Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120

Thread: Categories Of Belief In Deities

  1. Top | #81
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    777
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,697
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

    Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

    Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
    Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

    Neither is naturalism.

    Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    You can make a subjective passement but there is no possible evidence for an actual proof. Attempted proofs all have logical flaws. Bootstrapping.
    Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.
    Analogy fails.

    Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.
    Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.
    Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.
    More shot gunning. Well……
    I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.
    That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?
    Did ancient Zog who controlled fire have articulate speech, writing, and philosophy? Nope. It is a function of the brain.

    We all do 'science'. Observe, hypothesis, test hypothesis, accept-reject-modify hypothesis. 'The Method'.

    There are videos of squirrels figuring out how to defeat squirrel proof bird feeders. They observe the problem, try a solution, and modify until success. Science is often trial and error. Chimps quarry stones, fusion into tools to crack nuts, and the tool making is passed on by observation and mimic. A long list. Humans do it better because of our articulate speech, writing, and math. Which is a function of our brains.

    As to being clearly Christian, as evidenced on the forum that can mean anything. You have to articulate.

    Philosophy meaning non science intellectuals add meaning to science and attempt to explant why. When confronted with a problem never met anyone who referred to a work of philosophy. We use our brains, so to speak.

    Philosophy comments on what is. In the 19th century Natural Philosophy gave way to modern empirical mathematical model based science. The old metaphysical approaches were inadequate and became obsolete.

    Other than Descartes who articulated The Method as it is called, there ins no manual on how science is done. It is a long history of trial and error. We have no a priori knowledge . Philosophers have value. I found Popper very useful in understand the dynamics of society and science and how truth is derived culturally. That and a few others.


    An individual may have a working philosophy but it is not a necessity. We learn by doing with others who came before us.

    While more complicated than being a carpenter science is an occupation and a job. You need to learn basic facts and lab skills, then get experience on the job. Demystify science. I knew a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people came in, did their work, and went home. He was into amature sports car racing.

    Let us see this scientific proof o yours of a creator.
    Last time I addressed a shot gunned post like that you blamed me.
    So please understand.....
    Your reply was confusing. Because in our last post we addressed several different issues. And your reply seemed to address some of those issues in scrambled order. Please match up your reply with the issues you were addressing in our last post. So that we can continue the line of reasoning for each issue. As it sits right now……you completely shot gunned a whole new group of concerns to address. I'm particularity interested in how your squirrel figures into your reasoning. Scrat seemed smarter anyway.
    And.....
    What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
    for fun.............
    Just curious are you referring to the Zog from the Far Side cartoons. Zog was one of my favorites particularly "Hey Look what Zog do."




  2. Top | #82
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,241
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    And.....
    What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
    for fun.............
    He says that to all the Christians.

  3. Top | #83
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

    Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

    Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
    Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

    Neither is naturalism.

    Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.

    Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.
    Analogy fails.

    Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.
    Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.
    Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.
    More shot gunning. Well……
    I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.
    That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?
    Did ancient Zog who controlled fire have articulate speech, writing, and philosophy? Nope. It is a function of the brain.

    We all do 'science'. Observe, hypothesis, test hypothesis, accept-reject-modify hypothesis. 'The Method'.

    There are videos of squirrels figuring out how to defeat squirrel proof bird feeders. They observe the problem, try a solution, and modify until success. Science is often trial and error. Chimps quarry stones, fusion into tools to crack nuts, and the tool making is passed on by observation and mimic. A long list. Humans do it better because of our articulate speech, writing, and math. Which is a function of our brains.

    As to being clearly Christian, as evidenced on the forum that can mean anything. You have to articulate.

    Philosophy meaning non science intellectuals add meaning to science and attempt to explant why. When confronted with a problem never met anyone who referred to a work of philosophy. We use our brains, so to speak.

    Philosophy comments on what is. In the 19th century Natural Philosophy gave way to modern empirical mathematical model based science. The old metaphysical approaches were inadequate and became obsolete.

    Other than Descartes who articulated The Method as it is called, there ins no manual on how science is done. It is a long history of trial and error. We have no a priori knowledge . Philosophers have value. I found Popper very useful in understand the dynamics of society and science and how truth is derived culturally. That and a few others.


    An individual may have a working philosophy but it is not a necessity. We learn by doing with others who came before us.

    While more complicated than being a carpenter science is an occupation and a job. You need to learn basic facts and lab skills, then get experience on the job. Demystify science. I knew a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people came in, did their work, and went home. He was into amature sports car racing.

    Let us see this scientific proof o yours of a creator.
    Last time I addressed a shot gunned post like that you blamed me.
    So please understand.....
    Your reply was confusing. Because in our last post we addressed several different issues. And your reply seemed to address some of those issues in scrambled order. Please match up your reply with the issues you were addressing in our last post. So that we can continue the line of reasoning for each issue. As it sits right now……you completely shot gunned a whole new group of concerns to address. I'm particularity interested in how your squirrel figures into your reasoning. Scrat seemed smarter anyway.
    And.....
    What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
    for fun.............
    Just curious are you referring to the Zog from the Far Side cartoons. Zog was one of my favorites particularly "Hey Look what Zog do."



    If your posts make you feel vindicated and happy, then good for you. Post away.

  4. Top | #84
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    And.....
    What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
    for fun.............
    He says that to all the Christians.
    That is because all Christians are essentially the same . Like eating the same frozen dinner night after night after night.

  5. Top | #85
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,241
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    And.....
    What was wrong with my answer to what kind of Christian I am. I thought I provided several details to stew upon. If that is not what you wanted then it is not an issue of me trying to avoid your query. It is the case that your query is so open I have no idea what you want.
    for fun.............
    He says that to all the Christians.
    That is because all Christians are essentially the same . Like eating the same frozen dinner night after night after night.
    Wait, how do you know what we're all like, if none of us ever "explain our beliefs" to you satisfactorily?

    Is it ESP? Do you ESP us to get your information? My god I knew the atheist technocracy was up to something!

  6. Top | #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    996
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,795
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Let us examine your hypothesis and see where it leads. For the theistic creator hypothesis to be true, something necessarily existed before the Big Bang event; at a minimum, a supernatural entity
    ok
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    The theistic hypothesis also tells us that this entity does things, like create universes and meddle in their workings. Change requires time, and therefore this entity experiences time,
    Since creation….yes.
    Nonsense. How could you possibly know what God's schedule has been for the eternity that it has allegedly existed?

    For something to exist and to change, the passage of time is needed. For this god to even have a thought requires the passage of time. Are you suggesting that this god has "existed" in a state of eternal stasis without doing anything. And then it suddenly animated one day and decided to create the universe? How was this condition of stasis achieved and maintained without the passage of time? If no time passed, how can its existence be defined as eternal?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    and is subject to the arrow of time.
    What do you mean by subject?
    Is affected by.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Did this entity begin to exist at some point? …..
    …..
    If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.
    Entropy is a condition of our universe. Theism asserts a transcendent creator that created a universe that is governed with entropy. Why and how did entropy have to exist before there was a universe?
    The entropy of a system is a description of the state of the system. A system is an arrangement of matter/energy and can be anything we are interested in studying - our universe as a whole, galaxies, solar systems, planets, human beings, a refrigerator, or the god that you hypothesize.

    The entropy of a system is related to the arrow of time. The arrow of time relentlessly drives all systems to a state of increasing entropy, or increasing disorderliness, as the amount of usable energy that is available to the system grows smaller. While the entropy of a system can be temporarily decreased by adding usable energy to the system, at the limit, there is no more usable energy (energy gradients) left to exploit. With no energy gradients, nothing can change, and time ceases to pass.

    Nothing is eternal. Not even supermassive black holes which have lifespans of trillions of trillions of years. If your hypothesized god is subject to the arrow of time and is able to do things like create universes, it must also be subject to its effects, including decay into nothingness. If you claim otherwise, you have explain why this hypothesized god never runs out of usable energy, describe the domain within which such an existence is possible, and explain how people can verify the physics of this god and its domain. You have to do the work to describe how this system works. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim, which has no value or explanatory power.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

    Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.
    That is one so simple you should have looked it up before suggesting it as a counter. It would be like me using the salinity of the oceans to infer a young earth. Your flaw lacks understanding of the problem. Consider…..Why is there something rather than nothing?
    So correct me. Where is my understanding of your position flawed?



    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. But God is a perpetual motion machine.
    God is an eternal transcendent personal efficient cause not a perpetual motion machine. God is not governed by the natural physical laws of this universe.
    So……
    How is God a perpetual motion machine?
    A perpetual motion machine is a system that never runs out of usable energy. If your god has existed for eternity, it is, by definition, a perpetual motion machine. Real systems run out of usable energy in finite time and cease to exist, as explained previously.


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Even a superficial examination of the problem should have led you to conclude that the theistic hypothesis is fatally flawed. Yet you keep telling us that you have educated yourself in this matter and pondered deeply on this problem. How is it possible that you missed these obvious flaws in your reasoning?
    Even a superficial examination of your presented flaws one can see that your flaws are flawed and need a defense in order to be considered successful counters.
    The flaws are real. If you are proposing that a creator god exists, it is incumbent on you to describe the properties of this god, and explain, at least hypothetically, how this god can exist eternally and do work, within whatever domain it exists in, and what the properties of this domain might look like. You have to do the work to support your claim.

    Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes). Why does it have to be God, and more specifically, Biblegod? Making up shit is easy, and doing the actual work is hard.

  7. Top | #87
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    Christians widely presume to know the will of god outside of what scripture says.

    It may be how they derive a sense of power, by being a mouthpiece and agent of a god.

  8. Top | #88
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    777
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,697
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    For something to exist and to change, the passage of time is needed.
    I concur with that relational view of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    For this god to even have a thought requires the passage of time.
    A personal God does not require the need to experience a temporal succession of thoughts. He knows the whole content of temporal thought in a single eternal intuition. Just like you can apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God is omniscient…….he has all knowledge….he could know content of all knowledge past, present and future in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. Thus a personal God with the attribute of omniscience does not require the existence of time “prior” to creation.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Did this entity begin to exist at some point? …..
    …..
    If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Entropy is a condition of our universe. Theism asserts a transcendent creator that created a universe that is governed with entropy. Why and how did entropy have to exist before there was a universe?
    The entropy of a system is a description of the state of the system. A system is an arrangement of matter/energy and can be anything we are interested in studying - our universe as a whole, galaxies, solar systems, planets, human beings, a refrigerator, or the god that you hypothesize.
    How is an immaterial, non-physical, eternal God different then all those materially, physically, temporal creations you named?
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    The entropy of a system is related to the arrow of time. The arrow of time relentlessly drives all systems to a state of increasing entropy, or increasing disorderliness, as the amount of usable energy that is available to the system grows smaller. While the entropy of a system can be temporarily decreased by adding usable energy to the system, at the limit, there is no more usable energy (energy gradients) left to exploit. With no energy gradients, nothing can change, and time ceases to pass.
    How is God a system upon which his created law of entropy can act?
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Nothing is eternal.
    Reasonably something has to be……..
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Not even supermassive black holes which have lifespans of trillions of trillions of years. If your hypothesized god is subject to the arrow of time and is able to do things like create universes, it must also be subject to its effects, including decay into nothingness.
    ….. it just cannot be material. You are conflating the material with the immaterial. I agree with you that nothing material is eternal and thus subject to the law of entropy.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    If you claim otherwise, you have explain why this hypothesized god never runs out of usable energy,
    He is eternal because logically there is something rather than nothing. Thus something must be the first eternal all powerful cause. The attributes of God match that necessary cause. The material/natural entities you conflate with God do not have those attributes and thus are subject to God’s law of entropy.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    describe the domain within which such an existence is possible,
    God’s eternality beyond nature…….
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    and explain how people can verify the physics of this god and its domain.
    It’s not physics. It can’t be. It’s metaphysical. Your epistemology can’t go there. When you try you keep forcing the metaphysical to obey your physical-only epistemology. That is why none of this makes sense to you. You want science to absolutely prove God’s existence. It can’t. But that in no way means God doesn’t exist. It just means your approach/epistemology will never find him. Science/physics is limited to nature. God as creator is beyond nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You have to do the work to describe how this system works. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim, which has no value or explanatory power.
    I have been for years. And your conclusion of my beliefs is based upon your limited self-refuting epistemology. You can’t go there. While I can certainly embrace the wonderful truths of science to aid my metaphysical hypotheses…..follow the evidence where it leads. You cannot. You’re limited to natural-only explanations that can’t even explain where nature came from to begin with. Throughout your whole post you are forcing the immaterial to be subject to the material limitations that were created by the immaterial to begin with. And you can’t even really entertain the thought. Thus we will continue to disagree. I have no issue with that whatsoever. The realm of reason is far larger than the science only realm you insist upon.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

    Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    That is one so simple you should have looked it up before suggesting it as a counter. It would be like me using the salinity of the oceans to infer a young earth. Your flaw lacks understanding of the problem. Consider…..Why is there something rather than nothing?
    So correct me. Where is my understanding of your position flawed?
    First…………There is no “before” the big bang. God is not chronologically “prior” to the big bang. He is casually and explanatorily “prior” to the big bang.
    Secondly………It is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Which very briefly means that when God created the universe he did so from nothing. He did not transition some pre-existing material into our universe he created from nothing. And it just so happens to be where the science is leading ….a universe from nothing.
    And…..
    Thirdly…….God is the efficient cause not a material cause of the universe. The universe doesn’t have a material cause as I just mentioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    A perpetual motion machine is a system that never runs out of usable energy. If your god has existed for eternity, it is, by definition, a perpetual motion machine. Real systems run out of usable energy in finite time and cease to exist, as explained previously.
    Again God is not a material system subject to entropy.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Finally, you have to explain why the properties that you attribute to this god could not also be attributed to a non-sentient system outside our visible universe that can likewise exist for eternity and do work (create universes).
    Provide one you think is more viable and I’ll address it.
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Why does it have to be God, and more specifically, Biblegod? Making up shit is easy, and doing the actual work is hard.
    Shot gunning? Different lines of reasoning that have not been required to this. Don’t assume the reasoning is non-existent just because it has not yet been required. Making up crappy conclusions is easy. Supporting them is the hard part.

  9. Top | #89
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,199
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,083
    Rep Power
    59
    If God is outside of time as per Augustine and Boethius, then God must have created everything at once, timelessly. time is but an illusion to us. That means there is no A causes B causes c et al. God creates everything as it is through time and space. All is One Big Now to God. Then that means God does create everything, including all acts of moral evil and natural evil. Therefor God is evil.

    So if to save God's supposed perfect goodness with all God sub-goodnesses, mercy, justice, fairness and compassion, we have to abandon God outside of time.

    But then we have to ask, where does time come from, so powerful even God is subject to time? Since we know from science that Time is dependent on our speed, as is our mass and dimensions, it is obvious that God is subject to space and time and relativity. Time is part of all of that, not something that can stand a lone outside of the rest of reality. Naturalism is proven, and God cannot be the cause of that.

    And how far does this naturalism go? To existence of dimension, energy, the laws of energy that allow quarks and electrons to form, the laws that allow them to form atoms? All of physics and chemistry and thus galaxies, planets and life? Biology and ecology? Evolution and intelligence?

    This idea that theism and science work better together than naturalism and science is simply not true. Unless you want to accept a timeless god that created everything, and this creation is timeless and part of the Big Now, and all evil ever was and ever will be thanks to God, is what you are stuck with. And it does not fit the old books like the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon.

    For myself, I have accepted that God makes no sense and accept that this God does not exist, naturalism does, with its energy, space, time, forces, and all that comes out of this is proven, and trumps this God thing theology does not really 8understand even as they drone on and on about it.

    So let us start with this question, how does God fit in with time?

    And if God is outside of time, all is as it is, and it always has been. God cannot change things because change can only occur in time.
    Things always have been as they are and we are all like flies trapped in amber, and that includes God. And the theologians have been yammering about God and time for centuries and still have not, the bulk of them, figured this simple logical reductio ad absurdum.

    Theism is logically feeble.

    This God outside of time is found in Augustine, "Confessions - Book XI" and Boethius "Consolations Of Philosophy, Book 5". Once one reads these sources, and follows these ideas out to their logical conclusion, all of theology implodes.
    Cheerful Charlie

  10. Top | #90
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    14
    I hadn't thought about that before.

    If god did not create him/her/it self then where didst god come from? An amorphous blob of something needing no energy source and consuming nothing gets lonely or bored and creates a universe with humans as playthings to worship it?

    A pretty ugly image.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •