INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[cottage]

What does in possible experience mean or have to do with the core of the earth? I did not say we claim to know there is a center to a globe. I said we claim to know the specific nature of it and can't directly access it.

And I said: “In possible experience we don’t have to mine our way into the earth’s core to know there is a core to the earth. We may not know exactly what might be discovered in the earth’s core but we know the earth and its core actually exist. The supernatural by comparison cannot be accessed in possible or general experience.”

The supernatural can be accessed by general experience (or common experience. There are millions of times more claims to supernatural experience than to claims of experience of billions of things we take as fact. Billions claim to have supernatural experience, almost no one claims to have experienced alien life yet alien life is posited as a virtually certainty by many of the scientific community. That last statement is a complex one. The Bible differentiates between intellectual consent to a proposition and saving faith. You would have to prove that both a person had that mysterious level of saving faith yet did not experience God. There are actually several types or level of faith in Christianity. Only one is said to produce an experience with God.

The supernatural isn’t accessible in general experience!! If it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. By general experience it meant experience that is available to all, collectively and universally, without being limited to subjective views and doctrinal beliefs held from faith. And I don’t have to prove anything. The “billions” that you keep referring to is your argument, not mine, and so it is for you to substantiate it. But all you’re doing is waving a figure in the air that contains no substance at all.

No, it was an accurate description of what is true of a concept. Evolution supposes as fact all types of dynamics, relationships, events, and boundaries based on speculation. The supernatural as a concept by definition is not bound by the natural. You making the same two mistakes I always mention. Your amplifying any level of uncertainty into a quantity that enables dismissal and using a double standard. The claim supernatural entities exist is completely independent of what is true of the concept of the supernatural. Do arguments about multiverses or about things never seen remain only in the known world?

I keep politely asking you not to attribute multiverse theories to my argument. I make no such claim for them or any other scientific speculation. However, while I have at least three metaphysical arguments to explain the existence of the world, all of which are logically possible, I don’t believe-in them; in fact two contradict one another. So please discontinue your stock double-standards response, at least as it applies to me because I treat all speculative beliefs the same. The only concession I make is where a hypothesis is subject to possible experience, and even then it is for the advocate to make the argument and I am not compelled to accept it.
Your supposed concept of the supernatural is this:
“The only difference is the nature does not bind the supernatural nor is the supernatural dependent on the natural.”
But seeing that you don’t know what the supernatural is anymore than the next person, and that’s being generous in allowing that there might actually be something corresponding to the term, you cannot presume to say what binds what to what and nor can you make bald assertions to where any dependency lies. That is simply pretending to know more than you’ve shown you’re actually capable of knowing.

However angels have no geographic predictability. This is another claim to a lack of evidence without a criteria for establishing that there should be additional evidence if true. God is not something that can be found by searching the bushes, he does not leave footprints, and does not raid camp grounds. He raises people from the dead, he saves people, he turns water into wine, etc.... We have exactly the type and quantity of evidence we should have if true. We have people with radically changed lives, we have ancient histories most credible testimony about miracles, we have billions of experiential claims. We have exactly what we should have.

I didn’t ask “where God exists”, regarding your facile geographic remark. I asked “How he exists?” The underscored text is just more assertions from faith; and you’ve presented no evidence other than to call upon other people’s subjective beliefs. And even then you offer no breakdown or statistics of what those supposed “billions” actually believe, never mind what you presumptuously think they’ve all experienced. A shockingly poor argument indeed!

I am arguing for the Biblical God. I do not bind him by human terminology and think tank labels. I bind him by what he has revealed and what that should produce. You for some reason subject God to the bounds and aspects of human terms. If you label him necessary then he must obey whatever a philosopher says is true of necessary beings. Why? God is God, bears are bears, whales are whales. They are not bound by any human term ever uttered. God does not obey any label any man has ever applied to him, bears remain bears even if they are called birds, whales remain whales no matter what category a guy behind a desk places them in, in a text book. Descriptions are non causal and non-binding. For some reason you are reducing God to a label and then demanding he obey that label. The terminology is derivative, causal, or primary. I agree that both necessary beings and God both exist without external explanations but that does not mean anything true of the argumentation about necessity applies to God. I think I can agree that God operates by cause and effect but no reason exists to suggest the causal operations function exactly like they do in the natural. You cannot label God into a casket. People have been pronouncing his death for eons yet the body will simply not remain where they put it.

You are saying nothing of substance but merely making an argument from ignorance, along with what I assume to be an unintended gaffe. The God as described in the Bible is perfectly intelligible, albeit as as jealous, bloodthirsty, and vindictive individual in the OT. So if you want to argue that God is not explicable in human terms then that is to say the Bible is not intelligible! And the definition and attributes of God are not of my making; I simply respond to theists’ claims. But I’m amused at your saying you do not bind God to human terms, and then in the next breath say: “I bind him by what he has revealed and what that should produce”. So now you're saying God is bound by human intelligibility. And if God is bound by your imperfect human understanding, then God is labeled according to your demands and expectations.

I said that about the entire universe. In that case no other explanation exists. Your extrapolating what I said about all of reality to every aspect of it. Like I said in an ultimate sense that would still be true but in an immediate aspect it might not be. IOW if I see a tree sway I can say the wind is the cause, but the wind has a cause, it's cause has a cause, eventually I have run out of nature but still require a cause. You must be able to grasp this. It has been stated in a thousand debates for a thousand years. There are immediate causes or explanations and ultimate explanations.

All the evidence, to borrow your term, suggests that there was no time or space before the world existed, and therefore no cause since causality is a function of time. Therefore if the world began to exist then cause began to exist with the world.

 

[cottage]

Those two statement are almost identical except for a single word. How is that not similar? Animals could and should exist on other land masses. Cause and effect could and should exist in other reality categories. In fact cause and effect is almost a necessity beyond nature. Animals are very probable but not necessary. We have the exact same benefit of empirical knowledge. We know cause exists and we know it is not dependent on anything natural, we also know a state change of information is necessary for any change in reality, a state change always requires a cause. Land masses do not require animals. I can agree somewhat with your saying the supernatural is a term for what is known but not understood, because the label is arbitrary. It is no less likely or real however. A miracle is a suspension of all known natural law even if you called it luck charms physics. I do not care about the terminology, I care about evidence, truth, nature, and essence. Having a set of equations that described how God acts would not make God any less than God. That is absurdly improbable but still true.

With respect to the underscored passage you say things in a very open-ended way, unsupported, without any qualification whatever. The rest of the passage seems to be discussing a number of things in a too disjointed a fashion for me to give you a proper response.

Well I give up. I have supplied three definitions from sources that specialize in the context we are in among dozens I could have, that all say the same thing. If you cannot go along with it then we have an impasse here. To resolve something that is meaningless anyway let me change the nature of the subject. I do not care what necessity means because whatever it would mean can't possibly define God. From now on show contradictions in revelation showing God is incompatible with whatever you claim he is. Scripture is theoretically binding on God. What some boob behind a podium somewhere soughs up is not. That should have been how this was resolved from the start. I read a paper by Krauss the other day. He said some of the stupidest crap I have ever heard. One was that 2 + 2 does not = 4, and that adding up all real numbers 1 to infinity = 1/12. I have really grown to disdain most of academics. They have reached a point where they will literally say anything. Try building a house using 2 + 2 = 5 or actually adding an infinite series of anything at all.

Well I’m not defending Kraus, either on the “2 + 2 not being 4” presentation, nor on his “Nothing is not really nothing” nonsense. So I don’t see what any of this has to do with me or my arguments. (!)

Please state what is contradictory about God's description of himself not a think tanks description of a theoretical entity which you will not even except the definition of.

If you mean biblical contradictions, where God tells us what’s on his mind, then I have a page full – is that what you want? Otherwise I stick to the definition that is understood by Classical Theism, which is that God is the creator, has always existed and will always exist, has infinite power, knows everything and is supremely morally good. Let me know if you disagree with any or all of those definitions? For the contradictions see my post 3171 (5th paragraph) and 3145 (last paragraph).

The entire two preceding paragraphs and most of your posts have been what is true of man made concepts about things mostly unknowable. Do they have a necessary being they have studied somewhere. I have really become completely burned out on these terminology discussions. We have been around this same barn about a dozen times. What is contradictory in actuality (not a semantic exercise) with an eternal uncaused God who chose to create a universe? That is about the most simplistic and reasonable idea possible and a virtual necessity.

Necessity is a concept. God is a concept. But God is also said to objectively exist. And if God objectively exists, will always exist, and cannot fail to exist, then his existence is necessary. This is to say that God exists in such a way that to deny his non-existence is as impossible as it is for twice two to be anything but four. And if you allow the foregoing then you must allow the principle of non-contradiction. And it is that very principle that I’ve applied in my objections to an ontologically necessary being, and also in the case of the moral argument and the problem of evil. And note that these aren’t “semantic exercises” but a testing of the arguments that theists themselves make for God.

That form of the necessary argument is held by most of the greatest philosophers in history. It is still a current and predominant model. I can't begin to believe that it has flaws so glaring that any layman can consider it completely self condemning. I can see flaws in your examination however. It is not true that everything has a cause. It is only true that things that begin to exist have a cause.

By all means insert “that begins to exist” into the statement if it pleases you because it makes not the slightest difference to my argument. But in any case, to state “the world began to exist therefore the world requires a cause for its existence” begs the question and once again finds for a conclusion that is not logically demonstrable. And nor is it empirically true, since it takes for its premise the fallacy that everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence when nothing in the phenomenal world begins to exist but is continually changing and evolving from pre-existing matter.

It is true that all things have an explanation of their existence. They exist externally (and make things contingent) or internal to the nature of the entity (and make them necessary).

What! Then kindly explain to me what makes them “true”?

I see no problem with the above apart from your analogy of it. It does not call upon only the natural to support it. It uses the natural as obvious evidence of it. It is one of those abstract concepts that seem to exist independently of nature but are evident in nature. There are a wealth of them.

You are meandering around the edge of the argument seemingly oblivious to the problem that I’ve identified, which is that the argument from contingency must itself be contingent upon a contingent principle in order to argue to the necessary being that the argument means to demonstrate. So you’ve still not refuted my argument.

Of course it doesn't. They are mutually exclusive. There are no contingent necessary beings.

Please read again what I wrote! I’m saying in reply to your assertion that “contingent” being means that it is dependent upon some other thing for its existence, that contingent being does not imply necessary being or some other thing as its cause.

Everything must have an explanation of it's existence. Give me one thing that does not have one. I did not deny God had a reason. I said he had no need. I have a reason to deny your claims. I have no necessity to do so.

I’ll address your last point first as you are still confusing desire with necessity. God, being omnipotent, all-sufficient being, cannot be obliged to create anything out of necessity but desire self-evidently leads to a contradiction for the reasons I gave in the main outline of my argument.
Everything does not require an explanation for its existence: Logically, God does not require a cause for his existence and nor does a world that has existed in some form from eternity. But if God, a personal being, freely chose to bring the world into being then he did so for a reason or purpose, which could only be to benefit himself or others. And if it is the case that God seeks a relationship with his creation then my argument is irrefutably made.

 

[thepractice]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

This makes sense but its sort of tautological. If you define God as the first cause, then of course God exists because there must have been a first cause.

However, if you define God as the Creator, then there's more room to say that God doesn't exist b/c you could argue that the creation doesn't need a Creator, per se (a single designer).

 

[1robin]

I can see no refutation of my argument, and your objection appears to consist in this rather empty passage below:

“He did not need to create us nor anything else. It follows that he did not need to create an environment for our use because he did not need to create us. He chose to create he did not need to.”

You are objecting to something that has nothing at all to do with the argument I’ve presented. Nowhere, not in the passage you’ve responded to, nor anywhere else, have I said there was any necessity involved. There wasn’t, there couldn’t be, any necessity in God creating the world as that would be immediately absurd. You are confusing necessity with desire. Craig maintains that God freely chose to create the world with a purpose in mind. Now remember that I said God created the world either for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. Craig says elsewhere that this purpose is for us to “know and glorify God”. Well, there’s a contradiction twice over, straight out of Craig’s own mouth. So creatures that didn’t formerly exist were brought into being to worship God! It was for God’s benefit, then! I’m sure you don’t need me to explain the absurdities in that conclusion.
But with or without Craig’s input the contradiction(s) remain unassailed if God is said to be the omnipotent, all-sufficient, necessary being.

This argument still appears to be saying an optimal being and a creation for his benefit is contradictory. I do not see any contradiction. I do not even see a potential for a contradiction unless you make some kind of maximal being in need of a creation kind of claim. Since I am unfamiliar with the rational behind Craig's remarks lets stick to mine below:

1. God is a maximal being.
2. God requires nothing I addition to himself to be God.
3. God is personal, loving, creative, etc......
4. God chose to act by creating the universe and what is in it.
5. He did not need a universe, it was only an expression of his nature. A voluntary expression not a necessary expression.

Where is the contradiction?

In order to help you keep your eye on the ball here is that (compressed) argument of mine again:

I predict you will regret restating your claim.

“I said God created something for himself or for others. But if God is omnipotent and all sufficient then he has no needs for he is, and has, everything by definition. So that is contradiction number 1. But a further absurdity is evident if it is said that he created the world for others (contradiction number 2), because there were no others, and so things that do not exist cannot benefit from being brought into existence. There are two further possibilities, equally absurd, one is that God created the world by accident and the other is that he wasn’t aware that he’d created it.”

I knew it. You claimed no necessity existed in your claim then stated that if God was all sufficient he would have no needs. I do not understand what the confusion is. That paragraph appears to say exactly what I thought it did.

It appears to say.
1. God is claimed to be all sufficient.
2. Yet creation implies a need.
3. An all sufficient being that has a need is contradictory.


Now the argument critical flaw is that creation implies no need. However that is the only argument that I can theoretically even see along those lines. If that is not what you stating, it is certainly not obvious and I see no other argument possible.

 

[1robin]

If you think that’s what you’re doing, then by all means, continue. I’ve said my piece.

I know what I am doing. The exact same thing both sides in every debate I have ever seen have done, is done in courtrooms, academics, and just about every where else possible.

In fact peer review (which you find so much merit in) is exactly the same thing.

Two billion people in the world agree with me, so you must be wrong.

There must be no amount of words possible to make your side understand a claim they wish not to. I must have said several dozen times the billions quantity is associated with an experience not an intellectual proposition. Claiming 2 billion people reasoning that the N pole is warm overturns 2 billion people who have been there and know by experience it is cold is abjectly absurd. However it is the fact you and others constantly misunderstand an argument I have explained over and over and over and is about as simple as possible is the real frustration. You are not that unintelligent, it must either be intentional, or some bizarre involuntary result of a cognitive dissonance level that is incalculable.

I have made claims to experience and claims to intellectual agreement with a proposition that explains evidence. Quit swapping applications.

I’m not a theoretical scientist, are you?

I must not be because what I produce has to work. They do not pay me and allow me to keep producing stuff that is not valid. The very nature of theoretical science mandates that it not only contain the most potential errors of any scientific branch but also the least ability to detect the error. It is perfectly designed to allow garbage to be called science.

You have a ton of evidence, but none of it is empirical or demonstrable in any way. Correct?

Depends on what you mean by evidence. The most applicable definition is a category of reliable knowledge that makes a proposition more likely by it's inclusion. However since that is very inconvenient for your views I imagine there is no force on Earth that will make it accept it. Whatever definition you cough up for evidence (if it by hook and crook eliminates what exists for God) would far more so eliminate what exists for much of science and history.

Religious faith is evidenced based? Since when?

Since always. There are two (or more) categories of faith.

1. A reasoned conclusion based on the evidence available.
2. Another less substantial category that credits a conclusion based on number 1 above but which has far less evidence. This is mostly doctrinal stuff and very specific.

I’d love to see an example of this Christian faith you speak of that has more evidence than most general beliefs overall. I’d also like to know what you mean by “general beliefs.”

That is not what you hope. You hope I will supply an example with just enough uncertainty to allow you to amplify and mangle it until it is unrecognizable then condemn it in general. Fine.

Which belief is founded upon more evidence?

1. At marathon the Athenians outnumbered 2 - 1 routed and destroyed the Persians.

Or

2. Christ existed, died on a cross, and sincere testimony of experiencing him in person after death exists.

I can give examples like this far longer than you can try your best to explain them away. Which one above is better attested even after I made it easier by making the far more extraordinary claim?

Pascal’s Wager isn’t a 50/50 argument though. It’s not, either the specific god you believe in exists, or no god exists. Maybe Zeus is the one true god. Maybe Shiva rules the universe.

My goodness. Tell me what is necessary to get you to understand a claim? I have said at least twice the 50/50 assumption was simply an estimation to make a hypothetical point. I even added that some of the evidence would have a far higher percentage than 50% for God and some far less, but it did not matter. I was making a point and stated so several times. The percentage is not even important. Even if a treatment for cancer had a 1% chance of success it would be worth taking, if like Christianity it has no negative effect.

There’s nothing infantile about facing reality. There is something infantile about avoiding it via wishful thinking.

This is one of more absurd arguments possible. No one invents a hell they are destined for by wishful thinking, no one records failures greater than any other for themselves by wishful thinking, no one adopts a proposition (they would know absolutely the truth of) that only leads to hardship, poverty, torture, imprisonment, and even death at times by wishful thinking. Your statement contains about a thousand false assumptions stated as truth, is irrational, and is therefor a terrible argument. One of the worst possible.

 

[1robin]

What happens when:

1. A million people look through telescopes every night.
2. 250,000 Of them see an alien spaceship on the moon.
3. 250,000 Of them see a pile of rocks on the moon.
4. 250,000 Of them see a man made spacecraft on the moon.
5. 250,000 Of them see nothing at all.

What do we conclude?

I asked first but let me make a far more accurate analogy. Answer it and I will deal with your question.

You go to an unfamiliar town with 1 million citizens.

1. 300 - 400 thousand of them claimed to have met a man named Bill. He was a great moral teacher and his teachings had inspired those people to build hospitals, feed the towns poor, and become a more generous and content group of citizens.
2. Another 300 - 400 thousand said they had not met Bill but had enough evidence to conclude Bill existed (even though their descriptions of him may differ a bit in details from those that had met Bill). They all had a very common core of belief about Bill.
3. 200 - 300 thousand said they never met Bill and did not believe he ever existed.


1. Which group has the most and best evidence to make a decision about Bill's existence upon?
2. Is the evidence more reliable that Bill existed or that he did not?


I asked first. You can answer my former question or this far more applicable analogy. However if you will not answer me, I have no burden to answer you.

 

[1robin]

Your confusing two different things.
1) Data
2) Popular Opinion.

Those two are not the same thing and never will be.

That has been the very point I have tried to make over and over again.

My use of 2 billion (actually it would be much higher) Christians is an appeal to an experiential claim shared by 1 out of 3 people. It is a very significant claim. It is only used where appropriate.

I have also used claims from experts on testimony, evidence, history, etc.. to make a sufficiency of evidence claim. These also a very common and accepted methods. They are used in most forms of discourse.

Those two claims are of different types. I do not remember making one type where the other should go or vice versa. The two types are not what you stated.

They are not popularity claims, they are:
1. Claims to a sufficiency or quality of evidence by those most capable of knowing.
2. Claims to experience by those most capable of knowing. If I wanted to know if cancer existed and what cancer felt like I would not ask those who never had it. I would ask those most capable of knowing by virtue of training or those that had cancer.


There exists no invalidity of any kind in my claims. The exact claims are used constantly in law, every form of academics that exists, common discourse, and every single debate (hundreds of them) I have ever seen on both sides.

Data is where we gather information and then make predictions after we set up the information in an organized fashion alligned with what we already know to be true. We also have to research the causes of it ect ect ect.

I was trained at great expense by both the military and a legendary institute of engineering how to acquire and use data. My use is of the most basic and common types of data usage possible and contains no flaw if taken as given.

However popular opinion or rather appeal to popular opinion is simply nonsense. For example I can show you massive surveys of people who believe evolution to be false. This does not make it so and even if 99% of the world believed evolution was false it wouldn't matter one bit if the evidence didn't stand for itself.

Do not care about this one since it was not used by me.

What you have offered as examples are bits of data that are collected of things we already know that exist. Its not really up for debate how many people died Or more specifically that death really exists. Perhaps they are actually alive but the numbers are wrong? No.

Neither claim I made is adequately and sufficiently described by this claim.

And even data of the kind your talking about (of opnion) are not facts about the universe but trends within populations that can be used to predict certain things. If we took a poll to see what everyone's favorite color is and the majority said Red then we could predict that we can change our product to "red" and get better sales.

This one had nothing to do with my claims at all.

It provides no more information about the color red. It is only the opinion of the people not the accuracy of their claims.

I never mentioned the color red so a lack of information about it is irrelevant.

And the second example about the telescope.
It matters not if only one person saw. If the evidence stands for itself then it stands for itself. Did he get a photograph at NASA on record of it? Then thats pretty rock solid. Is it a big fish story of 3 drunk guys looking through a stolen telescope that they don't know how to use? Probably not.

The most reliable evidence for a space ship on the moon that is readily available is exactly the type I supplied in my hypothetical. Direct observation.

If you wish to debate my use of evidence or claims to data let me restate my two primary claims plus add in a much more relevant analogy.

1. I have stated that two billion plus claims to experience is a meaningful and relevant claim to make.
2. I have stated that the conclusions of experts in testimony, evidence, history, and science are meaningful and relevant.

I have stated that both are commonly used in most forms of discourse.
What is wrong with any of these?

Below is a much more relevant analogy for you to respond to. My analogy about moon observations was in response to another claim that was not my own. The below is far more relevant to my claims.

You go to an unfamiliar town with 1 million citizens.

1. 300 - 400 thousand of them claimed to have met a man named Bill. He was a great moral teacher and his teachings had inspired those people to build hospitals, feed the towns poor, and become a more generous and content group of citizens.
2. Another 300 - 400 thousand said they had not met Bill but had enough evidence to conclude Bill existed (even though their descriptions of him may differ a bit in details from those that had met Bill). They all had a very common core of belief about Bill.
3. 200 - 300 thousand said they never met Bill and did not believe he ever existed.


1. Which group has the most and best evidence to make a decision about Bill's existence upon?
2. Is the evidence more reliable that Bill existed or that he did not?

 

[Ouroboros]

My use of 2 billion (actually it would be much higher) Christians is an appeal to an experiential claim shared by 1 out of 3 people. It is a very significant claim. It is only used where appropriate.

How do you know if those 2 billion people share your experience of God? I knew many Christians when I grew up in Sweden who never had any experience of God at all. They just believed, nothing else. You include them to fit your argument. Have you even talked to all the 2 billion representatives to confirm they have the same experience and belief as you?

I was Christian for 30 years. I was speaking in tongues (and still can). Some Christians on this forum told me I must've been possessed by the devil. I belonged to a very large movement in the 80's and 90's. Hundreds of thousands of people. Millions of people are speaking in tongues. Now, they are all demon possessed and fooled by Satan to believe in the wrong Gospel and their experience is from the devil. Now... do you include them in the 2 billion who share your God experience or are they cut out?

What about Catholics (that are included in your 2 billion)? Are they sharing your experience? Episcopalians? Lutherans? Armenians? Russian Orthodox? Which experience exactly are you talking about that you share with them all (and me)?

 

[cottage]

Where is the contradiction?

I predict you will regret restating your claim.

I knew it. You claimed no necessity existed in your claim then stated that if God was all sufficient he would have no needs. I do not understand what the confusion is. That paragraph appears to say exactly what I thought it did.

It appears to say.
1. God is claimed to be all sufficient.
2. Yet creation implies a need.
3. An all sufficient being that has a need is contradictory.


Now the argument critical flaw is that creation implies no need. However that is the only argument that I can theoretically even see along those lines. If that is not what you stating, it is certainly not obvious and I see no other argument possible.

What "flaw"?

Classical Theism describes God is an all-sufficient, personal being that freely chose to create the world.

Proposition: God is not an all-sufficient being

1. If God is all-sufficient then by definition he has no needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes
2. God had a reason and purpose for creating the world
3. He created the world for his own benefit or for the benefit of others (the only two coherent reasons, at least one of which is in line with Classical Theism)
4. He did not create the world for the benefit of others because there were no “others”.
5. It follows from 4 that he created the world for his own benefit
6. But if God is as 1 then he is and has everything
7. Therefore God that created a world for his own benefit is not all-sufficient (contradiction demonstrated)

Conclusion: There is no all-sufficient God

The contradiction is demonstrated by a supposedly necessary being that is contingent upon contingent existence, a self-evident absurdity. And you will notice this argument is entirely consistent with my overall critique and the points I’m disputing with you elsewhere, which is to say by theists’ own stated arguments God is self-contradictorily dependent upon the phenomenal world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know what I am doing. The exact same thing both sides in every debate I have ever seen have done, is done in courtrooms, academics, and just about every where else possible.
In fact peer review (which you find so much merit in) is exactly the same thing.

Peer review is not the exact same thing that you’re doing here.

There must be no amount of words possible to make your side understand a claim they wish not to. I must have said several dozen times the billions quantity is associated with an experience not an intellectual proposition. Claiming 2 billion people reasoning that the N pole is warm overturns 2 billion people who have been there and know by experience it is cold is abjectly absurd. However it is the fact you and others constantly misunderstand an argument I have explained over and over and over and is about as simple as possible is the real frustration. You are not that unintelligent, it must either be intentional, or some bizarre involuntary result of a cognitive dissonance level that is incalculable.
I have made claims to experience and claims to intellectual agreement with a proposition that explains evidence. Quit swapping applications.

It was a joke touching on your endless claims to knowledge about the experiences of billions of people in the world.
Relax. 

I must not be because what I produce has to work. They do not pay me and allow me to keep producing stuff that is not valid. The very nature of theoretical science mandates that it not only contain the most potential errors of any scientific branch but also the least ability to detect the error. It is perfectly designed to allow garbage to be called science.

Everything you’ve ever worked on or thought about working on has ended with a 100% workable result? Everything? I doubt it.

Depends on what you mean by evidence. The most applicable definition is a category of reliable knowledge that makes a proposition more likely by it's inclusion. However since that is very inconvenient for your views I imagine there is no force on Earth that will make it accept it. Whatever definition you cough up for evidence (if it by hook and crook eliminates what exists for God) would far more so eliminate what exists for much of science and history.

I mean something empirical and/or demonstrable. I.e. Something beyond a mere personal experience that is not accessible to anyone else.

Since always. There are two (or more) categories of faith.
1. A reasoned conclusion based on the evidence available.
2. Another less substantial category that credits a conclusion based on number 1 above but which has far less evidence. This is mostly doctrinal stuff and very specific.

I’ve never seen faith defined in that way before, especially in this context. I think you’re being a bit generous with your definition.
I mean, faith is usually where I end up in discussions with theists when they’re trying to justify a thing for which they have no evidence.

That is not what you hope. You hope I will supply an example with just enough uncertainty to allow you to amplify and mangle it until it is unrecognizable then condemn it in general. Fine.

I hope for exactly what I asked of you. Looks like I’ll be holding my breath for a while on that one.

Which belief is founded upon more evidence?
1. At marathon the Athenians outnumbered 2 - 1 routed and destroyed the Persians.
Or
2. Christ existed, died on a cross, and sincere testimony of experiencing him in person after death exists.
I can give examples like this far longer than you can try your best to explain them away. Which one above is better attested even after I made it easier by making the far more extraordinary claim?

I need more information to make such a determination. I don’t know what kind of evidence is available for #1.
As to #2, do we actually have eyewitness testimony from anyone claiming to have seen Jesus after his death?

My goodness. Tell me what is necessary to get you to understand a claim? I have said at least twice the 50/50 assumption was simply an estimation to make a hypothetical point. I even added that some of the evidence would have a far higher percentage than 50% for God and some far less, but it did not matter. I was making a point and stated so several times. The percentage is not even important. Even if a treatment for cancer had a 1% chance of success it would be worth taking, if like Christianity it has no negative effect.

Then the 50/50 assumption was basically meaningless.
If I take the bet, believe in Christianity and then die and find out Hinduism is true, then there is a negative effect from believing in Christianity.

This is one of more absurd arguments possible. No one invents a hell they are destined for by wishful thinking, no one records failures greater than any other for themselves by wishful thinking, no one adopts a proposition (they would know absolutely the truth of) that only leads to hardship, poverty, torture, imprisonment, and even death at times by wishful thinking. Your statement contains about a thousand false assumptions stated as truth, is irrational, and is therefor a terrible argument. One of the worst possible.

To quote Hitchens, hell is for everyone else.
There’s nothing absurd about facing reality for what it is. We don’t really have any other choice in the matter, if we care about what’s true and what isn’t.

 

[1robin]

We may not know exactly what might be discovered in the earth’s core but we know the earth and its core actually exist.[/B] The supernatural by comparison cannot be accessed in possible or general experience.”[/I]

I did not make any claims about knowing a center of the planet exists. I said the exact nature of the core has been described without access to it. Of course a globe has a center but having one at a certain temperature, made of certain materials, and that operates in certain ways is completely different level of claim. The supernatural has billions of claims of direct experience. What are you talking about? I personally claim at least a dozen experiences that only the supernatural claims of the Bible have explanations for. In what way is that invalid? I nor anyone has ever experienced the molten iron core of any planet.

The supernatural isn’t accessible in general experience!! If it were we wouldn’t be having this discussion. By general experience it meant experience that is available to all, collectively and universally, without being limited to subjective views and doctrinal beliefs held from faith.

It is accessible in experience, adding general to it is a futile action. The core of earth is not accessible at all. Adding possible to that is another futile semantic exercise. That definition of general experience makes it irrelevant from the start. Nothing I have ever heard of as true is such by any appeal to being available to all. We all believe in things not known to general experience by the thousands. Forget the billions (you are trying so hard to do so anyway) simply use my personal experience as the evidence. I have no idea in what way to provide the criteria you will require to make a billion people's claims acceptable to you.

I keep politely asking you not to attribute multiverse theories to my argument. I make no such claim for them or any other scientific speculation. However, while I have at least three metaphysical arguments to explain the existence of the world, all of which are logically possible, I don’t believe-in them; in fact two contradict one another. So please discontinue your stock double-standards response, at least as it applies to me because I treat all speculative beliefs the same. The only concession I make is where a hypothesis is subject to possible experience, and even then it is for the advocate to make the argument and I am not compelled to accept it.

Are you suggesting I must have an inventory of your exact beliefs to make analogies? Fine, please list everything you believe in and why so that I may use only your beliefs in analogies. Or you could just extrapolate the exact same nature associated with beliefs in the multiverse to all similar beliefs.

Your supposed concept of the supernatural is this:
“The only difference is the nature does not bind the supernatural nor is the supernatural dependent on the natural.”
But seeing that you don’t know what the supernatural is anymore than the next person, and that’s being generous in allowing that there might actually be something corresponding to the term, you cannot presume to say what binds what to what and nor can you make bald assertions to where any dependency lies. That is simply pretending to know more than you’ve shown you’re actually capable of knowing.

1. I claim that is true of the supernatural but not the only difference between them. My statement was only applicable to it's use. It was the only difference in that context but not the only difference in general or totality.
2. I was not there making any larger point than what was applicable to the context. I was not attempting to make a sweeping comparison on the differences in general between the supernatural and the natural.
3. I have a very good idea of what the supernatural is. I could never explain it in totality but can make informed specific claims about. Even if I had never experienced it I can make many claims about it as a concept.
4. I can know with certainty what is true concerning concepts. Knowing a boat is a device that floats on water as a concept does not require I ever see one.

I didn’t ask “where God exists”, regarding your facile geographic remark. I asked “How he exists?” The underscored text is just more assertions from faith; and you’ve presented no evidence other than to call upon other people’s subjective beliefs. And even then you offer no breakdown or statistics of what those supposed “billions” actually believe, never mind what you presumptuously think they’ve all experienced. A shockingly poor argument indeed!

You used an analogy that equated evidence (or the lack of it) that corresponded to a geographical search. It was a bad analogy because no such search is possible for God. I have no need to know or supply how a thing exists, to know it does. No one knows how gravity exists, what it is, why it is, etc.... yet we believe it does. Claims to existence have no other burden than evidence for existence. Never mind what I think I have experienced? Then what pray tell am I to use as a basis for knowledge. Is your lack of experience for the supernatural a more meaningful source of information on it than my actual experience with it. Is anyone's? I do not get that request. What I have experienced is the most relevant evidence possible for my own conclusions and the experiences of those who had been in contact with X are far more relevant than those who have not been.

You are saying nothing of substance but merely making an argument from ignorance, along with what I assume to be an unintended gaffe. The God as described in the Bible is perfectly intelligible, albeit as as jealous, bloodthirsty, and vindictive individual in the OT. So if you want to argue that God is not explicable in human terms then that is to say the Bible is not intelligible! And the definition and attributes of God are not of my making; I simply respond to theists’ claims. But I’m amused at your saying you do not bind God to human terms, and then in the next breath say: “I bind him by what he has revealed and what that should produce”. So now you're saying God is bound by human intelligibility. And if God is bound by your imperfect human understanding, then God is labeled according to your demands and expectations.

What I was saying is not complicated. The concept of necessary existence may be relevant to God but not binding on him. God exists independent of anything else but that would never make him bound by anything some philosopher links to the label necessary. God is bound by what is revealed by him to us. IOW I have no necessity beyond a defense of revelation. My faith nor God is affected in the slightest by what is true of human terminologies of philosophical concepts. They are only contrivances used by humans to make concepts perceptible, universally interchangeable, and to undergo crude analysis of it. God's independence from time is not defined by anyone discourse on it. His independence from any external causes does not bind him by a human definition associated with modal being. A rock will do what it will do and does not care what category I put it in. Descriptions do not bind anything. Not one atom or aspect of Pluto changed because it was changed from the status of a planet to whatever it is now (I forget the name). So any rules about what planets must be and do was irrelevant to what Pluto actually did. This is a pretty simple truth but does contain some complexities involving application and subtleties. I think you are amplifying them. Descriptions are non causal, descriptions of things not testable or abstract are even more so. God is not affected what ever by any label you place on him. I must and can defend revelation, I have no need to attack human contrivances.

All the evidence, to borrow your term, suggests that there was no time or space before the world existed, and therefore no cause since causality is a function of time. Therefore if the world began to exist then cause began to exist with the world.

The source of the term is irrelevant. However I got it from Vilenkin. Cause is not a function of time in the Quantum, nor is it dependent on time at all. You are confusing what is normally observed with what is always true. Most people only see cars on streets. I happen to be a hunter a know cars do not require any raids at all. In the exact same way I can extrapolate that cars do not require roads at all times because they are not dependent on roads, even though we normally see them on roads. I can also state that cause and effect which operates within time in most of the examples (but not all) is independent of time. I have no idea how but those most able of knowing (professional philosophers)claim causes can occur at the same "time" as their effects. I really have a hard time even quantifying how things independent of time would work but that has no effect on the arguments that thing almost necessarily exist outside of time. Whatever created time must be definition exist beyond time even if we lack effective language to describe how the domain operates.

I am burned out on these semantic technicality discussions. I have asked you about changing subjects several times. I do not recall receiving an answer.

 

[1robin]

With respect to the underscored passage you say things in a very open-ended way, unsupported, without any qualification whatever. The rest of the passage seems to be discussing a number of things in a too disjointed a fashion for me to give you a proper response.

And you keep equating any uncertainty with total unreliability.

1. There exist more (by far) reasons to think cause and effect was involved with the creation (coming into being) of the universe than not.
2. That matter, time, and space came into being at the same moment.
3. If cause and effect was involved it must have operated in a domain independently of nature. The cause of time must necessarily be independent of it. The cause of matter must be non-material. The cause of space must not require space.

The only logical exception is simultaneous causation but it also would exist independently of these parameters but I lack the terminology to describe it effectively even if I knew how it could work.

If you wish to counter any of those an argument the relies on greater reasoning or more evidence must be provided. It does not exist, so be elimination you must be equating any uncertainty with absolute invalidity.

Well I’m not defending Kraus, either on the “2 + 2 not being 4” presentation, nor on his “Nothing is not really nothing” nonsense. So I don’t see what any of this has to do with me or my arguments. (!)

Do you understand that when I use an argument similar to another I am not prescribing the former to you directly. Analogies have two absolute properties.

1. They never perfectly represent what they are drawn from.
2. The only relevance they have is the specific context they are used to relate.

I was using it as an example where what a scholar says is not true to indicate what we say about concepts is not binding on beings. I did not say you said anything he did. I was saying you are attempting to do what he did in that your are attempting to restrict nature or concepts to descriptions about it.

Please use revelation to illustrate contradictions not some think tank terminology about things they cannot measure.

If you mean biblical contradictions, where God tells us what’s on his mind, then I have a page full – is that what you want? Otherwise I stick to the definition that is understood by Classical Theism, which is that God is the creator, has always existed and will always exist, has infinite power, knows everything and is supremely morally good. Let me know if you disagree with any or all of those definitions? For the contradictions see my post 3171 (5th paragraph) and 3145 (last paragraph).

I want you to tell me what is contradictory in God's self description not in what you arbitrarily bind God by concerning human terminology. What two verses contradict each other? I do not care what is true in theory about necessary beings. I care about what is contradictory concerning the Biblical God. You have used no verses or self descriptions in your contradiction claims. You have exclusively used supposed contradictions in terminology derived from philosophers. I do not even see any contradiction there but what might be true about a necessary being would not bind God anyway unless you found a dependence in revelation. I have no issue with your definitions but I might in your application of them. Some get a little tricky when applied. Tell me in simple logic, instead of semantic technicality, what is wrong or self contradictory about God. What is to prevent the God of the Bible and nature from existing in the manner described by the Bible?

Necessity is a concept. God is a concept. But God is also said to objectively exist. And if God objectively exists, will always exist, and cannot fail to exist, then his existence is necessary. This is to say that God exists in such a way that to deny his non-existence is as impossible as it is for twice two to be anything but four. And if you allow the foregoing then you must allow the principle of non-contradiction. And it is that very principle that I’ve applied in my objections to an ontologically necessary being, and also in the case of the moral argument and the problem of evil. And note that these aren’t “semantic exercises” but a testing of the arguments that theists themselves make for God.

However the problem is that the concept of God and the concept of a necessary being are not equal. What is true or might be true of a philosophical concept is not binding on any being necessarily, God being the one most unlikely to be. This is not the criteria for being.

This is to say that God exists in such a way that to deny his non-existence is as impossible as it is for twice two to be anything but four.

I can deny the existence of many existent things. That does not make any sense. Necessary beings (as I have provided three definitions from philosophy for) are not non-impossible beings. They are non-contingent beings. They may or may not exist but if they do they are not contingent on anything else. I am hung up, I will have to get to the rest later.

 

[cottage]

It is accessible in experience, adding general to it is a futile action. The core of earth is not accessible at all. Adding possible to that is another futile semantic exercise. That definition of general experience makes it irrelevant from the start. Nothing I have ever heard of as true is such by any appeal to being available to all. We all believe in things not known to general experience by the thousands. Forget the billions (you are trying so hard to do so anyway) simply use my personal experience as the evidence. I have no idea in what way to provide the criteria you will require to make a billion people's claims acceptable to you.

A “billion” people’s subjective beliefs or mystical experiences are not numerically superior to general experience, that is to say the world’s population as a whole. There is no global consensus that God exists. There are, according to the Salvation Army, 2.2 billion people in the world that believe in God, which represents one third of the population, that leaves 4.4 billion people that have no belief in God. And in that minority of 2.2 billion there will be people with varying elements of faith, and it certainly cannot be argued that all have experienced God.

But to show how why your Argument from Other Believersis misleading and fallacious lets swap the figures around and say believers were the majority, i.e. the four billion. Now even a majority that thinks or believes something is credible or true doesn’t necessarily make a thing credible or true. Democracy for example gives people an equal say in decisions that affect their lives, rightly or wrongly. There is no implication or presumption that, because of the greater number, any majority decision will be the correct or superior political philosophy. Some of the worst regimes in history have had overwhelming support from their people. Numbers, regardless of the weighting, do not even imply credibility; a majority opinion is only voicing a subjective view, and often by people’s own admission it is proved wrong in practice.
The term ‘majority’ only refers to a (questionable) statistical truth and is no different from saying ‘Eighty out of every hundred women prefer white bread.’ But even from a true fact that X number of people all believe the same thing and in the same way, it doesn’t follow that their beliefs correspond to some factual or objective truth.

Are you suggesting I must have an inventory of your exact beliefs to make analogies? Fine, please list everything you believe in and why so that I may use only your beliefs in analogies. Or you could just extrapolate the exact same nature associated with beliefs in the multiverse to all similar beliefs.

That is utterly absurd. And what do you mean “all similar beliefs”. In what way are my arguments to be extrapolated from multiverse “beliefs” that I have rejected endless times?
Unlike you I do not pretend to know the origin of the world. So please explain what beliefs you are imputing by analogy to be attributed to me?

1. I claim that is true of the supernatural but not the only difference between them. My statement was only applicable to it's use. It was the only difference in that context but not the only difference in general or totality.
2. I was not there making any larger point than what was applicable to the context. I was not attempting to make a sweeping comparison on the differences in general between the supernatural and the natural.
3. I have a very good idea of what the supernatural is. I could never explain it in totality but can make informed specific claims about. Even if I had never experienced it I can make many claims about it as a concept.
4. I can know with certainty what is true concerning concepts. Knowing a boat is a device that floats on water as a concept does not require I ever see one.

This is all just waffle! No proper argument.

You used an analogy that equated evidence (or the lack of it) that corresponded to a geographical search. It was a bad analogy because no such search is possible for God. I have no need to know or supply how a thing exists, to know it does. No one knows how gravity exists, what it is, why it is, etc.... yet we believe it does.

That's rubbish! I did not "equate evidence to geographical search."
Tis is what I said: "We may not know exactly what might be discovered in the earth's core but we know the earth and its core actually exist. The supernatural by comparison cannot be accessed in possible or general experience."

Claims to existence have no other burden than evidence for existence. Never mind what I think I have experienced? Then what pray tell am I to use as a basis for knowledge. Is your lack of experience for the supernatural a more meaningful source of information on it than my actual experience with it. Is anyone's? I do not get that request. What I have experienced is the most relevant evidence possible for my own conclusions and the experiences of those who had been in contact with X are far more relevant than those who have not been.

That is just a “True for me” statement that you’ve made there. But if truth is relative to the individual (rather than in general, inductive experience) then it would be true that all relative truth is absolutely true. But if all relative truth is absolutely true then not all things can be relative, which means “All truth is relative” must be false.

 

[cottage]

What I was saying is not complicated. The concept of necessary existence may be relevant to God but not binding on him. God exists independent of anything else but that would never make him bound by anything some philosopher links to the label necessary. God is bound by what is revealed by him to us. IOW I have no necessity beyond a defense of revelation. My faith nor God is affected in the slightest by what is true of human terminologies of philosophical concepts. They are only contrivances used by humans to make concepts perceptible, universally interchangeable, and to undergo crude analysis of it. God's independence from time is not defined by anyone discourse on it. His independence from any external causes does not bind him by a human definition associated with modal being. A rock will do what it will do and does not care what category I put it in. Descriptions do not bind anything. Not one atom or aspect of Pluto changed because it was changed from the status of a planet to whatever it is now (I forget the name). So any rules about what planets must be and do was irrelevant to what Pluto actually did. This is a pretty simple truth but does contain some complexities involving application and subtleties. I think you are amplifying them. Descriptions are non causal, descriptions of things not testable or abstract are even more so. God is not affected what ever by any label you place on him. I must and can defend revelation, I have no need to attack human contrivances.

In the light of what you’ve said, please consider this syllogism for a moment before I demonstrate why your above statements are self-defeating:

All assertions are propositional
“God exists” is an assertion
“God exists” is propositional
Anything you say about God takes the form of a proposition. To say “Descriptions [of God] do not bind anything” directly contradicts this other statement of yours: “God exist independent of anything.” So “God exists independent of anything” is not binding!

It is also a self-contradiction to say this: “The concept of necessary existence may be relevant to God but not binding on him.” Well, if it’s not binding then “God is not the necessary being” is true, which is to say with equal absurdity that “God is not “God”! You can’t expect to make claims and argue propositions to God from logic and reason, and then when it suits you say logic and reason doesn’t apply or that God is a special case.

The source of the term is irrelevant. However I got it from Vilenkin. Cause is not a function of time in the Quantum, nor is it dependent on time at all. You are confusing what is normally observed with what is always true. Most people only see cars on streets. I happen to be a hunter a know cars do not require any raids at all. In the exact same way I can extrapolate that cars do not require roads at all times because they are not dependent on roads, even though we normally see them on roads. I can also state that cause and effect which operates within time in most of the examples (but not all) is independent of time. I have no idea how but those most able of knowing (professional philosophers)claim causes can occur at the same "time" as their effects. I really have a hard time even quantifying how things independent of time would work but that has no effect on the arguments that thing almost necessarily exist outside of time. Whatever created time must be definition exist beyond time even if we lack effective language to describe how the domain operates.

There is no such thing as “almost necessarily”. And cause and effect is inescapably time related’ two things can’t happen together; there are either two things happening, causally related in time, or a thing occurs spontaneously. Causality is contingent and without the concept of time is an impossible notion. Christian apologist, Dinesh D’Souza, said the Big Bang was a miracle since it cannot be explained by any known law of nature. You apparently think a law of nature is transmutable, upon which God must depend. D'Souza's explanation might be an argumentum ad ignoratium, where the unknown speaks for the unknowable, but it isn't self-contradictory unlike your argument.

I am burned out on these semantic technicality discussions. I have asked you about changing subjects several times. I do not recall receiving an answer.

I'm afraid I only respond and contribute to subjects that I am interested in and enjoy – on my own terms if you like.

 

[cottage]

And you keep equating any uncertainty with total unreliability.

1. There exist more (by far) reasons to think cause and effect was involved with the creation (coming into being) of the universe than not.
2. That matter, time, and space came into being at the same moment.
3. If cause and effect was involved it must have operated in a domain independently of nature. The cause of time must necessarily be independent of it. The cause of matter must be non-material. The cause of space must not require space.

The only logical exception is simultaneous causation but it also would exist independently of these parameters but I lack the terminology to describe it effectively even if I knew how it could work.

If you wish to counter any of those an argument the relies on greater reasoning or more evidence must be provided. It does not exist, so be elimination you must be equating any uncertainty with absolute invalidity.

You give a numerical list as if it was a formal argument, when it is just a jumble of assertions and assumptions.

Your opening premise, if we can call it that (1), is nothing more than an unsupported generalization. And look at premise 3; you pose the conditional “if” in the case of cause but then take it as instantiated, to pre-exist experience. That argument you’ve given does not allow you to conclude anything.

Do you understand that when I use an argument similar to another I am not prescribing the former to you directly. Analogies have two absolute properties.

1. They never perfectly represent what they are drawn from.
2. The only relevance they have is the specific context they are used to relate.

I was using it as an example where what a scholar says is not true to indicate what we say about concepts is not binding on beings. I did not say you said anything he did. I was saying you are attempting to do what he did in that your are attempting to restrict nature or concepts to descriptions about it.

Please use revelation to illustrate contradictions not some think tank terminology about things they cannot measure.

There is no connection or relevance to Professor Krauss's hypotheses, and your analogy was wrongheaded and completely misleading. I use the same terms and descriptions used by theists and theologians. If I’m to be wrong in using those terms then by the same argument so must they be.

I want you to tell me what is contradictory in God's self description not in what you arbitrarily bind God by concerning human terminology. What two verses contradict each other? I do not care what is true in theory about necessary beings. I care about what is contradictory concerning the Biblical God. You have used no verses or self descriptions in your contradiction claims. You have exclusively used supposed contradictions in terminology derived from philosophers. I do not even see any contradiction there but what might be true about a necessary being would not bind God anyway unless you found a dependence in revelation. I have no issue with your definitions but I might in your application of them. Some get a little tricky when applied. Tell me in simple logic, instead of semantic technicality, what is wrong or self contradictory about God. What is to prevent the God of the Bible and nature from existing in the manner described by the Bible?

You misunderstand. I don’t much care what the bible says. Although I shall post a list of biblical contradictions anyway, in line with your request, they make no difference to my overall argument. In other words, the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible doesn’t support the case I’ve been making because it follows that if God is a contradictory concept, and I’ve demonstrated that it is, then the Bible is an irrelevance.

However the problem is that the concept of God and the concept of a necessary being are not equal. What is true or might be true of a philosophical concept is not binding on any being necessarily, God being the one most unlikely to be. This is not the criteria for being.

Forget the philosophical terms. Is God a being that has always existed and will always exist?

I can deny the existence of many existent things. That does not make any sense. Necessary beings (as I have provided three definitions from philosophy for) are not non-impossible beings. They are non-contingent beings. They may or may not exist but if they do they are not contingent on anything else. I am hung up, I will have to get to the rest later.

Groan! A triangle’s three angles are equal to two right angles. That is a necessary truth that holds whether or not there are any triangles in the world. The necessity applies to the definition. Necessary means a thing cannot without contradiction be what it is, i.e. God cannot be not-God, in the same way that an object, the triangle for example, cannot be what it is without its three angles. Now the term being refers to existence, something existent or something that is thought to exist. So when we add the prefix “necessary” to the term “being” we have a logical predicate: Necessary existence, which is where the something that is said to exist cannot fail to exist. Please, please tell me you’ve got it now!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Cottage you get props for debating with those who employ circular reasoning. I don't have the stamina or tenacity to engage long term in those types of discussions.....:banghead3

 

[cottage]

Re: my post 3195 in response to Robin


The Word of God (I think that’ll suffice as a title)

God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25

God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

God is to be found by those who seek him. Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him. Prov 1:28

God accepts human sacrifices. 2 Sam 21:8,9, 14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice. Deut 12:30, 31

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him. Gen 6:5, 7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him. Gen 8:21

Killing commanded. Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden. Ex 20:13

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced.Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union. Gen 20:11, 12/ Gen 17:16

Seed time and harvest were never to cease. Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years. Gen 41:54, v56/ Gen 45:6

God is satisfied with his works. Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.Gen 6:6

God is tired and rests. Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests. Is 40:28

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That has been the very point I have tried to make over and over again.

My use of 2 billion (actually it would be much higher) Christians is an appeal to an experiential claim shared by 1 out of 3 people. It is a very significant claim. It is only used where appropriate.

I have also used claims from experts on testimony, evidence, history, etc.. to make a sufficiency of evidence claim. These also a very common and accepted methods. They are used in most forms of discourse.

Those two claims are of different types. I do not remember making one type where the other should go or vice versa. The two types are not what you stated.

They are not popularity claims, they are:
1. Claims to a sufficiency or quality of evidence by those most capable of knowing.
2. Claims to experience by those most capable of knowing. If I wanted to know if cancer existed and what cancer felt like I would not ask those who never had it. I would ask those most capable of knowing by virtue of training or those that had cancer.

We have thousands of reports of aliens every year? Does that mean there are aliens? Or does that mean we have things people mistake aliens for?

Christianity and religion is the same. We have people claiming to have these experiences however this does not mean those experiences are to be taken as fact. We look into these experiences and draw conclusions.

For example the fact that SO many people have experiences in the christian religion is an argument against its validity if we include mass hysteria or delusions. The fact that people have these delusions are because everyone else has these delusions ect ect ect.

There exists no invalidity of any kind in my claims. The exact claims are used constantly in law, every form of academics that exists, common discourse, and every single debate (hundreds of them) I have ever seen on both sides.

Academics does not take anecdotes to be fact. They can use them as Data but not as fact. And the usage of experience based evidence in our court system is flawed at best. It is not an accurate way to determine what "is" as we are finding out more and more as we integrate more and more science and technology to our court system.

I was trained at great expense by both the military and a legendary institute of engineering how to acquire and use data. My use is of the most basic and common types of data usage possible and contains no flaw if taken as given.

The flaw is that you assume that the abundance of evidence speaks for itself without looking at any other numbers. If you were trained to acquire and use data then you will know exactly why this is flawed and you are intentionally being dishonest with your claims.

Do not care about this one since it was not used by me

Surely you see the connection.

Neither claim I made is adequately and sufficiently described by this claim.

It is. All of the data you provided in your examples are not used in the same way you are attempting to use your data on belief in god.

This one had nothing to do with my claims at all.

Exactly. Your attempting to claim evidence based on data that is support of opinion but not of fact.

I never mentioned the color red so a lack of information about it is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? do you seriously not see the comparison I am making?

The most reliable evidence for a space ship on the moon that is readily available is exactly the type I supplied in my hypothetical. Direct observation.

You have not provided direct observation of god. We can take a picture of a spacecraft. Have it analyzed. You cannot do the same with claims of god.

If you wish to debate my use of evidence or claims to data let me restate my two primary claims plus add in a much more relevant analogy.

1. I have stated that two billion plus claims to experience is a meaningful and relevant claim to make.
2. I have stated that the conclusions of experts in testimony, evidence, history, and science are meaningful and relevant.

I have stated that both are commonly used in most forms of discourse.
What is wrong with any of these?

Below is a much more relevant analogy for you to respond to. My analogy about moon observations was in response to another claim that was not my own. The below is far more relevant to my claims.

You go to an unfamiliar town with 1 million citizens.

1. 300 - 400 thousand of them claimed to have met a man named Bill. He was a great moral teacher and his teachings had inspired those people to build hospitals, feed the towns poor, and become a more generous and content group of citizens.
2. Another 300 - 400 thousand said they had not met Bill but had enough evidence to conclude Bill existed (even though their descriptions of him may differ a bit in details from those that had met Bill). They all had a very common core of belief about Bill.
3. 200 - 300 thousand said they never met Bill and did not believe he ever existed.


1. Which group has the most and best evidence to make a decision about Bill's existence upon?
2. Is the evidence more reliable that Bill existed or that he did not?

The same is held with biology. The same is held with physics. For generations millions of people have viewed, observed, experienced things with the same general but sweepingly wrong explanations. Now we are finding that those explanations are not able to stand up to scrutiny and that they cannot be held as evidence.

As far as your example goes it doesn't actually lateral with your point. There is no extraordinary claim involved. To make it more accurate it would have to be paramount to having the first group walk a third party to an empty space and introduce them to bill. Now you can reach out and make sure no one is there. But they still claim that bill is there.

Then we looked around and found that there are explanations for the delusions that these people who assume to know bill have experienced. Then we could conclude that the first group is deluded, the second is gullible and the third is honest.

 

[cottage]

That has been the very point I have tried to make over and
1. I have stated that two billion plus claims to experience is a meaningful and relevant claim to make.
2. I have stated that the conclusions of experts in testimony, evidence, history, and science are meaningful and relevant.

Of course people’s beliefs are relevant and meaningful – to them, and I don’t see how anyone would seriously disagree with that. And it should be borne in mind that those in the second group (2) will, with very few exceptions, also be part of your “two billion”. However, the first of two important points to be made is that evidence that people hold to a shared belief is not evidence of some fact, but only evidence in this case that they believe broadly in the proposition that God exists or that “God exists” is a true belief. Belief-as-faith is not existential evidence. The second important point is that there is not, despite your above assertion, “two billion claims to experience”. In fact you have said elsewhere that "1 in 3" had experiences. So what exactly is this experience of God that that is to be submitted as evidence of a supernatural being? May we have some examples?

But even in the case of this lesser figure, those that do claim to have experienced God, there is no way to distinguish whether or not those folk are just giving us the content of their minds. One who says God told him to go out and kill might be considered mentally ill or deranged in some way because it conflicts with society’s mores, where the nature of that belief is harmful or threatening to humanity at large. Yet the person who speaks of God killing uses the same apparatus as one who speaks of God loving. We have no way of verifying the supposed truth source. And if, as we’re told, we cannot know the mind and ways of God then we cannot pronounce on what God must or cannot do.

 

[1robin]

How do you know if those 2 billion people share your experience of God? I knew many Christians when I grew up in Sweden who never had any experience of God at all. They just believed, nothing else. You include them to fit your argument. Have you even talked to all the 2 billion representatives to confirm they have the same experience and belief as you?

No you didn't. By definition it takes an experience with God to produce a Christian. Lots of people claim to be Christians but have no actual affiliation with him. Let me illustrate.


Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
https://www.google.com/#q=born+again+verses

You do not get born of the spirit by wearing a cross, belonging to a church, or answering Christian on a census. I am making no moral distinctions here just the most important doctrinal one in the entire Bible. Born of God requires an experience with God.


For the sake of time, whether you agree or not just remember my claims come in that context. I provided stats that corroborate my numbers. I have spent enough time researching this particular issue, as a prayer councilor, and writing a few papers on it to be able to make a reasonable conservative informed guess as to numbers. The data about this issue agrees with my informed estimations. However this does not matter. Even if you changed my numbers by an order of magnitude (something you would need mountains of data I can't find to justify) you would still have proportions and numbers so large as to eliminate any dismissal of what they suggest. IOW you are going to have to have to provide a better explanation for hundreds of millions of rational people claiming to have met God better than I can. Amplifying any uncertainties I may have will never make the numbers available for dismissal.

I was Christian for 30 years. I was speaking in tongues (and still can). Some Christians on this forum told me I must've been possessed by the devil. I belonged to a very large movement in the 80's and 90's. Hundreds of thousands of people. Millions of people are speaking in tongues. Now, they are all demon possessed and fooled by Satan to believe in the wrong Gospel and their experience is from the devil. Now... do you include them in the 2 billion who share your God experience or are they cut out?

So you are claiming to have experienced the supernatural in the same post denying it has occurred for many others. Something is way off here. Claims made in ignorance are not relevant anyway. The Bible clams speaking in tongues is or can be a gift from God. It is the authority not some ignorant people who claim to believe. BTW tell me the counter occurrence that must have occurred along with your speaking in tongues without looking it up. The Bible and 100% of my experience always contains something else that occurs with these events of speaking in tongues.

What about Catholics (that are included in your 2 billion)? Are they sharing your experience? Episcopalians? Lutherans? Armenians? Russian Orthodox? Which experience exactly are you talking about that you share with them all (and me)?

I think the numbers for Catholicism were about 40% who claimed to have. For some reason they included black Catholics separately and it was over 70%. That is hundreds of millions all by it's self. Evangelical numbers are even higher and I think Pentecostals the highest of all. The same experience Jesus spoke on in the above verse and is mentioned in the Bible in dozens of places is to what I refer. It always includes common elements but at times (like the upper room) contains unique elements. You can't know much about this subject and at the same time ask me what experience I am referring to. Without the experience, Christianity means nothing and as Paul said we are to be pitied above all men. The experience is the culmination and climax of the entire Bible.