The Problem With Theistic Arguments

[Igtheism]

>>>Hubert Farnsworth<<<Maybe I'm not understanding your position. Are you saying God must NECESSARILY exist because of some unproven "law of cause and effect?" If so, that's a fallacy because you haven't demonstrated that the "law of cause and effect" applies to the whole universe. If you say that you believe in God but acknowledge the "law of cause and effect" is unproven and just speculation, then your position is not fallacious, though I wouldn't agree with it.<<<

What do you mean when you write "God" or "Creator of the universe"? Darned if I know of anything you could be talking about when you say somebody "believes in God". I don't know of anything people are talking about when they say "God", whether they say "God exists", "God doesn't exist", "I believe in God", or "I don't believe in God". What do they think they're talking about?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Wrong premise.

By your line of reasoning, we don't need explanation on any figures such as Hitler. We actually "need" such an explanation as long as these figures have an impact on humans, either right now or in the past or possibly in the future. We "explain" them in a way of gathering information about their characteristics from those witnessed these figures. God is supposed to have a huge impact on humans, or else He's ignored. If He's not ignored and mass of humans believe that He has an impact on our past and present and potentially in the future, then we can have different speculations originated from the testimonies from those who witnessed Him or His ability in the past, including what can be done within His power and ability.

To put it another way, creation according to those who witnessed Him was done by God. This cannot be refuted yet even by our science as we humans basically lack the ability to confirm a long past. The advocate remains a possibility. It is thus reasonable to speculate that without Him then X may not be able to be created. Especially when it is said the God being portrayed by those witnesses as an omnipotent figure. This is not trying to prove anything, it is rather an evaluation on what God being capable of to reflect what He can do to affect us, especially our future. It is actually a very responsible behavior unless you can prove that those writings left by those claimed witnesses (mostly prophets and apostles) are not true, that is to rule out the possibility of such a God portrayed by them.

Can't help but wonder why you chose "Hitler" as the person to illustrate that a god exists. I'm not very impressed by a god who creates the likes of Hitler.

 

[Igtheism]

>>>Hubert Farnsworth<<<Can't help but wonder why you chose "Hitler" as the person to illustrate that a god exists. I'm not very impressed by a god who creates the likes of Hitler.<<<

I can't help but wonder why you think I claim that I wanted to do anything called "illustrate that a god exists". I don't even believe that "God", "Yahweh", "Elohim" or "Allah" refer to anything at all, nothing existent, and nothing nonexistent. If you look up "igtheism", you'll find: "Igtheism is the idea that "the question of the existence of God" is meaningless because the alleged word "God" has no coherent definition."

 

[Thief]

Or something

substance is not 'self' creating

Spirit First

 

[Polymath257]

God is spiritual... not physical. We are talking about physical laws of cause and effect. Different dimensions, different laws.

All known causes and effects are within the universe and within time. So asking for a cause for the universe and time is, at least, problematic.

 

[Polymath257]

Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?

Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?

Atomic decay?

 

[Polymath257]

Is there a scientists that offers a different viewpoint? I noticed you couldn't give me an example of how I was wrong.

Yes, many. The problem is in the notion of causality, which only makes sense when time exists. And time itself is part of the universe. No the very notion of a cause of the universe is stepping outside of the way that causality itself works.

 

[Polymath257]

what limits

Well, quantum mechanics isn't a causal description, yet it is *by far* our best description. No that leads to the idea that causality isn't particular required.

More deeply, quantum mechanics describes what causality that exists as existing within the light cones from cause to effect, thereby requiring time to exist prior to being able to discuss causality at all.

Which fits it to the narrative of God in the Christian thought since God is light where there is no time. As I said before... spiritual laws are different the natural laws.

And how it that *at all* consistent with relativity? Answer: it isn't. It is consistent with some very bad misinterpretations of relativity, though.

You have to show that 'spiritual' is meaningful and that 'spiritual laws' can, indeed, be found and verified. As far as I can see, the term 'spiritual law' is meaningless.

Since time is not necessary - direction is irrelevant. So very logical that God is involved.

On the contrary, every example of causality we have is within time. Our physical descriptions of causality require time. And yes, direction (forward light cone) is crucial for this. In fact, without that aspect, the actual equations simply don't give the correct predictions (as verified by observation).

 

[Polymath257]

substance is not 'self' creating

How do you know?

 

[Kenny]

All known causes and effects are within the universe and within time. So asking for a cause for the universe and time is, at least, problematic.

For sure... so the inquiring mind seeks

 

[Kenny]

Atomic decay?

Isn't that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? I could be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, many. The problem is in the notion of causality, which only makes sense when time exists. And time itself is part of the universe. No the very notion of a cause of the universe is stepping outside of the way that causality itself works.

That is my position. Stepping outside, IMV, is where God is at... outside of time.

 

[rational experiences]

The Theist, however says I will copy what natural owns.

And that is where he made his first Destroyer mistake.....he owns everything naturally he first says....by it existing in the same moment that he does...for everything he looks at already owns presence.

Only in his mind does he think non presence and that is because his own self is negated everyday...for he only lives surviving. He does not live being created.

However consciously the baby part of self, is created in his conscious awareness...what he disregards as being motivation against self survival.

If a scientist said I will copy natural light.....it is owned by gases burning.

How is that ownership?

 

[Quintessence]

What about all the theists who don't find any such thing necessary? Or all the theists who understand that the point of the art of storytelling is often oriented towards mythos, not logos?

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? I could be wrong.

No. The second law is a statistical law, not a fundamental law. And it isn't what is involved in nuclear decay.

 

[Igtheism]

substance is not 'self' creating

Spirit First

Spirit? What's that? Team spirit? School spirit? Enthusiasm? An emotion?

 

[Thief]

Spirit? What's that? Team spirit? School spirit? Enthusiasm? An emotion?

in the smaller scheme of things.....

that part of you left over after your last breath

I believe the body was formed to form spirit
each one unique
on each occasion

and you are not your own handiwork
you did not put you in your body

but you do have freewill
and some of what you become......you might suffer consequence

I also believe the peace of heaven is guarded

 

[Igtheism]

Thief<<in the smaller scheme of things....that part of you left over after your last breath>>

So you're using "spirit" to refer to a dead person, right?

Thief<<I believe the body was formed to form spirit>>

You believe the body was formed to form a dead body? What sense does that make?

Thief<<each one unique>>

You are saying each body that was formed to form a dead body is unique? But how am I supposed to get any sense from that?

Thief<<on each occasion>>

So far, you are saying that each body that was formed to form a dead body is unique on each occasion.

Thief<<and you are not your own handiwork>>

No I'm not. I agree with that.

Thief<<you did not put you in your body>>

I only know "me" to refer to this living body. So you are saying I didn't put this living body in this living body. What does that mean?

Thief<<but you do have freewill.>>

No, whatever happens, happens because of the way things were a nanosecond just before it happened, and the reason things were as they were a nanosecond before that, is because of the way things were a nanosecond before that, etc. Freewill is only an illusion.

Thief<<and some of what you become......you might suffer consequence>>
I also believe the peace of heaven is guarded>>

What's that?

 

[Thief]

Thief<<in the smaller scheme of things....that part of you left over after your last breath>>

So you're using "spirit" to refer to a dead person, right?

Thief<<I believe the body was formed to form spirit>>

You believe the body was formed to form a dead body? What sense does that make?

Thief<<each one unique>>

You are saying each body that was formed to form a dead body is unique? But how am I supposed to get any sense from that?

Thief<<on each occasion>>

So far, you are saying that each body that was formed to form a dead body is unique on each occasion.

Thief<<and you are not your own handiwork>>

No I'm not. I agree with that.

Thief<<you did not put you in your body>>

I only know "me" to refer to this living body. So you are saying I didn't put this living body in this living body. What does that mean?

Thief<<but you do have freewill.>>

No, whatever happens, happens because of the way things were a nanosecond just before it happened, and the reason things were as they were a nanosecond before that, is because of the way things were a nanosecond before that, etc. Freewill is only an illusion.

Thief<<and some of what you become......you might suffer consequence>>
I also believe the peace of heaven is guarded>>

What's that?

please attempt to use the quote button
your effort would easier on you
and I will get an 'alert'

as for your rebuttal.....
the body is formed to form a unique person......
that is......spirit

after your last breath
you will stand from your carcass.....or not

if not....
then you follow your body into the box
and the box into the ground

eternal darkness is not a philosophical idea
it is physically....real

 

[Thief]

that's a fallacy because you haven't demonstrated that the "law of cause and effect" applies to the whole universe.

and you are saying?....cause and effect are NOT universal?