Evidence

[Skeptisch]

The bible say they will bring forth after their kind, and that’s all man has ever observed.

The bible also says:
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

 

[cottage]

Wait a minute, so numbers don't exist necessarily?? Name me a possible world at which numbers don't exist. Second, if it is possible for God's existence to be of necessity, then there ISN'T possible for such a being's existence to NOT be possible

I’m sorry but I can’t see how your response here is relevant to the quote? Where have I said there is a possible world to which numbers don’t apply? <scratches head>

And in response to your second point I will show further down the page that God's necessary existence isn't possible.

But yes it does. If you are thinking of at least one possible world at which numbers don't exist, then what is the corresponding number to that possible world.......the number 1.

The concept of quantity and number applies to all possible worlds, and in our alluding to them it is logical to say those worlds at least in theory could all be enumerated. So the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is certain and universal and will apply to all possible worlds, and where there are objects in those worlds the truths of quantity and number will obtain, but I don’t see any logical requirement for there to be any objects at all in any of those worlds. But if we say there are no internal objects wouldn’t that be saying: ‘0 x objects’, which is a number? I believe not because that would be attempting to quantify something that isn’t, and we can’t presuppose an object in order to classify it.

They are abstract objects. Objects that are not material or spatial, but they exists as merely concepts. They cannot cause anything.

We've established that, thank you.

And metaphysics is what is needed when we search for an explanation to explain the existence of contingent beings.

But metaphysics doesn’t explain anything; it is pure speculation and can never give us new information or knowledge about the world. And this discussion is proof of that, it’s enjoyable but essentially only about terms or the way things are classified. Metaphysics leaves everything as it is.

I don't understand the parallel between the two.

‘Possibility’ is the fly in the ointment. You gave, as an analogy, an example that could be verified in experience: a lawyer in China. It is a matter of fact that there are lawyers and a place known as China, and the concept of possibility is perfectly consistent with matters of fact. But God’s supposed necessity cannot be settled by an appeal to possible experience as the concept of possibility is contingent, where a thing may or may not be, and it therefore stands contrary to necessity.

First, if you admit that it is possible for God to exist necessarily, then there is no turning back. You can't logically admit that God's existence is necessary (if he existed), and then also admit that it is also possible that God doesn't exist necessarily. If a necessary being is possible, then this beings non-existence is impossible. Law of excluded middle.

If it is logically possible that no necessary being exists then it demonstrably true that no being exists. And even the most committed theist can easily conceive of there being no God, for it is possible for every person to annihilate the concept of any being in thought without incurring the least contradiction or absurdity. And a single, solitary denial is all that is required to demolish for all time the supposed certitude implied in the proposition. So again we see from the logical possibility that no necessary being exists necessarily that it must follow that a necessary being is impossible.

There is a contradiction in stating "There is no God" if you admit that if such a being existed, its existence is necessary.

Well, I certainly do not accept that misleading proposition! There is no logical entailment from a thing’s necessity to that of necessary existence but only that it is not contingent upon, or answerable to, any other thing. Therefore the statement ‘God is a necessary being’ implies (A) that he exists and (B) that he is all sufficient, but no contradiction is involved in saying there is neither a God nor any necessary being. And self-evidently it follows from the non-contradictory denial of a necessary being that its necessary existence is impossible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The bible also says:
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

So physically assaulting your parents and acts of idolatry are acts punishable by death. Its funny you mention morality, when without God there would be no objective morality so your beef with God's act of judgment are at best morally subjective on your part.

 

[McBell]

... when without God there would be no objective morality ...

and yet there is no objective morality with god...

Not only does God kill men, women, children, plants and animals, but also orders his followers to do the same.
He allows slavery
he punishes children for the sins of their parents
He orders his followers to steal land

So please be so kind as to show this god given "objective morality" you speak of...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I&#8217;m sorry but I can&#8217;t see how your response here is relevant to the quote? Where have I said there is a possible world to which numbers don&#8217;t apply? <scratches head>

I must have misinterpreted what you said, apologies.

The concept of quantity and number applies to all possible worlds, and in our alluding to them it is logical to say those worlds at least in theory could all be enumerated. So the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is certain and universal and will apply to all possible worlds, and where there are objects in those worlds the truths of quantity and number will obtain, but I don&#8217;t see any logical requirement for there to be any objects at all in any of those worlds.

There would be no logical requirement for contingent truths, but there would be logical requirements for necessary truths.

But if we say there are no internal objects wouldn&#8217;t that be saying: &#8216;0 x objects&#8217;, which is a number? I believe not because that would be attempting to quantify something that isn&#8217;t, and we can&#8217;t presuppose an object in order to classify it.

Not quite sure I understand this...

But metaphysics doesn&#8217;t explain anything; it is pure speculation and can never give us new information or knowledge about the world. And this discussion is proof of that, it&#8217;s enjoyable but essentially only about terms or the way things are classified. Metaphysics leaves everything as it is.

Science can't either.....at least as far as absolute origins is concerned. First off, science is not root to all knowledge....there are things like logical truths and mathematical truths, neither of which has an empirical base. Science cannot explain the absolute origins of the universe, and therefore metaphysics is necessary.

&#8216;Possibility&#8217; is the fly in the ointment. You gave, as an analogy, an example that could be verified in experience: a lawyer in China. It is a matter of fact that there are lawyers and a place known as China, and the concept of possibility is perfectly consistent with matters of fact. But God&#8217;s supposed necessity cannot be settled by an appeal to possible experience as the concept of possibility is contingent, where a thing may or may not be, and it therefore stands contrary to necessity.

Ok but the fact still remains that the concept of God as defined in the argument would be a necessary truth if it in fact exists in reality. And not only would it be a necessary truth if it existed in reality, it would exist in reality even if it is a possible necessary truth. So if God's existence is even possible, it must be true....unlike the analogy, where the existence of a lawyer in China is a contingent possibility.

If it is logically possible that no necessary being exists then it demonstrably true that no being exists.

So please enlighten me on how the concept of God as described in the argument an impossibility.

And even the most committed theist can easily conceive of there being no God, for it is possible for every person to annihilate the concept of any being in thought without incurring the least contradiction or absurdity.

I can easily conceive of George Washington not ever existing, but does that change the fact that he actually existed?

And a single, solitary denial is all that is required to demolish for all time the supposed certitude implied in the proposition. So again we see from the logical possibility that no necessary being exists necessarily that it must follow that a necessary being is impossible.

What? That's it? I am waiting on you to show how the concept of God as described in the argument is impossible to exist.

Well, I certainly do not accept that misleading proposition! There is no logical entailment from a thing&#8217;s necessity to that of necessary existence but only that it is not contingent upon, or answerable to, any other thing. Therefore the statement &#8216;God is a necessary being&#8217; implies (A) that he exists and (B) that he is all sufficient, but no contradiction is involved in saying there is neither a God nor any necessary being. And self-evidently it follows from the non-contradictory denial of a necessary being that its necessary existence is impossible.

I must admit, I do not understand anything in the above quote. Not one bit. Please explain in a different way.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

and yet there is no objective morality with god...

Not only does God kill men, women, children, plants and animals, but also orders his followers to do the same.
He allows slavery
he punishes children for the sins of their parents
He orders his followers to steal land

So please be so kind as to show this god given "objective morality" you speak of...

So if there is no objective morality with God then if Congress decided to pass a law that it is ok to kill one of your neighbor every Thursday of the week, then that would make it ok to do so.

Good stuff there, Mest.

 

[adi2d]

So if there is no objective morality with God then if Congress decided to pass a law that it is ok to kill one of your neighbor every Thursday of the week, then that would make it ok to do so.

Good stuff there, Mest.

He asked you to explain this objective morality you spoke of



If you heard God tell you to kill your neighbor next Tuesday would that make it ok to do so?

 

[sonofdad]

I guess I will have to accept the fact that you won&#8217;t answer my analogy.

"Something can't come from nothing" just does not compute as a coherent statement.
What is nothing? Clearly you don't consider the scientific definition of nothing, empty space, to be actual nothing, you're taking the philosophical view of nothing, something vague like non-being, non-existence, etc.
What is that? It's nothing, it doesn't exist. There is no good reason to think that this definition of nothing has or has ever had any basis in the actual world.
I'm not hanging on to the possibility of something coming out of nothing, I'm saying "something can't come out of nothing" or "something can come out of nothing" are nonsensical statements because as soon as you invoke "nothing" as an entity you're talking about it as if it were in fact something.

Quantum physics is a natural phenomenon. Natural phenomenon occurs within the universe. The universe began to exist. See where this is leading?

If God is able to affect the natural universe and can be affected by the natural universe, then God is a natural phenomenon.

So if the past is infinite, for the present moment to arrive, an infinite set had to be complete, right? But wait a minute, you just said that an infinite set cannot be complete? Which is it?

Infinity is weird thing, it just goes on and on.
You have that same problem with a supernatural being, you just define it as something "existing outside of time" to avoid it, which is nonsense because the act of creating is a change in it self.
Logically, something has to be eternal here, is that thing GOD or something else? I don't know. Just how likely is it that sheep herders in 1200BC had it right though?

&#8230;a being which exists because of the necessity of his nature, yes.

Which makes the argument redundant.
Just skip the whole thing: God is the greatest conceivable being and existence is always greater than non-existence.
Case closed, God exists.

Not really.

It is possible that gwarbles exist.

What are gwarbles? You may ask.
They are the greatest conceivable organic lifeform. Existence is greater than non-existence so by definition they necessarily exist.

It is also possible that the natural universe is the greatest conceivable being. Can God create a greater being than it self?

How does a blind and mindless process that didn&#8217;t know what it was doing create intelligent beings with specified bodies?

Inheritance, mutation and most important of all, natural selection.
Want to know more? Have a read: Welcome to Evolution 101!
Again, how does saying: "God did it" add anything to our knowledge?

I said a scripture, not a wiki link.

It's on the wiki page.

Genesis 1
6 Then God said, &#8220;Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.&#8221; 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Well, on my view, it does. It is called Christianity.

And that is precisely why no theory of origins without a creator makes any sense to you.

Well, I don&#8217;t know about cosmic background radiation&#8230;..but according to the BBT, the universe is expanding from a singularity state, and it continues to expand, even today. Hmmm, but as I read Job, its states

Job 9:7-8 &#8220;He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.
8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

He stretches out the heavens? Hmmm..and the universe is expanding?? Hmmm. This is also mentioned numerous times in the book of Isaiah. So an ancient book that was written by sheppards predicted that the universe began to exist (when the rest of the world thought it was eternal), and that the heavens are stretching (which no one knew until Hubbel&#8217;s discovery). Hmmm, sounds like the big bang to me.

Stretched out like a tent.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Apparently the earth is a circle too.

The bible said &#8220;they will bring forth after their kind&#8221;. Have you seen otherwise? Probably not. So until you see otherwise, you nor anyone else has any reason to believe in evolution. The bible say they will bring forth after their kind, and that&#8217;s all man has ever observed.

Have people ever observed a god create a universe?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have my permission.

Thank you.

Will any of these things provide an explanation of the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox, or the question I asked above? If not, I’m not wasting my time.

I responded:

Fine. First, what Hilbert's Hotel was for Hilbert and is for everybody in the world except Christian apologists:
Hilbert's machine (a generalization of Hilbert's hotel)
The Arithmetic of infinite sets
Now, why Craig is wrong:
The Universe Began to Exist? Craig’s Philosophical Arguments For A Finite Past

Must time have a metaphysical beginning?

And finally:

"Regarding the possibility of the existence of an actual infinity, I cannot find anything absurd in Hilbert’s hotel, which has as many rooms as there are positive integers. It appears that Craig’s objections are due in no small part to the widespread claim that the concept of size is fully captured by the notion of cardinality. But one might well accept the possibility of actual infinities, such as Hilbert’s hotel, while denying that cardinality exhausts the notion of sameness of size. It is also difficult to regard as omnipotent a God who could not create Hilbert’s hotel."
Pitts, J. B. (2008). Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kal&#257;m Cosmological Argument for Theism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 675-708.

You ignored everything other than the quote. You didn't address a single point of any argument I linked to for you which you requested. Not one. Instead, you entire response to these was

Well, I don’t understand the quote, but as far as the last sentence of the quote is concerned, the omnipotence of God does not deal with logical absurdities.

So after asking for explanations, you ignored them.

I tried another approach. Instead of arguing about infinities using formal systems you don't know about, I dealt with the other way you respond to arguments:

"Absurd" again:
[youtube]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]

I went into some detail about things that we know happen that you might label as absurd. An extract:

I'm going to assume you read the above carefully to find out why it isn't an absurdity (it can't be, after all, because it actually happens and we can't have logical absurdities happen in real life). Perhaps, being the analytical thinker you are, you thought up a way to see what's really happening.

What if we start shooting photons at the splitter screen, and we set up another device that allows someone to "see" the photons pass through the slits, only this time we put it behind the detector screen.

We shoot photons at the splitter screen, just like before. We start seeing the absurd interference pattern, just as before. But then, while photons are still hitting the detector screen (having already passed through the splitter screen) we press a button, the detection screen is drops through a trapdoor under it, and we look at the photons which were going to hit the splitter screen using the devices we set up behind that screen.

But NO! We get another logical absurdity! We don't see the photons ending up where they were a fraction of a second ago. Instead, they are travelling as if they had passed through one of the slits, and they will never end up in the places they were moments before.

Clearly this is absurd. And this isn't unique to light. We can do the exact same thing with e.g., electrons.

In fact, we've done all the same experiments with electrons ALREADY in real life.

How can a single electron be in two places at once?

Again, no response. Then there are the various inaccuracies you've presented every single time you talk about physics, mathematics, cosmology, or logic. I devoted a whole page (and more) to the ways you mischaracterized Penrose, the big bang, and "science" here and again here. You still persisted in your inaccurate descriptions of cosmology and physics and in the process you dismissed someone who actually is in this field here.

Every argument, from your infinities to your big bang and "before there was time" arguments have been addressed ad nauseum. You've just ignored them, claimed they were absurd, or regurgitated the same simplified arguments you started with as if they were axioms, but you treated them as arguments..

 

[McBell]

So if there is no objective morality with God then if Congress decided to pass a law that it is ok to kill one of your neighbor every Thursday of the week, then that would make it ok to do so.

Good stuff there, Mest.

Are you going to show this god given "objective morality" you speak of?

Although it is quite entertaining to watch you chase your own tail, I am interested to see if you can show this alleged objective morality that it seems god is immune to...

 

[cottage]

I must have misinterpreted what you said, apologies.

Apology not needed, but thank you anyway.

There would be no logical requirement for contingent truths, but there would be logical requirements for necessary truths.

There is no ‘logical requirement for necessary truths’ – logic can’t be an argument for logic. A necessary truth is what it is because it is analytic, and the while the concept 2+2=4 will always be true, there need be no objects anywhere to which the truth must apply. And God = God can never be false but that is not proof that there is any God outside that necessarily true statement.

Not quite sure I understand this...

I’m just saying if or where there are no objects then we can’t beg the question by supposing them to exist so that we can quantify them.

Science can't either.....at least as far as absolute origins is concerned. First off, science is not root to all knowledge....there are things like logical truths and mathematical truths, neither of which has an empirical base. Science cannot explain the absolute origins of the universe, and therefore metaphysics is necessary.

Nobody is claiming that science can provide absolute answers to anything – never mind the root of all knowledge - but it is quite untrue that science doesn’t explain anything. Science, as you well know, gives us a huge amount of information about the world, whereas metaphysics informs us of precisely nothing. And purely logical truths only clarify and order our thinking; they cannot take us beyond the experiential world or give us knowledge of other worlds.

So please enlighten me on how the concept of God as described in the argument an impossibility.

It is logically possible that there are no worlds other than this, the actual world, in which case there is nothing external to it to be contradicted, and since everything in the actual world can be conceived as non-existent, there is, therefore, nothing external or internal that implies a contradiction; and from which it follows that there is no Necessary Being. And if it is possible that there is no necessary being then it demonstrably true that no being is necessarily existent.

I can easily conceive of George Washington not ever existing, but does that change the fact that he actually existed?

No, of course not! I can imagine the world not existing but that doesn’t alter the fact that it does exist and that things within it have existed. But you are proposing something that you not only say exists but will also exist for eternity. But any object that is distinctly conceivable can be annihilated in thought.The non-existence of a supernatural being is a proposition as clear and distinct in the understanding just as it is for any contingent thing that can be conceived not to exist, notwithstanding the addition of the arbitrary term ‘necessary’.

What? That's it? I am waiting on you to show how the concept of God as described in the argument is impossible to exist.

‘God’ is a concept (and a putative object). The concept of God is that if he is not contingent then he is necessary. He is not contingent by definition therefore he is necessary. The a priori proposition is analytic and thus necessarily true.

But...
...“We cannot deduce the existence of any God from an a priori proposition. For the reason why a priori propositions are certain is that they are tautologies, and from a set of tautologies only a further tautology can be validly deduced.”
A J Ayer - Language, Truth, and Logic

And Ayer is of course correct. A tautology merely expresses what is true of itself, and not what must be anywhere existent. Theists don’t believe in God because of what Hume referred to as a ‘relation of ideas’, not even Anselm who is credited with the original formulation of the ontological argument.

But...
...according to the apologists, God is not merely a concept, a tautological proposition, but is also an object with real existence.

But...
...a necessary truth can be denied with the lips but not with the mind, and try as we might we cannot conceive of the concept, 2+2, as being the equal of anything but 4; but there is no such difficulty when we think of ‘God’, for every object that is distinctly conceivable can also be conceived to be non-existent, and implies no contradiction. There is no object with demonstrable existence, and there is therefore no God.

I must admit, I do not understand anything in the above quote. Not one bit. Please explain in a different way.

Oh, and there I was thinking I’d explained it rather well! L You’ve been running the two concepts together as if they were one and the same thing, and they certainly are not. Necessary being simply stands in contrast to contingent being. The latter is temporal and conditioned, whereas the former is unconditioned; but there is nothing in the concept of necessity that logically implies that a thing is necessarily existent or eternal. This might make more sense to you now: There is no logical entailment from a thing’s necessity to that of necessary existence but only that it is not contingent upon, or answerable to, any other thing. Therefore the statement ‘God is a necessary being’ implies (A) that he exists and (B) that he is all sufficient, but no contradiction is involved in saying there is neither a God nor any necessary being. And self-evidently it must follow from the non-contradictory denial of a necessary being that its necessary existence is impossible.

 

[cottage]

So physically assaulting your parents and acts of idolatry are acts punishable by death. Its funny you mention morality, when without God there would be no objective morality so your beef with God's act of judgment are at best morally subjective on your part.

Death for cursing the parents, or for being of a different sexual orientation, and the putting to death of those who act as a medium, cannot under any circumstances be justified in the face of a benevolent God. And there doesn’t even have to be an objective morality to see the contradiction there. The Old Testament God is undeniably barbaric, vengeful and blood thirsty. And yet there is no reason (that I can think of) why God should be thought of as benevolent; after all, the facts of everyday life all over the world are not far removed from the excesses in the Bible. So the problem of evil is only a problem for believers who cannot bring themselves to make an emotional commitment to the notion of such a God. Theodicy, then, is all about defending the theists’ projection of God, since God if he exists needs no defending. Religion is first and foremost about humans and God logically takes second place. The old adage comes to mind: ‘If God didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.’

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"Something can't come from nothing" just does not compute as a coherent statement.

Still not gonna respond to the analogy, huh. So you believe that it is possible for things to pop in to existence from a state of nothingness? No further questions, your honor.

What is nothing? Clearly you don't consider the scientific definition of nothing, empty space, to be actual nothing, you're taking the philosophical view of nothing, something vague like non-being, non-existence, etc.

You got that right.

What is that? It's nothing, it doesn't exist. There is no good reason to think that this definition of nothing has or has ever had any basis in the actual world.

But you believe that something can come from nothing though.

I'm not hanging on to the possibility of something coming out of nothing, I'm saying "something can't come out of nothing" or "something can come out of nothing" are nonsensical statements because as soon as you invoke "nothing" as an entity you're talking about it as if it were in fact something.

Who is invoking &#8220;nothing&#8221; as an entity? The word &#8220;nothing&#8221; is clearly defined. No need in getting technical about it.

If God is able to affect the natural universe and can be affected by the natural universe, then God is a natural phenomenon.

Not sure how that follows.

Infinity is weird thing, it just goes on and on.

Point?

You have that same problem with a supernatural being, you just define it as something "existing outside of time" to avoid it, which is nonsense because the act of creating is a change in it self.

Right, the act of creating is a change. That is why it was exactly at that moment of creation that God stepped in to time and is therefore forever temporal. But &#8220;before&#8221; the creation, God was &#8220;atemporal&#8221;. And btw, I don&#8217;t have the same problem because the creator of time could not itself exist in time before time was created. Makes no sense.

Logically, something has to be eternal here, is that thing GOD or something else? I don't know. Just how likely is it that sheep herders in 1200BC had it right though?

Without God, there is no good explanation for how time could have reached the present moment from an infinite chain of cause and effect relations. If there is a good answer for this, I haven&#8217;t heard it yet.

Which makes the argument redundant.
Just skip the whole thing: God is the greatest conceivable being and existence is always greater than non-existence.
Case closed, God exists.

I knew the argument would convince you eventually lol.

It is possible that gwarbles exist.
What are gwarbles? You may ask.
They are the greatest conceivable organic lifeform. Existence is greater than non-existence so by definition they necessarily exist.

First off, the modal version of this argument is doesn&#8217;t have the &#8220;existence is greater than non-existence&#8221; clause (for lack of a better word). The argument is just fine without it though. Third, Nothing that is a product of the universe can be logically said to exist necessarily.

It is also possible that the natural universe is the greatest conceivable being. Can God create a greater being than it self?

Elementary stuff here.

Inheritance, mutation and most important of all, natural selection.
Want to know more? Have a read: Welcome to Evolution 101!
Again, how does saying: "God did it" add anything to our knowledge?

Well, you are saying &#8220;nature did it&#8221; despite the fact that there is no &#8220;knowledge&#8221; of nature doing so. So as far as I&#8217;m concerned, nature didn&#8217;t do it either, so no knowledge is added.

Genesis 1
6 Then God said, &#8220;Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.&#8221; 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Yup, a whole lot of creation going on right there.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Apparently the earth is a circle too.

And if you look up &#8220;sphere&#8221; in the wiki article, it is a CIRCULAR object in three dimension space.

Have people ever observed a god create a universe?

Obviously not. The difference is observation is supposed to be part of science. Theological implications are not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you heard God tell you to kill your neighbor next Tuesday would that make it ok to do so?

Suppose my neighbor was Osama Bin Laden and God knew that as long as Bin Laden remained alive he would find a way to fly planes in to building. So God commanded me to kill my neighbor, would it be right to do so? Isn’t that a morally sufficient reason to kill my neighbor? Hmmmm. The point is, God would not order you to do anything that wasn’t for the best. Since I trust God, I have faith that if God ordered me to do such, he would have morally sufficient reasons for doing so.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Death for cursing the parents, or for being of a different sexual orientation, and the putting to death of those who act as a medium, cannot under any circumstances be justified in the face of a benevolent God.

To judge God’s act of discipline by calling his acts right or wrong, you are judging based on your own presupposed morals and standards standards.

And there doesn’t even have to be an objective morality to see the contradiction there. The Old Testament God is undeniably barbaric, vengeful and blood thirsty.

Again, in order to even begin to question God’s moral state, you have to presuppose your own standard and compare your standard against his. How is your standard right and his wrong? That is begging the question. Second, God has a right to discipline his creation when they do wrong. You are making it seem as if God was just going around and killing people for absolutely no reason at all. What you (and others) always fail to mention is what the people did that required such action. Those people were EVIL people. They were committing all type of abominations…homosexuality…human sacrifices…idolatry…etc. Third, once again, you people always mention God when he is judging and disciplining the wicked. You never mention the parts of the Old Testament that talks about his love and his blessings. You people only use the bible to pick and choose the scriptures that will justify your own non-belief.

And yet there is no reason (that I can think of) why God should be thought of as benevolent; after all, the facts of everyday life all over the world are not far removed from the excesses in the Bible. So the problem of evil is only a problem for believers who cannot bring themselves to make an emotional commitment to the notion of such a God. Theodicy, then, is all about defending the theists’ projection of God, since God if he exists needs no defending. Religion is first and foremost about humans and God logically takes second place. The old adage comes to mind: ‘If God didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.’

Evil is only the absence of goodness. Just like darkness is the absence of light. In order for you to claim that things are evil, you have to have to define what is good, and you can’t do this without giving your own and personal definition of goodness. How is your definition of what is good better than anyone else’s? Without an objective standard for what is considered “good”, then there can only be a subjective standard for what is considered “evil” (and also good). Without God, there IS no objective standard for good or evil. Everything becomes subjective; depending on ones own moral standards. Heck, without God, there isn’t even free will. There is no morality when it comes to evolution. Hell, if everything was based on survival then why don’t everyone just start killing each other and may the best man/woman win.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no ‘logical requirement for necessary truths’ – logic can’t be an argument for logic.

So, let me ask you this; Since you claim there is ‘no logical requirement for necessary truths’, is the fact that there isn’t a logical requirement for necessary truths a necessary truth? Is the truth value of your assertion necessarily true? Your answer can either be yes or no, but either way it is self refuting.

A necessary truth is what it is because it is analytic, and the while the concept 2+2=4 will always be true, there need be no objects anywhere to which the truth must apply.

Ok, but you admit that its truth value is timeless, regardless of whether or not there are objects that it applies to.

And God = God can never be false but that is not proof that there is any God outside that necessarily true statement.

We are talking about God’s existence, or lack thereof. Necessary truths are true in all POSSIBLE WORLDS. If it is possible for God’s existence to be NECESSARY, then it is possibly necessary in all POSSIBLE WORLDS. Since all possible necessary truths must in fact be necessarily true, then it follows that all possible necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORDS. What this means is God exist in all possible worlds, because his existence is possibly necessarily true. If something is possibly necessarily true then it follows that based on that possibility it must be necessarily true, because if it was found that this possibility was false, then it was never necessarily true in the first place, because necessarily truths cannot be falsified.

I’m just saying if or where there are no objects then we can’t beg the question by supposing them to exist so that we can quantify them.

Who is begging the question? What we have is premises leading up to a conclusion. If the premises are true then I have every right to logically accept the conclusion.

Nobody is claiming that science can provide absolute answers to anything – never mind the root of all knowledge - but it is quite untrue that science doesn’t explain anything. Science, as you well know, gives us a huge amount of information about the world, whereas metaphysics informs us of precisely nothing.

Science doesn’t give us anything when it comes to the question of origins. Science gives us information about what happened “after the fact”. Metaphysics gives us information for what happened “before the fact”.

And purely logical truths only clarify and order our thinking; they cannot take us beyond the experiential world or give us knowledge of other worlds.

If the universe began to exist there is no experiment that can be done to explain why. Science can only tell us what happened after it came in to existence. If you are asking the deeper question of what caused it to begin, then you are leaving science and stepping in to the portal of metaphysics.

It is logically possible that there are no worlds other than this

I agree, but I say it is possible that there are no other “natural worlds”. I believe in God so I believe in a supernatural realm (world). I cannot believe in God an also believe that there is no realm or “world” that he exist in.

the actual world, in which case there is nothing external to it to be contradicted, and since everything in the actual world can be conceived as non-existent, there is, therefore, nothing external or internal that implies a contradiction; and from which it follows that there is no Necessary Being. And if it is possible that there is no necessary being then it demonstrably true that no being is necessarily existent.

You still have to deal with the argument from contingency which supplements the arguments against infinity.

No, of course not! I can imagine the world not existing but that doesn’t alter the fact that it does exist and that things within it have existed. But you are proposing something that you not only say exists but will also exist for eternity.

So do you. We both believe that something has existed for eternity. I believe that God has existed for eternity (timeless before creation, temporal after). You believe that all natural reality has existed for eternity. The only problem is, once again; the argument from contingency and the infinity arguments.

Your view and my view; the answer is either one or the other, but it can’t be both and it can’t be neither. Theism and naturalism are the only two games in town and I happen to believe that your view is most certainly absurd J

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But any object that is distinctly conceivable can be annihilated in thought.The non-existence of a supernatural being is a proposition as clear and distinct in the understanding just as it is for any contingent thing that can be conceived not to exist, notwithstanding the addition of the arbitrary term ‘necessary’.

Well yeah, but as I just said and I think you would agree…which one is true? Which is more plausible?

‘God’ is a concept (and a putative object). The concept of God is that if he is not contingent then he is necessary. He is not contingent by definition therefore he is necessary. The a priori proposition is analytic and thus necessarily true.

But...
...“We cannot deduce the existence of any God from an a priori proposition. For the reason why a priori propositions are certain is that they are tautologies, and from a set of tautologies only a further tautology can be validly deduced.”
A J Ayer - Language, Truth, and Logic

?

And Ayer is of course correct. A tautology merely expresses what is true of itself, and not what must be anywhere existent. Theists don’t believe in God because of what Hume referred to as a ‘relation of ideas’, not even Anselm who is credited with the original formulation of the ontological argument. [

All necessary truths must exist in reality. Ask Ayer does he accept at least that much.

But...
...a necessary truth can be denied with the lips but not with the mind, and try as we might we cannot conceive of the concept, 2+2, as being the equal of anything but 4; but there is no such difficulty when we think of ‘God’

So what? We know that 2+2 is equal to 4. But we don’t know whether or not God exists. That isn’t a problem. For the theist, all we need is the mere possibility that God (as defined is the argument) exists. As long as that is possible, it follows that God exists based on what it means to be necessary.

There is no object with demonstrable existence, and there is therefore no God.

This is self refuting. There is no demonstrable existence of the FSM, but does that mean that there is a possible world at which FSM doesn’t exist.


This has to be the first time in history that a theist used the FSM concept to his advantage.

Oh, and there I was thinking I’d explained it rather well! L You’ve been running the two concepts together as if they were one and the same thing, and they certainly are not. Necessary being simply stands in contrast to contingent being.

Huh? Throughout my whole “Ontological Argument” thread, I’ve made a clear distinction between contingent truths and necessary truths.

The latter is temporal and conditioned, whereas the former is unconditioned;

It is necessary that the cause of time exist as a atemporal being. But it isn’t necessary that the cause of time REMAINED an atemporal being.

but there is nothing in the concept of necessity that logically implies that a thing is necessarily existent or eternal.

It is necessary that whatever exists or is said exists either exists necessarily or contingently. Once again, those are the only two games in town. It can be either or, but it can’t be neither.

There is no logical entailment from a thing’s necessity to that of necessary existence but only that it is not contingent upon, or answerable to, any other thing. Therefore the statement ‘God is a necessary being’ implies (A) that he exists and (B) that he is all sufficient, but no contradiction is involved in saying there is neither a God nor any necessary being. And self-evidently it must follow from the non-contradictory denial of a necessary being that its necessary existence is impossible.

Ummm Cot. The premise is it is possible for God (as defined in the argument) to necessarily exist. The ONLY way to refute the argument is to show a logical incoherency based on the concept of God (as is defined in the argument). Proponents of the argument maintain that there is no contradiction based on the attributes that we use to define God in the argument. So if it is possible for such a being to exist, then this being must actually exist. Based on the nature of necessity, ALL POSSIBLE NECESSARY TRUTHS MUST EXIST IN REALITY as an absolute truth.

 

[idav]

So, let me ask you this; Since you claim there is &#8216;no logical requirement for necessary truths&#8217;, is the fact that there isn&#8217;t a logical requirement for necessary truths a necessary truth? Is the truth value of your assertion necessarily true? Your answer can either be yes or no, but either way it is self refuting.



Ok, but you admit that its truth value is timeless, regardless of whether or not there are objects that it applies to.



We are talking about God&#8217;s existence, or lack thereof. Necessary truths are true in all POSSIBLE WORLDS. If it is possible for God&#8217;s existence to be NECESSARY, then it is possibly necessary in all POSSIBLE WORLDS. Since all possible necessary truths must in fact be necessarily true, then it follows that all possible necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORDS. What this means is God exist in all possible worlds, because his existence is possibly necessarily true. If something is possibly necessarily true then it follows that based on that possibility it must be necessarily true, because if it was found that this possibility was false, then it was never necessarily true in the first place, because necessarily truths cannot be falsified.



Who is begging the question? What we have is premises leading up to a conclusion. If the premises are true then I have every right to logically accept the conclusion.



Science doesn&#8217;t give us anything when it comes to the question of origins. Science gives us information about what happened &#8220;after the fact&#8221;. Metaphysics gives us information for what happened &#8220;before the fact&#8221;.




If the universe began to exist there is no experiment that can be done to explain why. Science can only tell us what happened after it came in to existence. If you are asking the deeper question of what caused it to begin, then you are leaving science and stepping in to the portal of metaphysics.





I agree, but I say it is possible that there are no other &#8220;natural worlds&#8221;. I believe in God so I believe in a supernatural realm (world). I cannot believe in God an also believe that there is no realm or &#8220;world&#8221; that he exist in.



You still have to deal with the argument from contingency which supplements the arguments against infinity.



So do you. We both believe that something has existed for eternity. I believe that God has existed for eternity (timeless before creation, temporal after). You believe that all natural reality has existed for eternity. The only problem is, once again; the argument from contingency and the infinity arguments.

Your view and my view; the answer is either one or the other, but it can&#8217;t be both and it can&#8217;t be neither. Theism and naturalism are the only two games in town and I happen to believe that your view is most certainly absurd J

We use science, a tool, along with math, another tool which can actually predict what experiments will produce. In this respect Einstein is a prophet of God by the knowledge of math and science which no metaphysical prophet has done.

 

[sonofdad]

Still not gonna respond to the analogy, huh. So you believe that it is possible for things to pop in to existence from a state of nothingness? No further questions, your honor.

What is "a state of nothingness"? Is this something you believe has any basis in the actual world?

Right, the act of creating is a change. That is why it was exactly at that moment of creation that God stepped in to time and is therefore forever temporal. But “before” the creation, God was “atemporal”. And btw, I don’t have the same problem because the creator of time could not itself exist in time before time was created. Makes no sense.

How did God step into time if he's atemporal? Stepping into time is a change, it's an act, that is the beginning of the existence of God as a temporal being. Change was always possible so time was always a factor. If God can make himself a temporal being, he always was a temporal being.

Without God, there is no good explanation for how time could have reached the present moment from an infinite chain of cause and effect relations. If there is a good answer for this, I haven’t heard it yet.

Time doesn't have to reach anything. What are you talking about?
The present is here, it is always the present, it doesn't have to go through the whole causal chain of the past, the present is the state of things right now and I am part of that state. If what I perceive as the present is actually a part of an infinitely regressive causal chain of the past, whatever that means, then I'm not really sure how that makes any difference.
Is this a dressed up Zeno's paradox or something?

I knew the argument would convince you eventually lol.

Let's put this more clearly.

1. God is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent being that necessarily exists in every possible world.
2. The actual world is a possible world.
3. The actual world exists.
4. Therefor, God exists.

Same thing, right? The cheat is just more apparent.

1. Leprechauns are defined as magical beings that necessarily exist in every possible world.
2. The actual world is a possible world.
3. The actual world exists.
4. Therefor, leprechauns exist.

Nothing that is a product of the universe can be logically said to exist necessarily.

God is a product of our minds.
Our minds are a product of the universe.
Therefor, God does not necessarily exist.

Well, you are saying “nature did it” despite the fact that there is no “knowledge” of nature doing so. So as far as I’m concerned, nature didn’t do it either, so no knowledge is added.

Yes, I am saying nature did it. The difference is, I can provide you with heaps of actual material evidence, things you can see, touch and measure, and a well constructed theory describing precisely how nature did it . The keyword here is "how" .
In case you lost the link, here it is again: Welcome to Evolution 101!

I don't care if you think it's the right explanation or not, but it is definitely a well thought out explanation based on all the available natural evidence.

"God did it" is not an explanation, it's one of those things people say when they can't think of an explanation. Like:
a: "hey, why are all the chairs upside down?"
b: "ghost pirates"

Yup, a whole lot of creation going on right there.

Do you accept the sky being a solid object keeping water from leaking in as a fact?

And if you look up “sphere” in the wiki article, it is a CIRCULAR object in three dimension space.

If you look up "forklift" in a dictionary, it is actually defined as a vehicle for lifting and carrying heavy loads.
That means vehicles are actually forklifts.

Obviously not. The difference is observation is supposed to be part of science. Theological implications are not.

So what exactly is the theological method for finding out things about reality?

 

[Thief]

There will be no evidence.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no result of a science experiment.
No proof.

However....science would take you to the point of singularity.
It can go no further.
At that 'point' you get to choose.....Spirit first....or substance.

Consider cause and effect, as you do.