Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:12 AM
28 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,808 Year: 8,844/19,786 Month: 1,266/2,119 Week: 26/576 Day: 26/50 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
JustinC
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 240 of 301 (302217)
04-07-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Muddying the waters
It's not trying to muddy the waters, its an attempt to show that you need do some rigorous defining of your terms because no one but yourself seems to know what you are talking about.

Now, there are 2 explanations for the origins of the universe:

1. It was created by an eternal Being
2. It has always existed in some form.

There are your choices. There are no others.


From what I can tell, here are your definitions:

Universe = everything which is not an eternal being

Then your dichotomy is:

1. Everything which is not an eternal Being was created by an eternal Being.

2. Everything which is not an eternal Being has always existed (dropping the "in some form" since it is redundant).

Is this what you are trying to say?

[EDIT]typos

This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-07-2006 07:26 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 6:13 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:21 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 241 of 301 (302222)
04-07-2006 7:51 PM


I also see only two options logically speaking
The two being that 1) the universe always existed or 2) an eternal Being brought it into existence.

It seems to me that the idea that any lesser god created the universe is just a subset of the idea of an eternal Being, requires that there be an eternal God that created it in its turn, so that effectually the eternal Being is still the Creator.

And if the universe just started existing on its own, or even started and stopped a bazillion times, that's just a subset of the universe's always existing anyway.

Perhaps it should be put:

1) Universe is self-existent or self-creating

2) Universe was brought into existence by all-powerful self-existent Being

But if everybody thinks these two options don't suffice, how about seriously trying to make a list of all the options they think exist? In the end it seems to me they will all boil down to these two but by then maybe it will be more obvious to everyone that that is in fact the case. And if not then we should at least have a list that everybody can agree on.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 07:53 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ReverendDG, posted 04-07-2006 8:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 244 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 8:37 PM Faith has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2273 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 242 of 301 (302225)
04-07-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-07-2006 7:51 PM


Re: I also see only two options logically speaking
I always thought many fantasy authors had interesting ideas, how about the universe always existed, and it produced gods/god to create everthing thing in it?

just a shot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 7:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 8:26 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 243 of 301 (302231)
04-07-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ReverendDG
04-07-2006 8:06 PM


Re: I also see only two options logically speaking
Then that would be a subset of the Self-Existing Universe, from which all forms of life arise, which is basically the same idea most nontheistic evolutionists believe in.

The question Robin is asking is whether there is a case against a Creator God of the Western Tradition kind, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and so on, basically the God creationists believe in, both Bibical and theist creationists.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 08:26 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 08:30 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ReverendDG, posted 04-07-2006 8:06 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 3006 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 244 of 301 (302234)
04-07-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-07-2006 7:51 PM


Re: I also see only two options logically speaking
quote:
2) Universe was brought into existence by all-powerful self-existent Being


Again, you guys need to define what you mean by universe. What if our universe is apart of a larger structure? Or is that the universe also?

Even so, why all powerful? Why not just powerful enough to create our universe?

And why does it need to be self existent? It could be created by another being, which was created by the another being, ad infinitum. No eternal being in that scenerio.

Or what is the being that created our universe was "created" or "evolved" in another structure (purposely not using universe because I don't know how you define it yet). And this structure was created by a being, which evolved in another universe, ad infinitum.

Maybe if you can define the universe this would be easier. Look at my previous post and tell me if that is what you mean by universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 7:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:06 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 245 of 301 (302236)
04-07-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by JustinC
04-07-2006 8:37 PM


Re: I also see only two options logically speaking
Maybe if you can define the universe this would be easier. Look at my previous post and tell me if that is what you mean by universe.

Your previous post says Everything that is not an eternal being = the universe.

I think so but maybe there is a semantic problem that needs to be sorted out further.

"The universe" is all things that exist apart from a Creator God, if He exists, or in other words "all Creation."

The question is how it all came to exist. The two options that answer the question are

1) It is self-existent or self-creating.

2) A conscious Being created it.

Again, you guys need to define what you mean by universe. What if our universe is apart of a larger structure? Or is that the universe also?

Everything that is in existence -- except the Creator God Himself. Yes, a larger "structure" would still be "the universe."

Even so, why all powerful? Why not just powerful enough to create our universe?

A being powerful enough to create all things, all that exists, including any other universes than ours, seems to imply all-powerful. What could be more powerful than a Being that could create everthing that exists?

And why does it need to be self existent? It could be created by another being, which was created by the another being, ad infinitum. No eternal being in that scenerio.

Because there has to be a Being where the buck stops as it were, a Being at the back of all of them, and what would that Being be except an eternal being? So all lesser gods are a subset of the idea of the eternal Creator God.

Or are you imagining beings just come into existence and/or universes just come into existence out of nowhere without beginning or end? Is this really a viable option? Isn't there always the question Where did it start?

Or what is the being that created our universe was "created" or "evolved" in another structure (purposely not using universe because I don't know how you define it yet). And this structure was created by a being, which evolved in another universe, ad infinitum.

And you can imagine this beginningless and endless chain of creating beings arising out of mindless universes ad infinitum? That's a very odd one. There is no beginning? You don't postulate either an Original Universe or an Original Creator back of it all? Seems to me this still has to be a version of the two options Robin gave although I'm not sure which one.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 09:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 8:37 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 246 of 301 (302237)
04-07-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by JustinC
04-07-2006 7:23 PM


Re: Muddying the waters
From what I can tell, here are your definitions:

Universe = everything which is not an eternal being

Then your dichotomy is:

1. Everything which is not an eternal Being was created by an eternal Being.

2. Everything which is not an eternal Being has always existed (dropping the "in some form" since it is redundant).

Is this what you are trying to say?

Yes.

Took me a while to understand your terms but the answer is yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 7:23 PM JustinC has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 247 of 301 (302250)
04-07-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 4:04 PM


Re: What is pretend about living?
I know that I exist a la Descartes. Beyond that the certainty goes down.

Well, then, what level of confidence are you interested in? What degree of uncertainty would you be willing to accept and still be assured?

By restricting your OP to the western notions of deity you've tied at least one hand behind my back you know. Ramana has such interesting things to say about "I am", but he was Indian.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:04 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by robinrohan, posted 04-08-2006 10:10 AM lfen has responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 248 of 301 (302252)
04-07-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
There are 2 types of entities in the world: beings and things. Everything has to be one or the other.

Your philosophical dissertation brings to my mind after all these years the sophomoric philosopy, I and my friend were in our sophomore year of college, that was developed in an afternoon in the college coffee shop.

It went pretty much like this.

There are two classes of things in the universe, aside from big and little, those things which eat and those things which are eaten.

It is the moral imperative of this philosophy to seek to be the former and avoid being the latter.

All else is redundant.
QED

Well we were joking, but are you? What is this with the universe being limited to being and things? And it appears they are mutually exclusive! One of these days I will give up posting to this site. Nobody understands what I write.

You clearly have the intelligence and education to grasp the fundamentals of General Semantics. If you would at least pay me and GS the respect of refuting our observations on process I might not feel that all my efforts were totally in vain, but being entirely ignored in favor of a naive sensory model of the universe as comprised of things and beings with out even explaining the relationship of the two seems like we are beneath your notice.

What happened to physics with the concepts of matter and energy?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:36 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 PM lfen has responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 249 of 301 (302253)
04-07-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
God is a Being.

The universe is a thing.

Big difference.

Define "a being" and "a thing" please. What is the difference?

Btw, being limited to your two possibilities is why I lost interest in the west and turned to the east. The east has a much more profound grasp and understanding of the problem, though Korzybski and Wittgenstein have advanced the western positions.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:32 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 250 of 301 (302255)
04-07-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by lfen
04-07-2006 10:52 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
You want to posit energy as a third kind of entity in the world?

Isn't it clear that Robin is simply saying there are living things and nonliving things? Energy isn't a living thing.

Either there is a living being who made it all

Or it all simply exists somehow or other on its own


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by lfen, posted 04-07-2006 10:52 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by lfen, posted 04-07-2006 11:37 PM Faith has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 251 of 301 (302257)
04-07-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
04-07-2006 7:15 PM


Re: Hearsay
Matthew, Mark, John and Peter among others were eyewitnesses.

Ah this is the crux, but it would have to be another thread. I don't know how many contemporary Christian church's still hold the dogma that the Gospels were actually written by disciples rather than attributed to them.

Perhaps you or someone else would like to start a thread on the authorship of the Gospels?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 7:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:29 PM lfen has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31608
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 252 of 301 (302259)
04-07-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by lfen
04-07-2006 11:17 PM


Re: Hearsay
No, I do not want to debate the authorship. There is plenty of internal evidence that the authors were who the books were attributed to.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by lfen, posted 04-07-2006 11:17 PM lfen has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2840 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 253 of 301 (302260)
04-07-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
04-07-2006 11:11 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism

You want to posit energy as a third kind of entity in the world?

Oh no, not me. I think entities are artifacts of our brain structure and the language we have developed. There are no entities. There are only processes. Better there is only the process of incredibly complexity that we call the universe, or All That Is.

Interesting to note that matter and energy are forms of the same process, Energy equalling mass times the square of velocity of light in a vacuum.

My critique of Robin's position is that he naively accepts the notion of "things". Heraclitus said you can't step in the same river twice. I'm still trying to track down who said that that being the case you can't step in the same river once.

But my favorite is the Riddle Song. "I gave my love a cherry without a stone. I gave my love a chicken without a bone." Cherry is a dynamic process of matter/energy. One space/time segment of cherrying is blooming and in that sequence prior to blooming is budding and all the way back to a seed sprouting. Because we can interact with a cherry to derive energy and nutrition we are most interested in that segment of the process and use the noun "cherry" to designate it but no cherry exists as an entity. It's in constant change though say through a process of freezing the rate of change can be slowed down a great deal or through heat speeded up.

Quite possibly Robin is wanting to distinguish between living things and non living things. What I am saying is that is a meaningless distinction because there are no things (entities) at all. All there is is a complex processing that is ongoing.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 11:46 PM lfen has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 254 of 301 (302262)
04-07-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 6:00 PM


But under the criteria people are laying out to show that the idea of God deserves some attention, Green Lantern qualifies too.

Well it's a point, but not a very valid one. We all know the green lantern doesn't exist and why. We all are not sure if God exists, and we are not sure why or why not.

I think the best case for God really, is Jesus. He came and did what he did, in front of many witnesses.

My problem with it, and I am sure it is your problem also, is that it was so long ago, and things were very different back then. It almost seems to me, that people could have been easily fooled back then, because they don't know as much as we know now.

So you could sit there, and even falseify Jesus very easily.

But the truth is, if He did exactly what He did, miracles and all, then He was the Son of God, and there was a change at that point in time. It seems most of history centers around that time. I feel there was a change in us as humans from that moment on. I relate that change to Him depositing the Holy Spirit in us, so we no longer have to go to a temple and make sacrifices to talk with God. We can just do it ourselves, right through Jesus. There must be times in life when your staring at a light bulb in the ceiling and wondering about God. I say your talking to Him.

That's what led me to start reading the bible. It took 13 years before it finally came through, and I felt the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, you recieve power when the Holy Spirit falls on you, and then your my witness.

I think that makes so much sense. I become a witness, and thats exactly how I feel now. I no longer have to rely on just words in a book, that I could easily justify away. Jesus left His words, but He knew it wouldn't be enough. He probably knew the words would get scrambled, and religions would come and go, and not really follow His words. He knew people like you would rely on only empirical evidence, and not take that leap of faith (so you say) to find God.

I think we were all created to worship God. I am not talking about falling on your kness and crying out to an imaginary friend, I am talking about worshiping Him in spirit and truth. You bring a lot of truth to the plate. I see it in your debating, and you knowledge, and your ability of discernment. You may even be worshiping God with all that, and you don't even realize it.

There is a way to know God, and it is through His Spirit. The instructions are in the bible how to obtain communication with His Spirit. Is it objective? I don't know, is anything objective? We only can look at the world through our subjective minds. We are far from knowing everything. What qualifies us to say we know enough to make any decision? What will we be like 1000 years from now? Love exists, and it's subjective. God is love.

I don't know, but I do know that even though we disagree on many things, I still think highly of you, and like you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 6:00 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019