Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

In what way does logic justify the existence of a deity?

In the esoteric way. In the Primal Mover/Cause of the universe reported by Philosophers. How do you see such conclusions coming from so powerful a mind as they are possessed by? In the universe which is spoken of as the handiwork of God
in the words of King David. (Psalm 19:1) These men could not be that stupid.

In what way are those specific Scriptures justified over all the other known holy texts, mythologies, and possibilities?

In the way of who wrote them. Once Mark Twain was asked for evidences about the existence of God, he answered and said two words: "The Jews." This People are responsible for almost 75 percent of all Nobel Prizes ever granted to Mankind. Only 14 million peoples in a sea of six billion throughout the world. This is the People by means of whom God reveals His glory in the sight of the nations, to quote Ezekiel 20:41. Do you think such a class of people would promote the stupidity of a fantasy if God did not exist? That's what I mean by Logic.

But as I've told you, I don't believe in any of those hypotheticals because I'm withholding judgement until I have the data to make a decision. You seem to have made a decision, which is why I'm requesting your justification so I can examine it.

I think you have enough from above.

Who says I'm confused? It's far better to say to someone "I don't know" or "I suspect X, but am not positive about it" than to falsely tell them something that's unjustified with confidence.

I know that you don't know. None of you does. You are a little different, but the majority of you seem to be so sure as to proclaiming that God does not exist, as if we, the Jews, of all people, are a bunch of morons for believing in God.

If my water isn't running in the winter it isn't better for me to (without justification) declare very confidently, "It's because demons have stolen my water" rather than investigating into whether or not the pipes have frozen first.

I can see what you mean, but this is a question for Christians. We don't believe in demons. But the rationalization is no different from the one a Jew would take.

What is paraphysics? By ESP do you mean extra-sensory perception? There is as of yet no credible evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon.

I think I have explained to you already about the mistake I made with the word paraphysics. I meant Metaphysics, and yes but Parapsychology. ESP here, I means as an esoteric way to relate spiritually with God Who is an Eternal Incorporeal Spirit. It comes with a lot of meditative practices. I would not expect you to understand. Not because you are a woman but because of your pre-conceived atheistic notions.

regretfully submit that I do in fact understand what attributes are and suggest that maybe you're misunderstanding me. So far you've already declared several attributes of God but seem to be unaware of it. I'm just interested in knowing what God's attributes are and how you know them, but you insist on going into this red herring distinction between "is" and "has." I've already understood your distinction, but the fact of the matter is that there are still attributes of God in order for God to exist at all. So what are they, and how do you know what they are? (If you say scriptures, how do you know that those scriptures are true when they say so?)

Attributes. Let us see what I can say that I haven't told you already. They are related to a cause or source. God is the source of all attributes as parts of what He is, I mean, of His essence. And He causes Himself to operate, as I mean in His work of creation, which is one of His attributes. To have a better idea of what I am talking about, and of how God ascribe some of His attributes to man, read about The Personification of God's Attributes.


Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben

 

[ellenjanuary]

That's a stretch, Ben. Man is often used in the singular form to express Mankind, a plurality. When Jesus was talking about divorce, he said "man and woman together is the image of god." So giving them dominion of the earth is equivalent to giving men an women dominion over the earth. (Unless, of course, one is sexist. ) And the plurality of god makes sense to me as god is so vast as to seem plural, doesn't mean pantheism to me either.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's a stretch, Ben. Man is often used in the singular form to express Mankind, a plurality. When Jesus was talking about divorce, he said "man and woman together is the image of god." So giving them dominion of the earth is equivalent to giving men an women dominion over the earth. (Unless, of course, one is sexist. ) And the plurality of god makes sense to me as god is so vast as to seem plural, doesn't mean pantheism to me either.

If you still don't know what is a Taoist, how would I expect you to understand Genesis 1:26? Well, let me try anyways. God did not give man as man, dominion over the earth but that God Himself would continue having dominion over the earth through some of His attributes granted to man. In "...and let THEM have dominion over the earth," God meant His attributes through man. Therefore, the reference to "them" was not to all men but to His attributes in man. God Himself, by means of His attributes would have dominion over the whole earth trough man. Have I succeeded to unriddle Taoism for you?

 

[ellenjanuary]

If you still don't know what is a Taoist, how would I expect you to understand Genesis 1:26? Well, let me try anyways. God did not give man as man, dominion over the earth but that God Himself would continue having dominion over the earth through some of His attributes granted to man. In "...and let THEM have dominion over the earth," God meant His attributes through man. Therefore, the reference to "them" was not to all men but to His attributes in man. God Himself, by means of His attributes would have dominion over the whole earth trough man. Have I succeeded to unriddle Taoism for you?

Yes, sensei. You are most wise. :yinyang:

I agree philosophically if not religiously.

 

[Meow Mix]

These men could not be that stupid.

Do you think such a class of people would promote the stupidity of a fantasy if God did not exist? That's what I mean by Logic.

But these are not logical arguments; these are fallacies. Specifically, they are argumentum ad hominem fallacies: "Group X is associated with intelligence so they must not be wrong about Y."

This is just as fallacious as "Billy is a wife beater, so his ideas on nuclear fusion must be wrong."

Intelligence and being right on some matters doesn't mean that someone is going to be correct on all matters. What you have used is not logic (and certainly not logic with a capital "L") because fallacies are by their nature illogical.

I think you have enough from above.

But so far you haven't presented any justification at all that isn't fallacious, and I'm not saying that to be rude.

Attributes. Let us see what I can say that I haven't told you already. They are related to a cause or source. God is the source of all attributes as parts of what He is, I mean, of His essence. And He causes Himself to operate, as I mean in His work of creation, which is one of His attributes. To have a better idea of what I am talking about, and of how God ascribe some of His attributes to man, read about The Personification of God's Attributes.

But God exemplifies identity -- which doesn't come from God. How do you explain this dilemma?

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

I think the whole issue is still what justification exists for the existence of the thing at all, since that issue still hasn't been settled without fallacy.

If theism can't be rationally justified then it isn't rational to believe, so discussing the specifics of theism is moot until justification is forthcoming.

 

[Ben Masada]

But these are not logical arguments; these are fallacies. Specifically, they are argumentum ad hominem fallacies: "Group X is associated with intelligence so they must not be wrong about Y."

This is just as fallacious as "Billy is a wife beater, so his ideas on nuclear fusion must be wrong."

Intelligence and being right on some matters doesn't mean that someone is going to be correct on all matters. What you have used is not logic (and certainly not logic with a capital "L") because fallacies are by their nature illogical.

But so far you haven't presented any justification at all that isn't fallacious, and I'm not saying that to be rude.

But God exemplifies identity -- which doesn't come from God. How do you explain this dilemma?

I think the whole issue is still what justification exists for the existence of the thing at all, since that issue still hasn't been settled without fallacy.

If theism can't be rationally justified then it isn't rational to believe, so discussing the specifics of theism is moot until justification is forthcoming.

Okay wise lady, since we are terribly restricted by our pre-conceived notions to meet each other in the field of Theism, let us see if we can be more successful as far as
Atheism is concerned. Go ahead and give me a rational explanation for the origin of the universe. If you can't, I think we will have no choice but to continue lost from each other.

 

[linwood]

Yes, just like you; as soon as you tell me where the Universe comes from. I mean, how the Universe came about without a Creator or the Primal Mover, to coin Philosophical rhetoric.

And please, do not discard my question as nonsense or tell me that you don't know, because Atheism itself will lose all its raison d'etre. One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option.

"Axiom" is a very misused or undeserved label in this context.
Simply because something is presumed doesn`t mean it is correct.

In essence I see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance, I find it preferable in fact.

I also find it interesting that "I don`t know" isn`t an acceptable answer for you.
I just finished telling a co-worker not 10 minutes ago that I found it the very best of most answers I hear on a daily basis.

The ability to use it freely is rare and to my mind a sign of intelligence.

 

[PolyHedral]

Okay wise lady, since we are terribly restricted by our pre-conceived notions to meet each other in the field of Theism, let us see if we can be more successful as far as
Atheism is concerned. Go ahead and give me a rational explanation for the origin of the universe. If you can't, I think we will have no choice but to continue lost from each other.

The most rational explanation I can think of is "It didn't," but Meow probably has a better one.

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay wise lady, since we are terribly restricted by our pre-conceived notions to meet each other in the field of Theism, let us see if we can be more successful as far as
Atheism is concerned. Go ahead and give me a rational explanation for the origin of the universe. If you can't, I think we will have no choice but to continue lost from each other.

It isn't being limited by a "pre-conceived notion" to point out a fallacy, first of all.

Secondly, this brings us full circle back to what I've already established: there is no reason to assume there was an "origin" of the universe; and I'm curious as to why you keep making this assumption after my lengthy explanations for why it's unfounded.

This should be a fairly simple matter: theism is the positive, claim-making position. If it isn't justified, then neutral skepticism (weak atheism) is the default and proper epistemic stance. So far you haven't provided any justification for the truth of theism besides making fallacious appeals to authority and positive ad hominem arguments concerning Jews and historical theists.

The claim that the universe began and so requires a first cause is unfounded because there is no justification that the universe "began" to exist, so that route doesn't work. What, then, is the justification for theism's truth?

If theism remains unjustified, then the position of skepticism is justified until such evidence (metaphysical or not) is forthcoming.

 

[Ben Masada]

"Axiom" is a very misused or undeserved label in this context.
Simply because something is presumed doesn`t mean it is correct.

In essence I see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance, I find it preferable in fact.

I also find it interesting that "I don`t know" isn`t an acceptable answer for you.
I just finished telling a co-worker not 10 minutes ago that I found it the very best of most answers I hear on a daily basis.

The ability to use it freely is rare and to my mind a sign of intelligence.

So, in essence you see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance, as long as the myth is what you see as being a myth in other people's views. Since you are ignorant of what you claim to believe, you prefer to bring down what one believes to the same level of the state you are at. To translate it, that's spiritual vandalism. Why? Because The myth is in the eye of the beholder and not in the mind of the faithful, which interpreted metaphorically could become a fact; while gnorance as a self-confession is an admition of the truth, that indeed, there is nothing in Atheism to learn. Think it through!

 

[linwood]

So, in essence you see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance, as long as the myth is what you see as being a myth in other people's views.

No, I see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance "regardless" of other peoples views.

Since you are ignorant of what you claim to believe, you prefer to bring down what one believes to the same level of the state you are at. To translate it, that's spiritual vandalism. Why?

You seem to be creating a position for me that I haven`t ascribed to.
I am in no way "ignorant of what I believe" concerning the topic of the origins of the universe.
My belief is that there is no beginning of the universe. Matter and energy have always been matter and/or energy in one form or many whenever and where ever you view the universe.
My beliefs are evidenced by the knowledge available to us.
When that knowledge changes so will my beliefs.

I also seek to bring no one down at all and don`t see how you`ve twisted my words to support such a construction

Because The myth is in the eye of the beholder and not in the mind of the faithful, which interpreted metaphorically could become a fact;....

Interpret it in any way you wish, just remember it is your interpretation and yours alone.

...while gnorance as a self-confession is an of the truth, that indeed, there is nothing in Atheism to learn. Think it through!

Ignorance as a self-confession is most often an confession of truth but it doesn`t say what you state it does about atheism.
It states nothing about atheism in fact.

You are right on one point (but not for the reason you believe).
There is nothing in atheism to learn, there is no creed, no dogma, no belief.
It is empty by it`s very definition.It is nearly meaningless.

Ignorance is preferable to believing that which is false.
This is the only point I am trying to make.

I believe it is nearly self-evident.

 

[Ben Masada]

It isn't being limited by a "pre-conceived notion" to point out a fallacy, first of all.

Secondly, this brings us full circle back to what I've already established: there is no reason to assume there was an "origin" of the universe; and I'm curious as to why you keep making this assumption after my lengthy explanations for why it's unfounded.

This should be a fairly simple matter: theism is the positive, claim-making position. If it isn't justified, then neutral skepticism (weak atheism) is the default and proper epistemic stance. So far you haven't provided any justification for the truth of theism besides making fallacious appeals to authority and positive ad hominem arguments concerning Jews and historical theists.

The claim that the universe began and so requires a first cause is unfounded because there is no justification that the universe "began" to exist, so that route doesn't work. What, then, is the justification for theism's truth?

If theism remains unjustified, then the position of skepticism is justified until such evidence (metaphysical or not) is forthcoming.

So, the bottom line for this whole post of yours above is that you are unable to give a rational explanation for the origin of the universe, which was my question. Your answer is rather that the universe did not have a beginning. If this is not what you are trying to convey, you are not being clear enough. That's when Logic comes in. The universe is made out of matter, and matter cannot just exist out of nothing or of a beginning. To be as simply as one can be, we are parts of the universe. We had a beginning and will eventually have an end or transformation into a different kind of matter. No matter the proccess, the name is death. The same happens to the other universal bodies. They all suffer birth and death, as Science has proved. Therefore, your rational or justified evidence is equally forthcoming.

 

[linwood]

The universe is made out of matter, and matter cannot just exist out of nothing or
of a beginning.

Can you suport this statement?

Has anyone ever seen the "creation" of matter?

What do you base your belief that matter can be created on?

 

[Meow Mix]

So, the bottom line for this whole post of yours above is that you are unable to give a rational explanation for the origin of the universe, which was my question. Your answer is rather that the universe did not have a beginning. If this is not what you are trying to convey, you are not being clear enough. That's when Logic comes in. The universe is made out of matter, and matter cannot just exist out of nothing or of a beginning. To be as simply as one can be, we are parts of the universe. We had a beginning and will eventually have an end or transformation into a different kind of matter. No matter the proccess, the name is death. The same happens to the other universal bodies. They all suffer birth and death, as Science has proved. Therefore, your rational or justified evidence is equally forthcoming.

I said that there's no justification for the assumption that the universe began. That isn't an equivalent statement to "The universe did not have a beginning." Step outside of Boolean paradigm for a moment and remember that the statement "There's no justification that extraterrestrial life exists" is not equivalent to the statement "Extraterrestrial life does not exist."

All I'm saying is that you're assuming the universe "began," but it's an unfounded assumption; and so your whole argument is founded on a house of cards. It fails because one of its foundation stones is lacking justification to be asserted or believed. I don't have to assert that the universe always existed -- all I have to do is point out that you have no justification to assert that it hasn't.

As for matter, science so far is actually pretty clear that there isn't any known way to create or destroy energy. What does this imply to you?

 

[Ben Masada]

No, I see nothing wrong with replacing a myth with ignorance "regardless" of other peoples views.

As I can see, you don't agree that a myth can be explained metaphorically into a fact; and to break it down into ignorance, you insist that is preferable. You have just confirmed my belief that this attitude conveys spiritual vandalism.

You seem to be creating a position for me that I haven`t ascribed to.
I am in no way "ignorant of what I believe" concerning the topic of the origins of the universe.

Great! Finally, I am sure I am going to have an answer to my questions.

My belief is that there is no beginning of the universe. Matter and energy have always been matter and/or energy in one form or many whenever and where ever you view the universe.

Energy is an accident of matter; and matter could have never come out of nothing or could always be there. Have you ever read about Moses Maimonides, a famous scholar, Philosopher, Theologian, Physics and Medical Doctor? If you can read his opus prima "The Guide for the Perplexed," you could probably change your mind if you are not beyond repair as atheistic pre-conceived notions are concerned.

My beliefs are evidenced by the knowledge available to us.
When that knowledge changes so will my beliefs.

My beliefs are evidenced by the knowledge available to me from the Scriptures and confirmed by Logic as I usually read it metaphorically. Since it never changes, I don't see an easy change in my beliefs.

I also seek to bring no one down at all and don`t see how you`ve twisted my words to support such a construction.

Have you forgotten your statement of preference to turn a theistic myth into the ignorance of atheism? I did not twist your words. I only translated them into more clear English.

Ignorance as a self-confession is most often an confession of truth but it doesn`t say what you state it does about atheism. It states nothing about atheism in fact.

We are talking about Theism versus Atheism. You referred to myth as being preferred to be replaced with ignorance. Didn't you mean the ignorance of not knowing or being sure about anything as far as Atheism os concerned?

You are right on one point (but not for the reason you believe).
There is nothing in atheism to learn, there is no creed, no dogma, no belief.
It is empty by it`s very definition.It is nearly meaningless.

Is that why you quote Astrophysics to raise a fight with Theism? I wonder because I also believe that Atheism has nothing to do with Physics or Astrophysics. In that case, you have nothing to prove Atheism.

Ignorance is preferable to believing that which is false.
This is the only point I am trying to make.

And the point I am trying to make is that literalism is not the only way to interpret the Scriptures. Metaphorically, what seems to you a myth can be turned into a fact.

I believe it is nearly self-evident.

I surely would hope you took it as really self-evident.

 

[Ben Masada]

I said that there's no justification for the assumption that the universe began. That isn't an equivalent statement to "The universe did not have a beginning." Step outside of Boolean paradigm for a moment and remember that the statement "There's no justification that extraterrestrial life exists" is not equivalent to the statement "Extraterrestrial life does not exist."

All I'm saying is that you're assuming the universe "began," but it's an unfounded assumption; and so your whole argument is founded on a house of cards. It fails because one of its foundation stones is lacking justification to be asserted or believed. I don't have to assert that the universe always existed -- all I have to do is point out that you have no justification to assert that it hasn't.

As for matter, science so far is actually pretty clear that there isn't any known way to create or destroy energy. What does this imply to you?

I never said that energy is created or destroyed. What I have said here, and more than several times, is that energy is an accident of matter. To have energy, we must have matter first. And it is only obvious that matter had a beginning. If you did not create matter, someone a little more powerful than you did it. Does it make sense. Then, we still have the Aristotelic fact that matter cannot come out of nothing.

 

[Meow Mix]

I never said that energy is created or destroyed. What I have said here, and more than several times, is that energy is an accident of matter. To have energy, we must have matter first. And it is only obvious that matter had a beginning. If you did not create matter, someone a little more powerful than you did it. Does it make sense. Then, we still have the Aristotelic fact that matter cannot come out of nothing.

As I've said several times, you're simply incorrect on several notions:

1) Matter is not required for energy to exist as is evident in consistent solutions to Einstein's equations without matter which still have energy. (see de Sitter universe as an example)

2) Matter does in fact "come out of nothing" all the time in the quantum vacuum, as has been explained in detail. Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are rife with appearing and disappearing matter -- matter is not conserved, but energy/mass is.

 

[Ben Masada]

Can you suport this statement?

Has anyone ever seen the "creation" of matter?

What do you base your belief that matter can be created on?

I think Aristotle knew a little better than you and I. He said that matter cannot come out of nothing. And that's a fact and not simply a theory. Can you create matter out of nothing? Perhaps you can if you are a magician. And I base my belief that matter can be created on, in the fact that the universe exists, and that it is composed of matter.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think Aristotle knew a little better than you and I.

No, he doesn't. I know orders of magnitude more than he does, because I have 2000 years of mathematics and physical experiments to stand on.

 

[Ben Masada]

As I've said several times, you're simply incorrect on several notions:

1) Matter is not required for energy to exist as is evident in consistent solutions to Einstein's equations without matter which still have energy. (see de Sitter universe as an example)

2) Matter does in fact "come out of nothing" all the time in the quantum vacuum, as has been explained in detail. Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are rife with appearing and disappearing matter -- matter is not conserved, but energy/mass is.

You don't get it, do you? Let us imagine an X-Ray tube. Perhaps I'll be able to get through you. Think of an enormous X-Ray tube; quite a distance between the cathode and the anode. That's an absolute vacuum where the protons of energy are supposed to travel from cathode to anode in order to produce X-rays. There is absolutely nothing in he vacumm between the cathode and anode as long as you do not activate the rotor which will cause the cathode to produce ellectrode energy whose photons will hit the anode and produce X-Ray energy. The point is that the Technician must activate matter to produce energy, which justifies my point that energy is an accident of matter.