Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[idav]

You say this, but you haven't responded to my argument; a "creative force" "causing existence" is simply word salad- "causing existence" assumes a prior antecedent state for such an agent to exist in, but prior to existence, nothing exists. But a causal agent must exist, by definition. This is essentially the same problem with a transcendent agent; agency and transcendence are mutually exclusive, as is agency and non-existence (but again, creating/causing existence once again assumes an antecedent state of non-existence). You're trying to give this entity contradictory properties; either it is a causal agent, in which case it is not a god, or it is transcendent, but then it cannot be a causal agent.

I am not trying to talk about a transcendent agent but rather an eniment one. You keep trying to envoke supernatural not me. Pantheism, sorta not atheism but not theism, attempts to reconciles some issues you describe. God, the creative force would be both at the same time, in transcendence it became the first cause.

Ok. And what evidence do you have for us to consider it?
I won't rule it out because you call it a creative force, but if you don't explain it, or describe it, or show evidence or reasoning that we should consider it, that is enough for me to rule it out.

Cause everything needs a beginning except whatever caused everything. Thats logic.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Cause everything needs a beginning except whatever caused everything. Thats logic.

No, that's special pleading.

And how do you know your god was the one that caused everything? Maybe he was the second thing created, or fourth, and there are "great-creators" before him?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am not trying to talk about a transcendent agent but rather an eniment one. You keep trying to envoke supernatural not me. Pantheism, sorta not atheism but not theism, attempts to reconciles some issues you describe. God, the creative force would be both at the same time, in transcendence it became the first cause.

That doesn't really resolve anything, it only exacerbates the problem. And its moot, as I already pointed out, since if God created/caused the universe to come to be, God existed prior to/transcends the universe he is immanent in.

Cause everything needs a beginning except whatever caused everything. Thats logic.

Yeah, only it really isn't.

 

[ArtieE]

Cause everything needs a beginning except whatever caused everything. Thats logic.

No that is illogic of course. "Everything" must include "whatever" otherwise it wouldn't be "everything" so "everything" must always have existed in some form. "Whatever" must have been "something". If "whatever" caused "something else" then it must have made "something else" from "nothing".

It is impossible for "whatever" to have "caused everything" because then it would have to have been "nothing" to begin with.

To put it another way: If "everything" didn't exist yet, no "whatever" existed either that could have "caused everything".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how there is no proof of a superior being! Open your eyes it's all around you. Just because your human mind cannot comprehend something or someone more intelligent more advanced than mankind does that mean it doesn't exist?? How please tell me did humans just come about without an intelligent superior making us?? All of our systems within our bodies how everything works together to give you life and people still question this? That's like saying computers just formed from an empty box no intelligent person made all the components that work together to make it work! Wake up people!!

I wondered for a long time how people like you could be so sure that God exists while people like me could see no reason whatsoever to believe. I think I finally figured it out, though: both sets of people's mental models work very well generally. You (probably) function quite well in the world assuming that God is behind everything and are rarely or never confronted wuth things that are incompatible with this assumption. But here's the thing - and you'll have to take my word for it - this is true for people who assume that no gods exist at all; they don't encounter things that are incompatible with THAT assumption either.

So how can this be? How can both sets of people live their lives with such diametrically opposed opinions on this issue without one set having their fundamental expectations violated on a regular basis? The only explanation I can see for the fact that they aren't violated is that the question of god(s)' existence gets tested very seldom if ever, which implies that the existence or non-existence of god(s) has virtually no impact on our lives... IOW, God is irrelevant.

 

[idav]

That doesn't really resolve anything, it only exacerbates the problem. And its moot, as I already pointed out, since if God created/caused the universe to come to be, God existed prior to/transcends the universe he is immanent in.

By becoming existence transcendence is unnecessary. And notice the redundent 'becoming' and 'existence' since just by becoming it exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

By becoming existence transcendence is unnecessary. And notice the redundent 'becoming' and 'existence' since just by becoming it exists.

I fail to see how that is not creating an unnecessary problem as premise and then solving it by stating that there is an unknown, undescribable solution and naming it "god".

You are saying that god simply exists and needs no justification for existing.

If you can say that, why not say the very same thing of existence itself?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are saying that god simply exists and needs no justification for existing.

If you can say that, why not say the very same thing of existence itself?

I knew a guy once who used to insist that existence exists.

He couldn't say much more about it, but he was quite certain that existence exists.

I still feel a bit wobbly whenever I think about it.

 

[ArtieE]

By becoming existence transcendence is unnecessary. And notice the redundent 'becoming' and 'existence' since just by becoming it exists.

Can you rephrase this because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Willamena]

By becoming existence transcendence is unnecessary. And notice the redundent 'becoming' and 'existence' since just by becoming it exists.

If by becoming it exists, then what need is there for the 'becoming'? What I mean is, how would it differ from 'exists'? It appears there is no difference.

 

[idav]

If you can say that, why not say the very same thing of existence itself?

I do say that too.

If by becoming it exists, then what need is there for the 'becoming'? What I mean is, how would it differ from 'exists'? It appears there is no difference.

That is part of the point. Whatever had the ability to become obviously exists by virtue of becoming.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do say that too.

That is part of the point. Whatever had the ability to become obviously exists by virtue of becoming.

Are you sure this is not a matter of you esthetically favoring the idea of existence being an ability as opposed to an accidental fact, then?

From where I stand it sure looks like it.

 

[idav]

Are you sure this is not a matter of you esthetically favoring the idea of existence being an ability as opposed to an accidental fact, then?

From where I stand it sure looks like it.

That's the million dollar question. It is something in between like the question of what is between life and non-life and when does volition becomes a real factor. A conscious agent is as unlikely to me as something just accidental. "Being" is an act in itself. I can certainly see it as an ability since cause and effect normally don't exist by default. What is between choice and accident is action with no thought, non-action.

 

[Ouroboros]

Isn't the question "does God exist" a binary one? Either God exists or it doesn't, there is no in-between. Either the theist or the atheist is correct, and while saying you're undecided is perfectly acceptable, it will never be the right answer.

Only if we all could agree on what God is.

 

[Willamena]

That is part of the point. Whatever had the ability to become obviously exists by virtue of becoming.

What is the point of adding "becoming" to the picture of "exists"?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

By becoming existence transcendence is unnecessary.

Yeah, the opposite of that is the case. If God created/caused the universe to come to be, God is necessarily transcendent prior to the creation of the universe he is immanent in; in other words', God's immanence is logically contingent upon God's transcendence. Once again, transcendence is the sine qua non of theistic gods in general, and this is no exception.

 

[idav]

What is the point of adding "becoming" to the picture of "exists"?

The verb form of beginning to exist. Being is the verb form of existing.

The point is to question if existence just exists by default or it began to exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

If it just happened or if it meant to, then?

 

[Willamena]

The verb form of beginning to exist. Being is the verb form of existing.

The point is to question if existence just exists by default or it began to exist.

Being and becoming are not the same verb, though. Becoming has still been added somehow.

Becoming is a lovely metaphor, though.

 

[ArtieE]

The point is to question if existence just exists by default or it began to exist.

It exists by default unless you think that non-existence can produce existence? If nothing exists can nothing produce something?