|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 4:36:16 GMT
You could start with the classic First Cause argument. The bookends are: You exist, therefore God. Yes, you sure could. It would get you nowhere with me fast, but you could do it. You asked what reason do you have to believe such a being exists.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2021 4:41:48 GMT
Yes, you sure could. It would get you nowhere with me fast, but you could do it. You asked what reason do you have to believe such a being exists. I was pointing out that I have no reason to believe that a God exists. That is why I said someone could use the first cause argument on me and it wouldn't work. I am unconvinced that there is a first cause. When it comes to anything about the base of existence, my answer will always be "I believe it is unknowable."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 4:45:03 GMT
You asked what reason do you have to believe such a being exists. I was pointing out that I have no reason to believe that a God exists. That is why I said someone could use the first cause argument on me and it wouldn't work. I am unconvinced that there is a first cause. When it comes to anything about the base of existence, my answer will always be "I believe it is unknowable." You said it was "most important," so I didn't think it was rhetorical. Turtles all the way down, then?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2021 4:58:25 GMT
I was pointing out that I have no reason to believe that a God exists. That is why I said someone could use the first cause argument on me and it wouldn't work. I am unconvinced that there is a first cause. When it comes to anything about the base of existence, my answer will always be "I believe it is unknowable." You said it was "most important," so I didn't think it was rhetorical. Turtles all the way down, then? I believe existence is necessary and eternal. Infinite regression only applies if time applies and if something external caused our time, that state is probably eternal and would be the "God" state. The multiverse could be the answer and the multiverse would be eternal. The multiverse wouldn't exist before the universe, it would be existing at the same time as every universe, but outside of the time of those infinite universes.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jun 25, 2021 5:01:41 GMT
I'm not so arrogant as to say that something can't be done simply because I don't know how to do it, but I can speculate what would happen if he turned everything blue: you would ask why he did that. lol As for multi-universes, there can't be more than one because "universe" literally means "everything that exists anywhere." So if than one "bubble" exists, those bubbles collectively would be the universe. Getting back to the point for the sake of Occam's Razor, if the premise is that there's nothing God can't do, then the conclusion cannot be that there's something he can't do. And to presume that he does or doesn't do something because he's an asshole is to fall face first into a big steaming pile of subjectivity. First response. You'd reject the idea that somebody could paint a house one color and have it be both orange and green. Either there's some trick in the paint or something wrong with the viewer's eyesight. Why should I treat the idea of god any differently? We still call atoms atoms even though we've discovered subatomic particles so maybe we'll do the same with the term universe. Let's put it this way. Do you have any way to test whether there is a god and whether if so, it is all powerful in a way that seems to defy logic? If not, there's nothing I can tell you that will convince you and I'm wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2021 5:13:36 GMT
I'm not so arrogant as to say that something can't be done simply because I don't know how to do it, but I can speculate what would happen if he turned everything blue: you would ask why he did that. lol As for multi-universes, there can't be more than one because "universe" literally means "everything that exists anywhere." So if than one "bubble" exists, those bubbles collectively would be the universe. Getting back to the point for the sake of Occam's Razor, if the premise is that there's nothing God can't do, then the conclusion cannot be that there's something he can't do. And to presume that he does or doesn't do something because he's an asshole is to fall face first into a big steaming pile of subjectivity. First response. You'd reject the idea that somebody could paint a house one color and have it be both orange and green. Either there's some trick in the paint or something wrong with the viewer's eyesight. Why should I treat the idea of god any differently? We still call atoms atoms even though we've discovered subatomic particles so maybe we'll do the same with the term universe. Let's put it this way. Do you have any way to test whether there is a god and whether if so, it is all powerful in a way that seems to defy logic? If not, there's nothing I can tell you that will convince you and I'm wasting my time. Admin sort of has a good point in the label of Universe. We label our universe that because we have no evidence that there are more that just this one, but we don't know that there isn't. So if we found evidence of the multiverse, we would have to think of a more fitting name for the one we live in. It would be impossible to find any evidence of anything besides the "universe" we inhabit as far as I can tell. It would be like child trying to find out what exists outside of a windowless soundproof room he will never be let out of. We are forever trapped by the universe we inhabit. We can't even get back to the initial bang, we can only trace back to a few seconds afterwards.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jun 25, 2021 5:17:30 GMT
First response. You'd reject the idea that somebody could paint a house one color and have it be both orange and green. Either there's some trick in the paint or something wrong with the viewer's eyesight. Why should I treat the idea of god any differently? We still call atoms atoms even though we've discovered subatomic particles so maybe we'll do the same with the term universe. Let's put it this way. Do you have any way to test whether there is a god and whether if so, it is all powerful in a way that seems to defy logic? If not, there's nothing I can tell you that will convince you and I'm wasting my time. Admin sort of has a good point in the label of Universe. We label our universe that because we have no evidence that there are more that just this one, but we don't know that there isn't. So if we found evidence of the multiverse, we would have to think of a more fitting name for the one we live in. It would be impossible to find any evidence of anything besides the "universe" we inhabit as far as I can tell. It would be like child trying to find out what exists outside of a room he is incapable of seeing beyond. We are forever trapped inside the universe we inhabit. We can't even get back to the initial bang, we can only trace back to a few seconds afterwards. We would never be able to see past the time of our universe. I am willing to admit that it is a good point that we don't know if there's anything beyond the universe. I'm just not sure that I agree with the nomenclature about whether we would keep the name or change it. After all, we're still using the term 'world' like the Earth is all that exists even though we've been to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2021 5:26:34 GMT
Admin sort of has a good point in the label of Universe. We label our universe that because we have no evidence that there are more that just this one, but we don't know that there isn't. So if we found evidence of the multiverse, we would have to think of a more fitting name for the one we live in. It would be impossible to find any evidence of anything besides the "universe" we inhabit as far as I can tell. It would be like child trying to find out what exists outside of a room he is incapable of seeing beyond. We are forever trapped inside the universe we inhabit. We can't even get back to the initial bang, we can only trace back to a few seconds afterwards. We would never be able to see past the time of our universe. I am willing to admit that it is a good point that we don't know if there's anything beyond the universe. I'm just not sure that I agree with the nomenclature about whether we would keep the name or change it. After all, we're still using the term 'world' like the Earth is all that exists even though we've been to the moon. I was going to mention that it would just be semantics at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 5:55:56 GMT
I'm not so arrogant as to say that something can't be done simply because I don't know how to do it, but I can speculate what would happen if he turned everything blue: you would ask why he did that. lol As for multi-universes, there can't be more than one because "universe" literally means "everything that exists anywhere." So if than one "bubble" exists, those bubbles collectively would be the universe. Getting back to the point for the sake of Occam's Razor, if the premise is that there's nothing God can't do, then the conclusion cannot be that there's something he can't do. And to presume that he does or doesn't do something because he's an asshole is to fall face first into a big steaming pile of subjectivity. First response. You'd reject the idea that somebody could paint a house one color and have it be both orange and green. Either there's some trick in the paint or something wrong with the viewer's eyesight. Why should I treat the idea of god any differently? Because in the context of this particular conversation, the idea of god is omnipotent. Call it what you will, but there still can't be more than everything that exists. I'm not sure what you're asking. It's not unreasonable to say that if something comes into existence, it didn't do so on its own. I don't know if there's a way to test that, but then again, I don't know if there needs to be. However, it does seem illogical to me to presume that there's something an omnipotent entity can't do. In any case, I didn't realize you were trying to convince me of something. What was it again? That God doesn't exist and even if he did, he'd either be impotent or evil?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 6:00:54 GMT
You said it was "most important," so I didn't think it was rhetorical. Turtles all the way down, then? I believe existence is necessary and eternal. Infinite regression only applies if time applies and if something external caused our time, that state is probably eternal and would be the "God" state. The multiverse could be the answer and the multiverse would be eternal. The multiverse wouldn't exist before the universe, it would be existing at the same time as every universe, but outside of the time of those infinite universes. I don't understand what you just said. I tried, but I think my brain exploded a little. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2021 6:07:47 GMT
I am willing to admit that it is a good point that we don't know if there's anything beyond the universe. I'm just not sure that I agree with the nomenclature about whether we would keep the name or change it. After all, we're still using the term 'world' like the Earth is all that exists even though we've been to the moon. I was going to mention that it would just be semantics at that point. It doesn't really matter what words you use if your listener knows what you meant. In this case, if you don't mean "everything that exists" when you use the word "universe," then you may need to clarify what you did mean. Just sayin'.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jun 25, 2021 6:28:47 GMT
First response. You'd reject the idea that somebody could paint a house one color and have it be both orange and green. Either there's some trick in the paint or something wrong with the viewer's eyesight. Why should I treat the idea of god any differently? Because in the context of this particular conversation, the idea of god is omnipotent. Call it what you will, but there still can't be more than everything that exists. I'm not sure what you're asking. It's not unreasonable to say that if something comes into existence, it didn't do so on its own. I don't know if there's a way to test that, but then again, I don't know if there needs to be. However, it does seem illogical to me to presume that there's something an omnipotent entity can't do. In any case, I didn't realize you were trying to convince me of something. What was it again? That God doesn't exist and even if he did, he'd either be impotent or evil? I was trying to challenge that very assumption of omnipotence. I replied once and my internet malfunctioned. I was basing it on the assumption of a multiverse. If that seems foolish, the alternative is that god only made reality one very specific way and is thus not using their full potential. I was saying that in order to reconcile the reality that we live in with the omnipotence of god that the two don't quite square. In order to reconcile the one way that reality seems to work for us in one particular path of fate with the omnipotence of god, we should look on it like there's an 'infinite deck of cards' of different possibilities that are separate at least to us if not to god, should god exist. If god can do whatever they want they have to do so with the limitation that one thing doesn't contradict another. If you have further questions I'll answer them tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 4, 2021 20:39:13 GMT
it does seem illogical to me to presume that there's something an omnipotent entity can't do. The general argument among Christian thinkers at least has been that God can do anything except that which is impossible, or to change His nature. Or to put it another way, a purported God of this sort, as the (or a) greatest possible being, can only do that which can possibly be done. In connection with this I can recommend the recent Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism by Nagasawa.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 5, 2021 1:54:23 GMT
Free will, of course (also created by God). Satan chose to rebel. You didn't know this? So Jehovah/Yahweh, being all powerful and all knowing, made Satan and gave Satan super powers with the knowledge that Satan would turn to evil? How is it that Satan,and only Satan has these super powers? That sounds like lame-rationalization double-talk.
JWs claim that Satan is responsible for apostates. If I have free will such that God does not have the ability to control my actions, how is it that Satan can control me. Is this more double-talk?
Is Free WIll your excuse for the black plague, Covid, poisonous snakes, lung cancer, athlete's foot, and erectile distinction? NO? Why did God invent these?
Some would say Satan can't control you unless you give up your free will to his will.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 5, 2021 8:40:08 GMT
How do theists explain Satan.
Free will, of course (also created by God). Satan chose to rebel. You didn't know this? Yes free will to do what i say or burn in hell.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 5, 2021 12:05:29 GMT
it does seem illogical to me to presume that there's something an omnipotent entity can't do. The general argument among Christian thinkers at least has been that God can do anything except that which is impossible, or to change His nature. Or to put it another way, a purported God of this sort, as the (or a) greatest possible being, can only do that which can possibly be done. In connection with this I can recommend the recent Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism by Nagasawa. Seems like a decent argument to me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 5, 2021 12:06:55 GMT
Free will, of course (also created by God). Satan chose to rebel. You didn't know this? Yes free will to do what i say or burn in hell. Do what?
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jul 5, 2021 14:22:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 5, 2021 14:50:37 GMT
Free will, of course (also created by God). Satan chose to rebel. You didn't know this? Yes free will to do what i say or burn in hell. Oh yes, the threat of punishment robs people of their free will (assuming free will exists). That's why no one commits crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jul 9, 2021 23:25:23 GMT
So Jehovah/Yahweh, being all powerful and all knowing, made Satan and gave Satan super powers with the knowledge that Satan would turn to evil? How is it that Satan,and only Satan has these super powers? That sounds like lame-rationalization double-talk.
JWs claim that Satan is responsible for apostates. If I have free will such that God does not have the ability to control my actions, how is it that Satan can control me. Is this more double-talk?
Is Free WIll your excuse for the black plague, Covid, poisonous snakes, lung cancer, athlete's foot, and erectile distinction? NO? Why did God invent these?
Some would say Satan can't control you unless you give up your free will to his will. Why would anyone give their free will to Satan so that he can destroy them. That sounds like a lame rationalization.
Millions of people go to church every week and give their free will and soul to Yahweh in the hopes that Jehovah will bless the with happiness, wealth and a great orgasm. And what does God give these faithful followers? Up until now he hasn't given them diddly-shit. But they keep going back week after week in the hope that The Lord will answer their prayers. But let's face it, Yahweh has a master plan. Why would (s)he alter that master plan for one egocentric narcissist?
|
|