes , most of you use this argument of Authority.

Que?

Using english words as defined by english dictionaries is an "argument from authority"?
What the heck...................................

But when it is demonstrated that your methods are not consistent then we might say 'If there is no consistency in the methodology you use , where is the Logic then'?

The first time we use that methodology on the view-point , you reject it , Why?

This is just an observation , nothing personal.

What methods / methodology? What on earth are you babbling about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Over 200 posts in and I'm still waiting for a logical rebuttal, from ANYONE. But nope. Still mostly just whining and complaining and personal slurs.

Strawmen don't need "logical rebuttal". They just need pointing out.