|
Post by Sarge on Apr 4, 2022 5:42:09 GMT
I believe I am. I believe the universe exists. Can you explain how that happened? 1) Are you not going to acknowledge the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence? Or are you doing so by glossing over it? I'm not sure what you're asking now. 2) Can I explain how what happened? 1) I acknowledged your comment twice. At the risk of repeating history, I have already responded, and again. You haven't responded to anything specific from my posts. I would like you to do that because I put some thought into them and if you read them and respond, you might gain insight into my thinking. 2) I asked if you can explain how it is the universe exists. I will break down the logic of your claim, correct me if I'm wrong: You claim it's a fact that the universe can't create itself. If your statement is true, there are 4 possibilities that I can see: 1. Nothing exists. (My reply: We are having a conversation, so at least one of us exists.) 2. There was a creator/architect. 3. The universe always was. 4. The universe popped into existence and there was no creator. Do you agree with this logic? If not, why? And what do you believe are the logical possibilities of your claim?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 6:53:57 GMT
1) Are you not going to acknowledge the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence? Or are you doing so by glossing over it? I'm not sure what you're asking now. 2) Can I explain how what happened? 1) I acknowledged your comment twice. At the risk of repeating history, I have already responded, and again. You haven't responded to anything specific from my posts. I would like you to do that because I put some thought into them and if you read them and respond, you might gain insight into my thinking. 2) I asked if you can explain how it is the universe exists. I will break down the logic of your claim, correct me if I'm wrong: You claim it's a fact that the universe can't create itself. If your statement is true, there are 4 possibilities that I can see: 1. Nothing exists. (My reply: We are having a conversation, so at least one of us exists.) 2. There was a creator/architect. 3. The universe always was. 4. The universe popped into existence and there was no creator. Do you agree with this logic? If not, why? And what do you believe are the logical possibilities of your claim? I haven't responded to much of what you've said yet. Perhaps you overlooked my comment about not diving into the deep end of the pool just yet. You were talking about religion and cavemen and some other things, while I was (and still am) waiting for you to simply acknowledge that it is a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. You asked me to prove it, to convince you. Have I done that or are you just acknowledging that I've said it? Be upfront and clear about this, please and thank you. I claim it's a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence, be it the universe, quantum particles, God, or pink unicorns. With that said yet again... 1. Agreed. Clearly things exist. 2. There was only a creator of the universe if the universe was created. 3. Infinite regress. See above. 4. The "Pop Theory" is not supported by actual science. We live in a causal universe. Without cause, there is no effect. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to my first reply to you in this thread. You said: I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Do you no longer believe that "the world came to exist"? Because you can't assert that while simultaneously arguing for infinite regress. Well, I mean, you can, but not without abandoning the very logic, reason, and even science that steers you away from "a creator". (Case in point: Your #4.)
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 4, 2022 14:30:23 GMT
You mean wrong morally or wrong in some other way? Wrong as in I don't think it's all that useful an analogy to think of God like a hypothetical physical entity when trying to understand why people do or don't believe in him. Sorry you didn't like the video. Probably no point watching the whole thing if it hasn't grabbed you so far. I didn't mean for that analogy as an explanation for why people believe in him or not. But it IS how I view the objective usefulness OF...certainly ME believing in God or a god and even of others believing in God because I am as sure as I can be that no one knows what the God they believe in is/wants/does. I think the belief in God provides some people psychological advantages.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 4, 2022 18:54:40 GMT
Maybe a theist can clarify this for me: If god is all powerful and has been around forever, why hasn't it done everything there is to do already? To me that represents the problem with any eternal existence. I have heard theists use an argument something like that to argue against an eternal natural universe or a natural existence outside of or without time because it would imply an infinite regress. And they seem to further argue that an infinite regress is impossible.
Here it is in the kalam cosmological argument that is often used by WLCraig to argue for the existence of God.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of a an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successive addi‐ tion cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its exis‐ tence.
But somehow, the theist never seems to wonder how the same logic doesn't apply to their posited 'eternally existing' God. They just wave their hands and assert that God...can do lots of things....think, decide, plan, create, judge, love, make distinctions, interact with humans, etc. but all with no time in which to do those things. If God has multiple thoughts, they EITHER happen in a sequence therefore absolutely IMPLYING a sort of time in which God has those thoughts OR they all...each and everyone of this thoughts would have to happen all at once....so all the thought a god who exists in a timeless world has, happen at the same time since there is no time separating them out. Therefore the thought TO create the natural world happened/s at the exact same instant the creation happened/s and since there was no time before the thought TO create the natural world, and God exists eternally, the universe by definition must have always existed...ie existed and exists eternally. Therefore the conclusion that a timeless God created a temporal universe immediately contradicts the idea that such a creation solves the 'infinite regress' problem. Since the universe had to have been created instantly by the timeless God and God has always existed, the universe has always existed.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 4, 2022 19:43:11 GMT
1) I acknowledged your comment twice. At the risk of repeating history, I have already responded, and again. You haven't responded to anything specific from my posts. I would like you to do that because I put some thought into them and if you read them and respond, you might gain insight into my thinking. 2) I asked if you can explain how it is the universe exists. I will break down the logic of your claim, correct me if I'm wrong: You claim it's a fact that the universe can't create itself. If your statement is true, there are 4 possibilities that I can see: 1. Nothing exists. (My reply: We are having a conversation, so at least one of us exists.) 2. There was a creator/architect. 3. The universe always was. 4. The universe popped into existence and there was no creator. Do you agree with this logic? If not, why? And what do you believe are the logical possibilities of your claim? I haven't responded to much of what you've said yet. Perhaps you overlooked my comment about not diving into the deep end of the pool just yet. You were talking about religion and cavemen and some other things, while I was (and still am) waiting for you to simply acknowledge that it is a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. You asked me to prove it, to convince you. Have I done that or are you just acknowledging that I've said it? Be upfront and clear about this, please and thank you. I claim it's a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence, be it the universe, quantum particles, God, or pink unicorns. With that said yet again... 1. Agreed. Clearly things exist. 2. There was only a creator of the universe if the universe was created. 3. Infinite regress. See above. 4. The "Pop Theory" is not supported by actual science. We live in a causal universe. Without cause, there is no effect. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to my first reply to you in this thread. You said: I believe the world exists and that it came to exist in a natural way, and that everything we know is natural. Do you no longer believe that "the world came to exist"? Because you can't assert that while simultaneously arguing for infinite regress. Well, I mean, you can, but not without abandoning the very logic, reason, and even science that steers you away from "a creator". (Case in point: Your #4.) I don't know if your comment is true, you haven't proven it. I'm not saying that to be argumentative, I honestly don't know that it's true. You seem to believe it is self-evident, but it isn't to me. I plainly said, facts can be proven, so prove it. And you repeated yourself. The most important thing I have learned from physics is that the universe is not intuitive, 2+2 does not always equal 4. You claim the universe can't pop into existence, some physicists believe that is exactly what happened. Look, I can see you are trying to undermine me without asserting anything because that would make you vulnerable to being wrong. Very common tactic. You are playing escape hatch and I have no interest.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 19:54:17 GMT
I haven't responded to much of what you've said yet. Perhaps you overlooked my comment about not diving into the deep end of the pool just yet. You were talking about religion and cavemen and some other things, while I was (and still am) waiting for you to simply acknowledge that it is a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. You asked me to prove it, to convince you. Have I done that or are you just acknowledging that I've said it? Be upfront and clear about this, please and thank you. I claim it's a fact that nothing can bring itself into existence, be it the universe, quantum particles, God, or pink unicorns. With that said yet again... 1. Agreed. Clearly things exist. 2. There was only a creator of the universe if the universe was created. 3. Infinite regress. See above. 4. The "Pop Theory" is not supported by actual science. We live in a causal universe. Without cause, there is no effect. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to my first reply to you in this thread. You said: Do you no longer believe that "the world came to exist"? Because you can't assert that while simultaneously arguing for infinite regress. Well, I mean, you can, but not without abandoning the very logic, reason, and even science that steers you away from "a creator". (Case in point: Your #4.) I don't know if your comment is true, you haven't proven it. I'm not saying that to be argumentative, I honestly don't know that it's true. You seem to believe it is self-evident, but it isn't to me. I plainly said, facts can be proven, so prove it. And you repeated yourself. The most important thing I have learned from physics is that the universe is not intuitive, 2+2 does not always equal 4. You claim the universe can't pop into existence, some physicists believe that is exactly what happened. You can believe that something that doesn't exist can actually do something if you want to. I'm sure you have evidence to support it. I suppose it was only a matter of time before you played that lame card in search of an exit. Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 3, 2022 19:59:20 GMT
If the impossible is done then, by definition, it is not the impossible. So a god has not done the impossible, or that which cannot be done but the possible, even if very rare and difficult. To put it another way, to argue that god can do the impossible you are changing the definition of what cannot be done to something which can - which is why any such claim is inherently illogical, even if one puts asides the common views of philosophers on the matter of a supposed Maximal God, discussed before. If something (in this case, "a god") can't do the impossible without rendering it possible, it would not be "all powerful." Unless, of course, it means something else, which is why I asked for clarification. That is exactly why the notion of an 'all powerful' god is logically incoherent when it is said to perform that which cannot be done. No wonder you need clarification to perhaps explain this away. The only presumption of a literally unlimited deity is from those who therein suppose the impossible is possible. So once again, for the last time: God can only do things which can be done by God. Anything He can do by definition cannot be impossible. If He can do absolutely anything then nothing is impossible, even that He can change His nature or lift a stone that He created so that He cannot lift it. But such considerations really only exercise those who feel a need to think such a entity really exists and in such terms - who unfortunately seem not sophisticated thinkers, Xian or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2022 20:05:00 GMT
If something (in this case, "a god") can't do the impossible without rendering it possible, it would not be "all powerful." Unless, of course, it means something else, which is why I asked for clarification. That is exactly why the notion of an 'all powerful' god is logically incoherent when it is said to perform that which cannot be done. No wonder you need clarification to perhaps explain this away. The only presumption of a literally unlimited deity is from those who suppose the impossible is possible. So once again for the last time: God can only do things which can be done by God. Anything He can do by definition cannot be impossible. If He can do absolutely anything then nothing is impossible, even that He can change His nature or lift a stone that He created that He cannot lift. But such considerations really only exercise those who feel a need to think such a entity really exists. If "all powerful" doesn't mean "all powerful," just say so. No need to spin.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 3, 2022 20:19:05 GMT
That is exactly why the notion of an 'all powerful' god is logically incoherent when it is said to perform that which cannot be done. No wonder you need clarification to perhaps explain this away. The only presumption of a literally unlimited deity is from those who suppose the impossible is possible. So once again for the last time: God can only do things which can be done by God. Anything He can do by definition cannot be impossible. If He can do absolutely anything then nothing is impossible, even that He can change His nature or lift a stone that He created that He cannot lift. But such considerations really only exercise those who feel a need to think such a entity really exists. If "all powerful" doesn't mean "all powerful," just say so. No need to spin. The spin is not mine. Christ falls into the same logical error eg Matthew 19:26 ESV: But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” There's also Jeremiah 32:17 where apparently "nothing is too hard" for the Almighty, etc. But despite this text obviously written by someone without thinking it through, as already mentioned I have not come across a serious religious thinker today who seriously argues the incoherent and necessarily contradictory position that God can do what God can't do (which would be, for Him, the very definition of the impossible.) Incidentally I have never claimed that your deity is all powerful, I have merely addressed the notion that He is and why it is, when taken literally, illogical. I hope that helps. It is also ironic given your comments on this thread that, if nothing can come from nothing, then God cannot have created reality, since before it existed, one assumes that nothing existed other than God. What was created cannot have been just 'more of God' since, well, nothing can be greater or more than He already is.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2022 20:25:56 GMT
I have never claimed that your deity is all powerful Then you and I have no argument. Thanks for stopping by.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 3, 2022 20:27:08 GMT
I have never claimed that your deity is all powerful Then you and I have no argument. Thanks for stopping by. I was not aware we were arguing. I was simply pointing out how the idea of total omnipotence ultimately breaks down into contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 4, 2022 1:31:40 GMT
Then you and I have no argument. Thanks for stopping by. I was not aware we were arguing. I was simply pointing out how the idea of total omnipotence ultimately breaks down into contradictions. And I was simply pointing out that there are no contradictions for a totally omnipotent entity. If something can't perform any given act without contradiction, it isn't totally omnipotent. It's neither logical nor reasonable to assign limits to something that is presumed to be unlimited.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 12, 2022 19:20:52 GMT
I was not aware we were arguing. I was simply pointing out how the idea of total omnipotence ultimately breaks down into contradictions. And I was simply pointing out that there are no contradictions for a totally omnipotent entity. If something can't perform any given act without contradiction, it isn't totally omnipotent. It's neither logical nor reasonable to assign limits to something that is presumed to be unlimited. Indeed - and it appears that, on this basis of agreement, from the previously quoted Jesus downwards, those who insist such a totally omnipotent being actually exists are unsophisticated, deluded or just careless thinkers, who remain oblivious to the unavoidable contradictions inherent in such a claim. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 12, 2022 21:58:38 GMT
And I was simply pointing out that there are no contradictions for a totally omnipotent entity. If something can't perform any given act without contradiction, it isn't totally omnipotent. It's neither logical nor reasonable to assign limits to something that is presumed to be unlimited. Indeed - and it appears that, on this basis of agreement, from the previously quoted Jesus downwards, those who insist such a totally omnipotent being actually exists are unsophisticated, deluded or just careless thinkers, who remain oblivious to the unavoidable contradictions inherent in such a claim. Thank you. Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions, as I've repeatedly explained. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 3, 2022 17:48:08 GMT
Indeed - and it appears that, on this basis of agreement, from the previously quoted Jesus downwards, those who insist such a totally omnipotent being actually exists are unsophisticated, deluded or just careless thinkers, who remain oblivious to the unavoidable contradictions inherent in such a claim. Thank you. Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions, as I've repeatedly explained. You're welcome. And, as previously explained here, with good examples, it does. How can God be 'all-powerful' if He cannot create something He cannot lift? Either He can't create it or He can't lift it. You asserting something over and over and ignoring the workings of logic as carefully pointed out to you doesn't make what you say true.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 3, 2022 20:39:32 GMT
Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions, as I've repeatedly explained. You're welcome. And, as previously explained here, with good examples, it does. How can God be 'all-powerful' if He cannot create something He cannot lift? Either He can't create it or He can't lift it. You asserting something over and over and ignoring the workings of logic as carefully pointed out to you doesn't make what you say true. If there's anything something can't do, it would not be "all-powerful." As I've repeatedly explained, the problem is in the question itself because it presumes that God is all-powerful. It's not just asking if God can create a rock he can't lift; it's asking if he can do that without negating the presumption that he can do anything. Here it is again: If God can do anything, can he...Yes. It doesn't matter what follows "can he..." Maybe it would help if the question was rephrased: If God can do anything, is there anything he can't do?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 3, 2022 22:58:03 GMT
And, as previously explained here, with good examples, it does. How can God be 'all-powerful' if He cannot create something He cannot lift? Either He can't create it or He can't lift it. You asserting something over and over and ignoring the workings of logic as carefully pointed out to you doesn't make what you say true. If there's anything something can't do, it would not be "all-powerful." As I've repeatedly explained, the problem is in the question itself because it presumes that God is all-powerful. It's not just asking if God can create a rock he can't lift; it's asking if he can do that without negating the presumption that he can do anything. Here it is again: If God can do anything, can he...Yes. It doesn't matter what follows "can he..." Maybe it would help if the question was rephrased: If God can do anything, is there anything he can't do? Whatever. You said, just earlier specifically that "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" which is a statement, and not the question you now present things as. I have repeated a famous example of such omnipotence which cannot be resolved logically without contradiction, and said why. Until you can show how it can be resolved, and how, then that's a QED and the end of the matter. Or, the presumption has been convincingly negated, and God is not absolutely all-powerful. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 3, 2022 23:17:04 GMT
If there's anything something can't do, it would not be "all-powerful." As I've repeatedly explained, the problem is in the question itself because it presumes that God is all-powerful. It's not just asking if God can create a rock he can't lift; it's asking if he can do that without negating the presumption that he can do anything. Here it is again: If God can do anything, can he...Yes. It doesn't matter what follows "can he..." Maybe it would help if the question was rephrased: If God can do anything, is there anything he can't do? Whatever. You said, just earlier specifically that "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" which is a statement, and not the question you now present things as. I have repeated a famous example of such omnipotence which cannot be resolved logically without contradiction, and said why. Until you can show how it can be resolved, and how, then that's a QED and the end of the matter. Or, the presumption has been convincingly negated, and God is not absolutely all-powerful. I hope that helps. I just explained it in the very post to which you are replying right now with a dismissive "whatever." "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" That is correct. If there's anything God can't do, he would not be totally omnipotent.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 10, 2022 19:04:22 GMT
Whatever. You said, just earlier specifically that "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" which is a statement, and not the question you now present things as. I have repeated a famous example of such omnipotence which cannot be resolved logically without contradiction, and said why. Until you can show how it can be resolved, and how, then that's a QED and the end of the matter. Or, the presumption has been convincingly negated, and God is not absolutely all-powerful. I hope that helps. I just explained it in the very post to which you are replying right now with a dismissive "whatever." "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" That is correct. If there's anything God can't do, he would not be totally omnipotent. Away from your assertion about absolute omnipotence - which I have just shown is logically incoherent, all you have left is what is essentially a tautological argument, i.e. logic that uses the premise as the conclusion: that 'If God can do anything then He can' which is just a fallacy and so fails a second time.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2022 22:36:11 GMT
I just explained it in the very post to which you are replying right now with a dismissive "whatever." "Total omnipotence doesn't include contradictions" That is correct. If there's anything God can't do, he would not be totally omnipotent. Away from your assertion about absolute omnipotence - which I have just shown is logically incoherent, all you have left is what is essentially a tautological argument, i.e. logic that uses the premise as the conclusion: that 'If God can do anything then He can' which is just a fallacy and so fails a second time. You're so twisted up, you think it's a fallacy to say "If God can do anything, then he can do anything." All you've done here is show that you are not omnipotent, let alone totally omnipotent.
|
|