Ten Things Christians Should Keep In Mind When Debating Atheists

May 10, 2014

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

How was it invented by us though? The concept of 2 existed before us. If you were to wipe out all humanity, the concept of the number would still exist. It's the same thing as the concept of a human. Even if all trace of us disappeared, the very concept of humanity would still exist. Ideas exist irrespective of a physical universe. They exist without something to observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, the tree still falls for us to find later. It still makes a sound, even though nobody is observing it. These things exist without something or someone there to recognize their existence.

I can make a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It would fit in with all the necessary laws, without an issue. The world around us does reflect the existence of God, it's just not a physical/empirical argument. There's a theological framework I would have to present to you.

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

I'm not sure that I agree, BL.

It's the Bible that ties god to our reality and it's the Bible that makes claims which can be addressed by science.

So, rather than science being unable to investigate God directly (because He's beyond empirical investigation) science is able to tell us about the physical universe. If the universe is shown to be eternal, then the truth claim enshrined in scripture (that God created everything) is shown to be false. Then, by inference, all the other truth claims in the Bible are brought into doubt.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that the universe or multiverse IS eternal.

But such a discovery would refute the God of the Bible.

Not by directly disproving His existence, but by disproving the book that Christians claim speaks of His existence.

Therefore, I contend that, in this particular case, empirical methods would disprove the existence of the God of the Bible.

Thanks,

BAA

Point taken, however...I don't see that happening.

May 10, 2014

The moment God enters the universe, he abides by his own limitations. There is no reason why he wouldn't. Why make rules if you're just going to contradict them? Doesn't make any sense. God is logical (if he created everything to run on logic, it would be something derived from him).

Oh, I had the mistaken understanding that god could somehow break the limitations of the universe and perform miracles. Silly me! Where did I get such an idea? But then, that leaves you needing to explain how god performs miracles without breaking the limitations (laws) of the physical universe.

Have you considered that if your god is simple enough to be understood by a finite mind such as your own, then he/she/it is too simple to be worthy of worship?

Hey, do you think you could maybe come up with something more original and creative than mere groundless assertions? They get old after a while.

I don't see how creating and abiding by your own limitations and rules is weak. In fact, I can't do things like turn water into wine. I can't walk on water. Those are things that Jesus would have over me. Plenty powerful.

No, I don't understand God. He goes beyond my comprehension, it's just that your questions haven't reached that point yet. I have a massive list of questions without answers. My finite mind runs into problems all the time.

Here's something to chew on that might shed light on what I'm getting at. There is no such thing as supernatural, rather there is the perfection of the natural. God is not more than the natural (as in extra and not necessary), but rather he is the perfection and ultimate embodiment of nature. It does not take long for the discussion to turn in a philosophical direction.

To begin with, don't you ever presume to tell me at what point my questions have reached. To do so is the pinnacle of arrogance on your part. You know absolutely nothing of the journey that I've taken, apart from what I post here. I will thrash you if you bring the "No True Scotsman" argument to my doorstep.

Secondly, what you describe in your last paragraph is not god; it is the universe. I understand you want to blow BAA off when he tries to explain to you why what you're describing is the universe; but that is a mistake. Again, I advise you, if you truly are here for the reasons you've stated, listen, don't speak. If an unprovable god possesses the same qualities as the provable universe, then Occam's Razor compels us to favor the universe.

May 10, 2014

Keep asking your questions then, and we will see how 'far' they are. You're going to ask questions I can't answer at some point, but for now I'm doing so to the best I can. I'm also well aware of logical fallacies (rationalwiki <3). Just watch your criticism, as it can be leveled back at you, considering that I too am a stranger to you.

Ah yes, and then you're criticizing me for arrogance without actually understanding the full thrust of what that last line meant before unloading your criticism. I am not your typical fundamentalist, conservative, stupid Christian. Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment rather than letting this get out of control already. I may consider creating a thread in the lion's den subforum (or other appropriate place after I take a look at them) that explains the philosophical framework for my beliefs. There is no sense discussing things if we haven't even defined our terms (as Voltaire rightfully says we should do.)

I'm not here to get into some sort of nasty argument, so let's lay off the accusations and heat so that we can actually get on the same page to discuss.

May 10, 2014

@sdelsolray:

God is not something you can define with any sort of completeness.

Speak for yourself, not others. I would appear that you do not have a definition for your particular "God".

Let's go over a few things.

OK.

There are several reasons why God can't exist as part of the universe. The most important reason is that the creator of the universe can't exist inside it.

You have yet to establish this God exists in the first instance. You have yet to establish that this God created the universe. You have yet to establish that the universe was actually created or that it needed to be created in order to exist. You merely assert these things. Assuming this God did exist (other than in your mind), and assuming it is omnipotent, it can choose to exist within the universe and nowhere else. Of course, much depends on the definition of the universe, as I pointed out above. You therefore must define the universe as something less that all that exists.

If God created the universe, he can't be encompassed by it.

Sure it can. See above.

That would be illogical.

Not at all.

He can't be limited by it either.

Except when it chooses otherwise. Remember, it's omnipotent, according to you (at least I suspect your missing definition of your God would include omnipotence - please tell me if my assumption is incorrect).

To exist inside the universe and be bound by its laws is not possible if you created it.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Another mere assertion.

This is why science is irrelevant to the discussion of God.

Your merely asserted premises have already been shot down. Try again.

The one who allegedly created the universe can't be bound by its rules.

A repetition of a prior mere assertion.

This is why if God exists, he can't be inside the universe in his entirety.

A conclusion based on mere assertions is not worthy of comment.

Perhaps only as a manifestation.

Now your getting somewhere. Perhaps this God is "only" a manifestation of your mind. Just perhaps.

This is why that discussion is a dead end.

Then why do you write over 1,000 words discussing it?

Nobody can prove he exists or doesn't exist by using science (which is about questions, not answers ANYWAY).

You have already forget the earlier lesson. Science proves nothing. It merely provides rational inferred explanations and predictions based on bodies of relevant evidence.

The universe is everything physical in existence.

Is this your definition of the "universe"?

I would dispute that there are things that are nonphysical, and that they exist irrespective of the universe...such as numbers...or concepts like love. There is a lot more to that argument.

OK.

God would have to be nonphysical, and would have to exist outside of the universe.

Another mere assertion.

It makes us uncomfortable to consider anything outside of the universe because it cannot be verified empirically.

Again, speak for yourself, not others.

There issues with empiricism though.

I'm sure there are.

No, I don't have empirical evidence for his existence, because God as a whole cannot be a physical entity.

How convenient.

We can turn the flashlight on in the dark room, but we shouldn't assume that everything in the room is going to be lit up by that type of light. Maybe we need a UV light or another kind of light to reveal things that are nonphysical. That's the general idea.

No, I shouldn't assume that at all, particularly when I already know that my eyes are only capable of sensing a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes, maybe. Then again, maybe not. Speculation can be fun.

The rules of the universe I was referring to are physical ones that we have discovered by asking scientific questions and exploring. Science is a powerful, wonderful tool and I encourage everyone to use it to keep from fooling themselves about such things.

OK.

I want to cut to the core here in terms of my neoplatonic framework as opposed to materialism. How do you tell one configuration of matter from another? How can you tell the difference between 2 pennies, and 2 cathedrals? They are both 2 objects, but not the same. What makes the distinction between the two types of objects? I can answer those questions easily, but I want to know what you think. How can you tell a lump of coal from a piece of paper? The reason I ask these questions is because I assert that numbers are nonphysical concepts that can be manifest physically.

Lotsa questions. Third century philosophy is interesting, as is 15th century, 17th century and modern philosophy. They do nothing to demonstrate the existence of your chosen sky fairies.

The number 2 exists without matter.

Wrong. Without a sentient brain, the number 2 does not exist.

Love exists without things that love.

Show me where. On the surface of Mars? Inside of a black hole?

If you were to wipe out everything in existence, concepts would remain.

Where would they remain?

Ah, but science never proves anything either.

Correct.

It's the question, not the answer. Many of our 'scientific' beliefs from 1000 years ago have been long abandoned.

Thanks to the scientific method, more specifically falsifiability.

We're constantly learning more and more through the process of science, but it will never truly be complete. Science is much like philosophy in that it's a tool used to explore.

Science is a child of philosophy and has generated aspects that philosophy does not have.

God as a whole entity is abstract, at least so far as he doesn't exist physically in the universe at this time.

I agree. The human brain has created many constructs.

That isn't to say that he can't manifest himself physically (as he did with Jesus), but Jesus was not everything that God was, because he was bound by the laws of the universe.

More mere assertions.

The argument for and against God is a philosophical one.

I can be. It is also a scientific question.

You can search in the world for him all you want, but you're going to be stuck with a burden of proof and you're not going to find anything.

Wrong. You're the one making the claim this "God" exists. You have the burden of proof.

Even though Jesus existed as a man (which is generally accepted at the scholarly level), we don't have physical evidence of his divinity, nor do we have physical evidence of his resurrection aside from the written testimony of some men.

That's some paltry evidence. Got any more?

There is no special pleading.

Sure there is. According to you, your God can't be defined. It isn't subject to testing or observation. It is exempt from empirical testing. No doubt you will claim this God has no creator itself, etc. Classic Special Pleading.

I use science. I use logic.

Except when you don't, which seems to be quite frequently.

I use philosophy.

Yes, you attempt to hide your sky fairies in philosophy.

I'm debating on similar terms to you.

OK.

The rules apply to my pursuit of God too.

What rules?

Being in the universe, I am limited to a perspective of an observer on Earth, so I will abide by its rules in my search.

Cool. Keep up the good work.

No, because he can't be defined in finite terms. I can't define something that massive.

I won't be using physical evidence to support the existence of God. That's another sort of discussion entirely.

God as God is certainly omnipotent, but the moment he takes on a physical form, he is taking on the same limitations he created. This goes back to God breaking his own rules. It doesn't make any sort of sense for him to do so. Jesus was a manifestation of God with a physical body. He still ate, right? He still had to excrete waste, just like the rest of us. Those are limitations and he was abiding by them during his life.

God can be defined...at least generally. This is a philosophical argument...so I think I'm going to take the time to make one. It may fill in some of the gaps here, because there are misinterpretations left and right.

May 10, 2014

Keep asking your questions then, and we will see how 'far' they are. You're going to ask questions I can't answer at some point, but for now I'm doing so to the best I can. I'm also well aware of logical fallacies (rationalwiki <3). Just watch your criticism, as it can be leveled back at you, considering that I too am a stranger to you.

Ah yes, and then you're criticizing me for arrogance without actually understanding the full thrust of what that last line meant before unloading your criticism. I am not your typical fundamentalist, conservative, stupid Christian. Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment rather than letting this get out of control already. I may consider creating a thread in the lion's den subforum (or other appropriate place after I take a look at them) that explains the philosophical framework for my beliefs. There is no sense discussing things if we haven't even defined our terms (as Voltaire rightfully says we should do.)

I'm not here to get into some sort of nasty argument, so let's lay off the accusations and heat so that we can actually get on the same page to discuss.

I can only assume this post was directed at me. That being the case, and given guidance by our lord that we will know them by their fruit, let's consider your actions since you came to this site:

*You have made baseless assertions, and have failed to provide support for the claims you have made.

*You have hidden behind the argument that god cannot be proven or disproven.

*You have already left several questions unaddressed.

*You have presumed to claim that my questions have not reached the level of sophistication that your superior intellect can deign to address (admittedly, this may be a misunderstanding on my part).

In short, despite your claims to the contrary, you are acting exactly like every other christian who has ever come on this site.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, you are free to clarify your position; I am not a proud man, and am willing to admit my own mistakes. If you feel that you have misunderstood me, deal with it as you see fit.

May 10, 2014

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

How was it invented by us though? The concept of 2 existed before us. If you were to wipe out all humanity, the concept of the number would still exist. It's the same thing as the concept of a human. Even if all trace of us disappeared, the very concept of humanity would still exist. Ideas exist irrespective of a physical universe. They exist without something to observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, the tree still falls for us to find later. It still makes a sound, even though nobody is observing it. These things exist without something or someone there to recognize their existence.

…

Ah yes, numerous mere assertions with a classic the bait and switch aka the poor analogy with a side salad of category error.

Surely you san do better than this. Merely reciting neoplatonic dogma doesn't go very far.

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

…

I can make a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It would fit in with all the necessary laws, without an issue. The world around us does reflect the existence of God, it's just not a physical/empirical argument. There's a theological framework I would have to present to you.

Yes, let's enter the world of philosophical woo woo. You get to control the premises, the argument and the conclusion. Are those important to you?

May 10, 2014

@sdelsolray:

God is not something you can define with any sort of completeness.

Speak for yourself, not others. I would appear that you do not have a definition for your particular "God".

Let's go over a few things.

OK.

There are several reasons why God can't exist as part of the universe. The most important reason is that the creator of the universe can't exist inside it.

You have yet to establish this God exists in the first instance. You have yet to establish that this God created the universe. You have yet to establish that the universe was actually created or that it needed to be created in order to exist. You merely assert these things. Assuming this God did exist (other than in your mind), and assuming it is omnipotent, it can choose to exist within the universe and nowhere else. Of course, much depends on the definition of the universe, as I pointed out above. You therefore must define the universe as something less that all that exists.

If God created the universe, he can't be encompassed by it.

Sure it can. See above.

That would be illogical.

Not at all.

He can't be limited by it either.

Except when it chooses otherwise. Remember, it's omnipotent, according to you (at least I suspect your missing definition of your God would include omnipotence - please tell me if my assumption is incorrect).

To exist inside the universe and be bound by its laws is not possible if you created it.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Another mere assertion.

This is why science is irrelevant to the discussion of God.

Your merely asserted premises have already been shot down. Try again.

The one who allegedly created the universe can't be bound by its rules.

A repetition of a prior mere assertion.

This is why if God exists, he can't be inside the universe in his entirety.

A conclusion based on mere assertions is not worthy of comment.

Perhaps only as a manifestation.

Now your getting somewhere. Perhaps this God is "only" a manifestation of your mind. Just perhaps.

This is why that discussion is a dead end.

Then why do you write over 1,000 words discussing it?

Nobody can prove he exists or doesn't exist by using science (which is about questions, not answers ANYWAY).

You have already forget the earlier lesson. Science proves nothing. It merely provides rational inferred explanations and predictions based on bodies of relevant evidence.

The universe is everything physical in existence.

Is this your definition of the "universe"?

I would dispute that there are things that are nonphysical, and that they exist irrespective of the universe...such as numbers...or concepts like love. There is a lot more to that argument.

OK.

God would have to be nonphysical, and would have to exist outside of the universe.

Another mere assertion.

It makes us uncomfortable to consider anything outside of the universe because it cannot be verified empirically.

Again, speak for yourself, not others.

There issues with empiricism though.

I'm sure there are.

No, I don't have empirical evidence for his existence, because God as a whole cannot be a physical entity.

How convenient.

We can turn the flashlight on in the dark room, but we shouldn't assume that everything in the room is going to be lit up by that type of light. Maybe we need a UV light or another kind of light to reveal things that are nonphysical. That's the general idea.

No, I shouldn't assume that at all, particularly when I already know that my eyes are only capable of sensing a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes, maybe. Then again, maybe not. Speculation can be fun.

The rules of the universe I was referring to are physical ones that we have discovered by asking scientific questions and exploring. Science is a powerful, wonderful tool and I encourage everyone to use it to keep from fooling themselves about such things.

OK.

I want to cut to the core here in terms of my neoplatonic framework as opposed to materialism. How do you tell one configuration of matter from another? How can you tell the difference between 2 pennies, and 2 cathedrals? They are both 2 objects, but not the same. What makes the distinction between the two types of objects? I can answer those questions easily, but I want to know what you think. How can you tell a lump of coal from a piece of paper? The reason I ask these questions is because I assert that numbers are nonphysical concepts that can be manifest physically.

Lotsa questions. Third century philosophy is interesting, as is 15th century, 17th century and modern philosophy. They do nothing to demonstrate the existence of your chosen sky fairies.

The number 2 exists without matter.

Wrong. Without a sentient brain, the number 2 does not exist.

Love exists without things that love.

Show me where. On the surface of Mars? Inside of a black hole?

If you were to wipe out everything in existence, concepts would remain.

Where would they remain?

Ah, but science never proves anything either.

Correct.

It's the question, not the answer. Many of our 'scientific' beliefs from 1000 years ago have been long abandoned.

Thanks to the scientific method, more specifically falsifiability.

We're constantly learning more and more through the process of science, but it will never truly be complete. Science is much like philosophy in that it's a tool used to explore.

Science is a child of philosophy and has generated aspects that philosophy does not have.

God as a whole entity is abstract, at least so far as he doesn't exist physically in the universe at this time.

I agree. The human brain has created many constructs.

That isn't to say that he can't manifest himself physically (as he did with Jesus), but Jesus was not everything that God was, because he was bound by the laws of the universe.

More mere assertions.

The argument for and against God is a philosophical one.

I can be. It is also a scientific question.

You can search in the world for him all you want, but you're going to be stuck with a burden of proof and you're not going to find anything.

Wrong. You're the one making the claim this "God" exists. You have the burden of proof.

Even though Jesus existed as a man (which is generally accepted at the scholarly level), we don't have physical evidence of his divinity, nor do we have physical evidence of his resurrection aside from the written testimony of some men.

That's some paltry evidence. Got any more?

There is no special pleading.

Sure there is. According to you, your God can't be defined. It isn't subject to testing or observation. It is exempt from empirical testing. No doubt you will claim this God has no creator itself, etc. Classic Special Pleading.

I use science. I use logic.

Except when you don't, which seems to be quite frequently.

I use philosophy.

Yes, you attempt to hide your sky fairies in philosophy.

I'm debating on similar terms to you.

OK.

The rules apply to my pursuit of God too.

What rules?

Being in the universe, I am limited to a perspective of an observer on Earth, so I will abide by its rules in my search.

Cool. Keep up the good work.

No, because he can't be defined in finite terms. I can't define something that massive.

…

As I said, how convenient.

…

I won't be using physical evidence to support the existence of God. That's another sort of discussion entirel

…

Of course you won't. Yes, you already raised that other discussion and it was refuted.

…

God as God is certainly omnipotent, but the moment he takes on a physical form, he is taking on the same limitations he created. This goes back to God breaking his own rules. It doesn't make any sort of sense for him to do so. Jesus was a manifestation of God with a physical body. He still ate, right? He still had to excrete waste, just like the rest of us. Those are limitations and he was abiding by them during his life.

…

Except when he (Jesus) wasn't. So, you claim your God is omnipotent. Let's lock that one down for future reference, OK? Is this God also omniscient?

…

God can be defined...at least generally. This is a philosophical argument...so I think I'm going to take the time to make one. It may fill in some of the gaps here, because there are misinterpretations left and right.

Definitions are descriptions, not philosophical arguments. Please, you don't need to take the time to run and hide behind Plato to attempt to explain your God and why you believe in it. A repeat of that movie is not worth the time. Unless, of course, you intend to put forth something new, something truly original. Shoud I have "faith" that you will do so?

And who is responsible for these misrepresentations, left and right, when you fail to, refuse to or are incapable of providing a definition of this God of yours?

May 11, 2014

Keep asking your questions then, and we will see how 'far' they are. You're going to ask questions I can't answer at some point, but for now I'm doing so to the best I can. I'm also well aware of logical fallacies (rationalwiki <3). Just watch your criticism, as it can be leveled back at you, considering that I too am a stranger to you.

Ah yes, and then you're criticizing me for arrogance without actually understanding the full thrust of what that last line meant before unloading your criticism. I am not your typical fundamentalist, conservative, stupid Christian. Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment rather than letting this get out of control already. I may consider creating a thread in the lion's den subforum (or other appropriate place after I take a look at them) that explains the philosophical framework for my beliefs. There is no sense discussing things if we haven't even defined our terms (as Voltaire rightfully says we should do.)

I'm not here to get into some sort of nasty argument, so let's lay off the accusations and heat so that we can actually get on the same page to discuss.

I can only assume this post was directed at me. That being the case, and given guidance by our lord that we will know them by their fruit, let's consider your actions since you came to this site:

*You have made baseless assertions, and have failed to provide support for the claims you have made.

*You have hidden behind the argument that god cannot be proven or disproven.

*You have already left several questions unaddressed.

*You have presumed to claim that my questions have not reached the level of sophistication that your superior intellect can deign to address (admittedly, this may be a misunderstanding on my part).

In short, despite your claims to the contrary, you are acting exactly like every other christian who has ever come on this site.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, you are free to clarify your position; I am not a proud man, and am willing to admit my own mistakes. If you feel that you have misunderstood me, deal with it as you see fit.

1) I'm working on an explanation that will be posted as a thread. The assertions are only baseless because I haven't had an opportunity to do more than outline them.

2) No, he cannot be proven or disproven with science or empirical methods.

3) Then please point out what I miss, because when there's a lot of writing, I miss things.

4) Wrong, that's how you interpreted it. What I mean is that you haven't started asking questions that I don't have answers to. It has nothing to do with intellect.

Or maybe you're erecting a straw man instead of taking the time to try to understand what I'm getting at.

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

How was it invented by us though? The concept of 2 existed before us. If you were to wipe out all humanity, the concept of the number would still exist. It's the same thing as the concept of a human. Even if all trace of us disappeared, the very concept of humanity would still exist. Ideas exist irrespective of a physical universe. They exist without something to observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, the tree still falls for us to find later. It still makes a sound, even though nobody is observing it. These things exist without something or someone there to recognize their existence.

…

Ah yes, numerous mere assertions with a classic the bait and switch aka the poor analogy with a side salad of category error.

Surely you san do better than this. Merely reciting neoplatonic dogma doesn't go very far.

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

…

I can make a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It would fit in with all the necessary laws, without an issue. The world around us does reflect the existence of God, it's just not a physical/empirical argument. There's a theological framework I would have to present to you.

Yes, let's enter the world of philosophical woo woo. You get to control the premises, the argument and the conclusion. Are those important to you?

So you don't take philosophy seriously? Most of you are of a completely different philosophical worldview than me, and that's where the clash is. You guys are calling it 'neoplatonic dogma'...I could fire back about your 'aristotelian nearsightedness'. That doesn't make the argument move forward any bit.

May 11, 2014

@sdelsolray:

God is not something you can define with any sort of completeness.

Speak for yourself, not others. I would appear that you do not have a definition for your particular "God".

Let's go over a few things.

OK.

There are several reasons why God can't exist as part of the universe. The most important reason is that the creator of the universe can't exist inside it.

You have yet to establish this God exists in the first instance. You have yet to establish that this God created the universe. You have yet to establish that the universe was actually created or that it needed to be created in order to exist. You merely assert these things. Assuming this God did exist (other than in your mind), and assuming it is omnipotent, it can choose to exist within the universe and nowhere else. Of course, much depends on the definition of the universe, as I pointed out above. You therefore must define the universe as something less that all that exists.

If God created the universe, he can't be encompassed by it.

Sure it can. See above.

That would be illogical.

Not at all.

He can't be limited by it either.

Except when it chooses otherwise. Remember, it's omnipotent, according to you (at least I suspect your missing definition of your God would include omnipotence - please tell me if my assumption is incorrect).

To exist inside the universe and be bound by its laws is not possible if you created it.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Another mere assertion.

This is why science is irrelevant to the discussion of God.

Your merely asserted premises have already been shot down. Try again.

The one who allegedly created the universe can't be bound by its rules.

A repetition of a prior mere assertion.

This is why if God exists, he can't be inside the universe in his entirety.

A conclusion based on mere assertions is not worthy of comment.

Perhaps only as a manifestation.

Now your getting somewhere. Perhaps this God is "only" a manifestation of your mind. Just perhaps.

This is why that discussion is a dead end.

Then why do you write over 1,000 words discussing it?

Nobody can prove he exists or doesn't exist by using science (which is about questions, not answers ANYWAY).

You have already forget the earlier lesson. Science proves nothing. It merely provides rational inferred explanations and predictions based on bodies of relevant evidence.

The universe is everything physical in existence.

Is this your definition of the "universe"?

I would dispute that there are things that are nonphysical, and that they exist irrespective of the universe...such as numbers...or concepts like love. There is a lot more to that argument.

OK.

God would have to be nonphysical, and would have to exist outside of the universe.

Another mere assertion.

It makes us uncomfortable to consider anything outside of the universe because it cannot be verified empirically.

Again, speak for yourself, not others.

There issues with empiricism though.

I'm sure there are.

No, I don't have empirical evidence for his existence, because God as a whole cannot be a physical entity.

How convenient.

We can turn the flashlight on in the dark room, but we shouldn't assume that everything in the room is going to be lit up by that type of light. Maybe we need a UV light or another kind of light to reveal things that are nonphysical. That's the general idea.

No, I shouldn't assume that at all, particularly when I already know that my eyes are only capable of sensing a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yes, maybe. Then again, maybe not. Speculation can be fun.

The rules of the universe I was referring to are physical ones that we have discovered by asking scientific questions and exploring. Science is a powerful, wonderful tool and I encourage everyone to use it to keep from fooling themselves about such things.

OK.

I want to cut to the core here in terms of my neoplatonic framework as opposed to materialism. How do you tell one configuration of matter from another? How can you tell the difference between 2 pennies, and 2 cathedrals? They are both 2 objects, but not the same. What makes the distinction between the two types of objects? I can answer those questions easily, but I want to know what you think. How can you tell a lump of coal from a piece of paper? The reason I ask these questions is because I assert that numbers are nonphysical concepts that can be manifest physically.

Lotsa questions. Third century philosophy is interesting, as is 15th century, 17th century and modern philosophy. They do nothing to demonstrate the existence of your chosen sky fairies.

The number 2 exists without matter.

Wrong. Without a sentient brain, the number 2 does not exist.

Love exists without things that love.

Show me where. On the surface of Mars? Inside of a black hole?

If you were to wipe out everything in existence, concepts would remain.

Where would they remain?

Ah, but science never proves anything either.

Correct.

It's the question, not the answer. Many of our 'scientific' beliefs from 1000 years ago have been long abandoned.

Thanks to the scientific method, more specifically falsifiability.

We're constantly learning more and more through the process of science, but it will never truly be complete. Science is much like philosophy in that it's a tool used to explore.

Science is a child of philosophy and has generated aspects that philosophy does not have.

God as a whole entity is abstract, at least so far as he doesn't exist physically in the universe at this time.

I agree. The human brain has created many constructs.

That isn't to say that he can't manifest himself physically (as he did with Jesus), but Jesus was not everything that God was, because he was bound by the laws of the universe.

More mere assertions.

The argument for and against God is a philosophical one.

I can be. It is also a scientific question.

You can search in the world for him all you want, but you're going to be stuck with a burden of proof and you're not going to find anything.

Wrong. You're the one making the claim this "God" exists. You have the burden of proof.

Even though Jesus existed as a man (which is generally accepted at the scholarly level), we don't have physical evidence of his divinity, nor do we have physical evidence of his resurrection aside from the written testimony of some men.

That's some paltry evidence. Got any more?

There is no special pleading.

Sure there is. According to you, your God can't be defined. It isn't subject to testing or observation. It is exempt from empirical testing. No doubt you will claim this God has no creator itself, etc. Classic Special Pleading.

I use science. I use logic.

Except when you don't, which seems to be quite frequently.

I use philosophy.

Yes, you attempt to hide your sky fairies in philosophy.

I'm debating on similar terms to you.

OK.

The rules apply to my pursuit of God too.

What rules?

Being in the universe, I am limited to a perspective of an observer on Earth, so I will abide by its rules in my search.

Cool. Keep up the good work.

No, because he can't be defined in finite terms. I can't define something that massive.

…

As I said, how convenient.

…

I won't be using physical evidence to support the existence of God. That's another sort of discussion entirel

…

Of course you won't. Yes, you already raised that other discussion and it was refuted.

…

God as God is certainly omnipotent, but the moment he takes on a physical form, he is taking on the same limitations he created. This goes back to God breaking his own rules. It doesn't make any sort of sense for him to do so. Jesus was a manifestation of God with a physical body. He still ate, right? He still had to excrete waste, just like the rest of us. Those are limitations and he was abiding by them during his life.

…

Except when he (Jesus) wasn't. So, you claim your God is omnipotent. Let's lock that one down for future reference, OK? Is this God also omniscient?

…

God can be defined...at least generally. This is a philosophical argument...so I think I'm going to take the time to make one. It may fill in some of the gaps here, because there are misinterpretations left and right.

Definitions are descriptions, not philosophical arguments. Please, you don't need to take the time to run and hide behind Plato to attempt to explain your God and why you believe in it. A repeat of that movie is not worth the time. Unless, of course, you intend to put forth something new, something truly original. Shoud I have "faith" that you will do so?

And who is responsible for these misrepresentations, left and right, when you fail to, refuse to or are incapable of providing a definition of this God of yours?

He can't be 'completely' defined. That doesn't mean we can't see anything or define different aspects. It's not a matter of convenience. There is a framework that this fits in. To fully define something of an infinite scale is not possible.

Refuted? I don't recall that. God is not physical, so you can't discuss him with physical terms. This is basic. If God exists, he cannot be physical and be his whole self.

God as God is omnipotent. The moment he takes on another manifestation (which he would be able to do simultaneously), he would be taking on his own limitations while in that form. The typical question about lifting mountains bigger than him is not a valid question. Just going to cut that one off before it starts.

Well...yes, he's omniscient. He exists outside the influence of time, meaning he can see the end from the beginning.

Your mockery of Plato is ignorant. Are you capable of discussing philosophy like a civil, respectful human being? If so, then perhaps you'll understand what I'm talking about when I make my own thread so that you can all understand where this comes from. If you believe Aristotle was so superior, then perhaps you'll be able to defend yourself when that kind of discussion starts. This may sound sharp, but perhaps you should turn and read what you're writing. I do know my way around philosophy.

May 11, 2014

Matthew 7:20 (NIV)

20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

May 11, 2014

The problem, Wololo, is that the god you're describing is not Christ (whom you claim) or the god of the Bible. The Christ you believe in gave humanity a BOOK with all sorts of evidentiary claims. To state that god cannot be proven or disproven in this world is patently false according to the bible. The bible is evidence of this god INTERVENING in the affairs of humanity in supposedly tangible ways and the PROMISE that he will continue to do so until the end of time.

So coming here with the premise that god cannot be proven or disproven except in the field of philosophy is simply not a christian position. In fact, the need to go through such acrobatics just shows how "hidden," or rather, NONEXISTENT he is in REALITY. There is no reason a Christians should have to set up a philosophical framework for the existence of the god of the bible. The god described in the bible is certainly not interested in hiding himself. The deistic, perfectly natural god outside of creation you are describing is not Christ.

May 11, 2014

Christians are soooo cute when they try to be smart.

May 11, 2014

Keep asking your questions then, and we will see how 'far' they are. You're going to ask questions I can't answer at some point, but for now I'm doing so to the best I can. I'm also well aware of logical fallacies (rationalwiki <3). Just watch your criticism, as it can be leveled back at you, considering that I too am a stranger to you.

Ah yes, and then you're criticizing me for arrogance without actually understanding the full thrust of what that last line meant before unloading your criticism. I am not your typical fundamentalist, conservative, stupid Christian. Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment rather than letting this get out of control already. I may consider creating a thread in the lion's den subforum (or other appropriate place after I take a look at them) that explains the philosophical framework for my beliefs. There is no sense discussing things if we haven't even defined our terms (as Voltaire rightfully says we should do.)

I'm not here to get into some sort of nasty argument, so let's lay off the accusations and heat so that we can actually get on the same page to discuss.

I can only assume this post was directed at me. That being the case, and given guidance by our lord that we will know them by their fruit, let's consider your actions since you came to this site:

*You have made baseless assertions, and have failed to provide support for the claims you have made.

*You have hidden behind the argument that god cannot be proven or disproven.

*You have already left several questions unaddressed.

*You have presumed to claim that my questions have not reached the level of sophistication that your superior intellect can deign to address (admittedly, this may be a misunderstanding on my part).

In short, despite your claims to the contrary, you are acting exactly like every other christian who has ever come on this site.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, you are free to clarify your position; I am not a proud man, and am willing to admit my own mistakes. If you feel that you have misunderstood me, deal with it as you see fit.

1) I'm working on an explanation that will be posted as a thread. The assertions are only baseless because I haven't had an opportunity to do more than outline them.

2) No, he cannot be proven or disproven with science or empirical methods.

3) Then please point out what I miss, because when there's a lot of writing, I miss things.

4) Wrong, that's how you interpreted it. What I mean is that you haven't started asking questions that I don't have answers to. It has nothing to do with intellect.

Or maybe you're erecting a straw man instead of taking the time to try to understand what I'm getting at.

Okay then:

1) I have read your thread and the assertions are as baseless in it as they are elsewhere.

2) Philosophy is questions which may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned. I fear your attempt to marry the two will only end in questions and answers with may never be questioned or answered. Good luck, though. That said, philosophy also neither proves nor disproves the existence of god.

3) No, slow down a bit and go back over the threads. A lot of good opportunities have been missed; you should shore that up. Also, listen.

4) I apologize and if there is anything I can do to make things right, I sincerely hope you will allow me to.

I have no intention of making any men of straw; I simply engage in debate as comes naturally to me.

May 11, 2014

The problem, Wololo, is that the god you're describing is not Christ (whom you claim) or the god of the Bible. The Christ you believe in gave humanity a BOOK with all sorts of evidentiary claims. To state that god cannot be proven or disproven in this world is patently false according to the bible. The bible is evidence of this god INTERVENING in the affairs of humanity in supposedly tangible ways and the PROMISE that he will continue to do so until the end of time.

So coming here with the premise that god cannot be proven or disproven except in the field of philosophy is simply not a christian position. In fact, the need to go through such acrobatics just shows how "hidden," or rather, NONEXISTENT he is in REALITY. There is no reason a Christians should have to set up a philosophical framework for the existence of the god of the bible. The god described in the bible is certainly not interested in hiding himself. The deistic, perfectly natural god outside of creation you are describing is not Christ.

Yes, the ex-Christians telling me what a Christian is supposed to be. That's what's cute.

God can't be proven with science. There is nothing hiding about that. That's the reality. The moment God becomes something provable by science, he is no longer God. He is no longer the creator.

Sure it's a Christian position. You haven't studied the right theologians. In fact, I daresay the early Church fathers were along these lines, and much of my thinking is derived from them. God is right there in the middle of everything, it's just that your'e blinding yourself to his existence.

It seems some of you aren't taking philosophy seriously.

Keep asking your questions then, and we will see how 'far' they are. You're going to ask questions I can't answer at some point, but for now I'm doing so to the best I can. I'm also well aware of logical fallacies (rationalwiki <3). Just watch your criticism, as it can be leveled back at you, considering that I too am a stranger to you.

Ah yes, and then you're criticizing me for arrogance without actually understanding the full thrust of what that last line meant before unloading your criticism. I am not your typical fundamentalist, conservative, stupid Christian. Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment rather than letting this get out of control already. I may consider creating a thread in the lion's den subforum (or other appropriate place after I take a look at them) that explains the philosophical framework for my beliefs. There is no sense discussing things if we haven't even defined our terms (as Voltaire rightfully says we should do.)

I'm not here to get into some sort of nasty argument, so let's lay off the accusations and heat so that we can actually get on the same page to discuss.

I can only assume this post was directed at me. That being the case, and given guidance by our lord that we will know them by their fruit, let's consider your actions since you came to this site:

*You have made baseless assertions, and have failed to provide support for the claims you have made.

*You have hidden behind the argument that god cannot be proven or disproven.

*You have already left several questions unaddressed.

*You have presumed to claim that my questions have not reached the level of sophistication that your superior intellect can deign to address (admittedly, this may be a misunderstanding on my part).

In short, despite your claims to the contrary, you are acting exactly like every other christian who has ever come on this site.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, you are free to clarify your position; I am not a proud man, and am willing to admit my own mistakes. If you feel that you have misunderstood me, deal with it as you see fit.

1) I'm working on an explanation that will be posted as a thread. The assertions are only baseless because I haven't had an opportunity to do more than outline them.

2) No, he cannot be proven or disproven with science or empirical methods.

3) Then please point out what I miss, because when there's a lot of writing, I miss things.

4) Wrong, that's how you interpreted it. What I mean is that you haven't started asking questions that I don't have answers to. It has nothing to do with intellect.

Or maybe you're erecting a straw man instead of taking the time to try to understand what I'm getting at.

Okay then:

1) I have read your thread and the assertions are as baseless in it as they are elsewhere.

2) Philosophy is questions which may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned. I fear your attempt to marry the two will only end in questions and answers with may never be questioned or answered. Good luck, though. That said, philosophy also neither proves nor disproves the existence of god.

3) No, slow down a bit and go back over the threads. A lot of good opportunities have been missed; you should shore that up. Also, listen.

4) I apologize and if there is anything I can do to make things right, I sincerely hope you will allow me to.

I have no intention of making any men of straw; I simply engage in debate as comes naturally to me.

1) Baseless as in they don't provide empirical evidence? You haven't even left time for me to flesh out why I think this way. There has been little discussion in that thread. You're jumping the gun.

2) That's the point though. God is not something that can be proven with certainty. It's something that requires some faith, like any other system of beliefs. It's just a matter of where you're putting your faith. You can run down philosophy all you want, but it's inescapable.

3) I may pop back and have a look when I have some time, but while you direct that criticism at me, and complain that I don't listen, I could say the same thing. What I'm seeing as a lot of "oh just the same thing" without realizing that this is not the same thing.

4) Civil discussion is fine. If you guys start to be aggressive, I can give it back too. I'd much rather it be a respectful discussion though. I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to condemn, I'm here to discuss. I don't expect you to agree with me (quite the opposite), but the quality of the conversation is much higher when we can give each other some room.

May 11, 2014

…

God can't be proven with science. There is nothing hiding about that. That's the reality. The moment God becomes something provable by science, he is no longer God. He is no longer the creato

…

You are beginning to repeat your prior mere assertions. Got anything else?

May 11, 2014

1) Baseless as in they don't provide empirical evidence? You haven't even left time for me to flesh out why I think this way. There has been little discussion in that thread. You're jumping the gun.

2) That's the point though. God is not something that can be proven with certainty. It's something that requires some faith, like any other system of beliefs. It's just a matter of where you're putting your faith. You can run down philosophy all you want, but it's inescapable.

3) I may pop back and have a look when I have some time, but while you direct that criticism at me, and complain that I don't listen, I could say the same thing. What I'm seeing as a lot of "oh just the same thing" without realizing that this is not the same thing.

4) Civil discussion is fine. If you guys start to be aggressive, I can give it back too. I'd much rather it be a respectful discussion though. I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to condemn, I'm here to discuss. I don't expect you to agree with me (quite the opposite), but the quality of the conversation is much higher when we can give each other some room.

1) I thought the point of you starting the thread was to let us all know why you think this way. Why would you start a thread and not already have your ideas fleshed out? And what are you going to flesh it out with? The empirical evidence you claim doesn't exist? I'm not jumping any gun; I'm simply repeating myself over and over like a broken christbot: "Your assertions are unfounded."

2) If attempting to marry religion with philosophy helps you sleep at night, well then good for you. We all strive to find what works for us in this life. By that I mean that I support you in whatever belief brings you comfort, but I don't need those beliefs interrupting mine, especially if said interruption requires that I accept anything on faith. Also, philosophy may not be my strong suit, but I have, in no way attempted to run it down.

3) You'd have more time if you weren't busy typing up 17 different posts in one setting. And whatever complaints you want to make about me are fine so long as you remember, I didn't come on your website telling you all about what I believe and how it's different from every other of the 41,000 different christian beliefs out there; rather, it was you who came on my website making that claim. We are not required to listen to you, given that, as a christian, your presence here is a priviledge we grant you, not a right.

4) I'm not certain how that response coincides with my apologizing for my misunderstanding and making an offer of amends; however, it does provide me with yet another opportunity to reiterate to you that while you claim not to be here to evangelize, your actions suggest otherwise. I called you out on this on another thread (http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62322-how-religious-people-think/page-4 post #73). You have so far failed to offer a defense, which is suggestive of guilt.

May 11, 2014

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason. Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion; just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs. The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

I do not agree with this statement however. There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God. The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence. A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us. Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless. However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions. If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma. Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational. You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts. I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?

When we die our bodies go number 2. :-)

May 11, 2014

How was it invented by us though? The concept of 2 existed before us. If you were to wipe out all humanity, the concept of the number would still exist. It's the same thing as the concept of a human. Even if all trace of us disappeared, the very concept of humanity would still exist. Ideas exist irrespective of a physical universe. They exist without something to observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, the tree still falls for us to find later. It still makes a sound, even though nobody is observing it. These things exist without something or someone there to recognize their existence.

Trees and forests and everything else does not exist until collapse of the wave function by an observer. Or more precisely by observing. Until that point everything is in quantum superposition existing only as a probability wave. (Great word salad if I do say so myself) Concepts are not self-extant entities but transmitted information. Concepts are thoughts which are the result of thinking. If no thinking occurs then there are no thoughts.

I can make a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It would fit in with all the necessary laws, without an issue. The world around us does reflect the existence of God, it's just not a physical/empirical argument. There's a theological framework I would have to present to you.

I can make a philosophical argument for anything. Wouldn't it be better if you just showed us this God? More importantly though, why do you feel it is necessary that we accept your assertions that there is a God? What will happen if I decide never to accept the idea that there is a God? Why is it your personal mission to come here and assert God's existence? I choose not to accept the concept of the existence of God. So what happens to me now?

May 11, 2014

No, because he can't be defined in finite terms. I can't define something that massive.

It is rather difficult to define God, who exists only as a concept in your head. But why should you have to. I invite God to speak to us directly. Waiting...waiting....silence.....

I won't be using physical evidence to support the existence of God. That's another sort of discussion entirely.

Of course you wont. There isn't any physical evidence.

God as God is certainly omnipotent, but the moment he takes on a physical form, he is taking on the same limitations he created. This goes back to God breaking his own rules. It doesn't make any sort of sense for him to do so. Jesus was a manifestation of God with a physical body. He still ate, right? He still had to excrete waste, just like the rest of us. Those are limitations and he was abiding by them during his life.

Ominpotent. Omni-silent. Omni-absent. Omni-non-existent.

God can be defined...at least generally. This is a philosophical argument...so I think I'm going to take the time to make one. It may fill in some of the gaps here, because there are misinterpretations left and right.

Your definition is opinion.

May 11, 2014

He can't be 'completely' defined. That doesn't mean we can't see anything or define different aspects. It's not a matter of convenience. There is a framework that this fits in. To fully define something of an infinite scale is not possible.

It is hard to define the non-existent without using your own imagination.

Refuted? I don't recall that. God is not physical, so you can't discuss him with physical terms. This is basic. If God exists, he cannot be physical and be his whole self.

I thought God could be anything he felt like being. Is he not all-powerful and autonomous? Your posts appear to set up limitations for the 'supposed' unlimited God. So you're saying that God isn't really all powerful and autonomous but only has the powers you ascribe to him in your special mental framework. Sounds to me like your God is only a concept instead of a real entity. Let's ask him! God, are you real or merely a mental framework created by Wololo and every other Christian? It's just a simple question. Waiting for an answer...waiting ... waiting... silence.

So God is not physical. Jesus was physical. Therefore Jesus was not God. Got it. Scratching Jesus off my important beings list. If I was God I'd be physical and non-physical at the same time just to drive you nuts. :-)

May 11, 2014

Yes, the ex-Christians telling me what a Christian is supposed to be. That's what's cute.

That's like an ex-truck driver telling you how to drive a truck. Absurd, I say! :-)

May 12, 2014

Yes, the ex-Christians telling me what a Christian is supposed to be. That's what's cute.

that logic

ex-Christian also have the knowledge of christianity because they were taught and experienced it in the past

it doesn't make it less "authoritative" just because the "ex" title

ex racing driver can teach people how to drive a racing car

emeritus professor can be a guest professor in university/ seminar

ex soccer player can teach young atheletes how to play soccer

and even a muslim can know more about christianity than christians themselves

example seyyed hossein nasr in his book ideals and reality of islam (1967)

he can explain what is the core of christian faith while many of christians might not know how to answer that questions

May 12, 2014

Yes, the ex-Christians telling me what a Christian is supposed to be. That's what's cute.

Ummm yeah. My post-graduate seminary degree in theology, 5 years in full-time ministry including 2 years church planting in a Muslim country...what do I know about being a Christian?!!!

I have read and studied all your philosophical "arguments." The point is you are IGNORING a small thing called the BIBLE in your unfounded assertions of who god is. If you are just going to throw out the tangible, evidentiary claims of the bible about how god supposedly has, is, and will interact with humanity in demonstrable ways, then you might as well be arguing for ANY invisible deistic entity. Your description of this invisible, unprovable god could just as well be Odin as Jesus. Or as we atheists, would say...nothing at all!

People can make incredible PHILOSOPHICAL arguments for there being multiple realities, that we all live in the matrix, or our whole world is just a drop of sweat on the testicle of a giant bull. While clever arguments and fun ideas, in the end there is no more PROOF for any of these ideas than there is for Jesus being the son of god.

The real question is WHY any person should believe in ANYTHING if the only proof is philosophical?

May 12, 2014

The moment God enters the universe, he abides by his own limitations. There is no reason why he wouldn't. Why make rules if you're just going to contradict them? Doesn't make any sense. God is logical (if he created everything to run on logic, it would be something derived from him).

Oh, I had the mistaken understanding that god could somehow break the limitations of the universe and perform miracles. Silly me! Where did I get such an idea? But then, that leaves you needing to explain how god performs miracles without breaking the limitations (laws) of the physical universe.

Have you considered that if your god is simple enough to be understood by a finite mind such as your own, then he/she/it is too simple to be worthy of worship?

Hey, do you think you could maybe come up with something more original and creative than mere groundless assertions? They get old after a while.

I don't see how creating and abiding by your own limitations and rules is weak. In fact, I can't do things like turn water into wine. I can't walk on water. Those are things that Jesus would have over me. Plenty powerful.

No, I don't understand God. He goes beyond my comprehension, it's just that your questions haven't reached that point yet. I have a massive list of questions without answers. My finite mind runs into problems all the time.

Here's something to chew on that might shed light on what I'm getting at. There is no such thing as supernatural, rather there is the perfection of the natural. God is not more than the natural (as in extra and not necessary), but rather he is the perfection and ultimate embodiment of nature. It does not take long for the discussion to turn in a philosophical direction.

Wololo wrote...

"The argument for and against God is a philosophical one."

That might be so for your god, who or whatever that is.

But the god of the Bible is another matter entirely.

Scripture makes a truth claim (God created all things) which CAN be refuted if science discovers that the material universe (in one form or another) has always existed. An eternal physical universe (or multiverse) requires no creator. Therefore, should science discover such a thing, then the god of the Bible will be ruled as creator. This will bring all the other truth claims in the Bible into doubt.

No philosophical argument against god's existence will be required - science can do the job quite nicely, thank you very much!

Okay. Let me know when you figure out that the universe has always existed. So far the Big Bang appears to be more and more likely. There was a recent discovery made about the polarization of light waves after the Big Bang (link) and gravitational ripples (link). While not 100% verified yet, the case for the Big Bang is building, so I think you're going to be searching for a long time.

Good luck with your science.

Thanks!

Good luck exploring those links I posted for you.

Ten Things Christians Should Keep In Mind When Debating Atheists

Recommended Posts

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

sdelsolray

Link to comment

Share on other sites

sdelsolray

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

FreeThinkerNZ

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gamecock1973

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wololo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

sdelsolray

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheRedneckProfessor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

francesco

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gamecock1973

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Main Blog

Browse

Activity

Subscriptions

Contact

Social