This is why I think God exists.

mehfesto

PDN wrote: »

Only in the sense of being wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus was 'begotten not made' - so no creation there.

Still, never mind, it appears to be a matter of pride among many atheists to make inaccurate statements about what Christians believe and, when corrected, to say, "Well, it's all a load of codswallop anyway!"

Whereas with Christians, well they never make invalid claims...

Generalisations are great. They really add to a good debate, I find.

PDN

magicbastarder wrote: »

if god is eternal and had no beginning, and he created the universe 14 or so billion years ago, then why did he wait (eternity - 14 billion years) before creating the universe? is he lazy? if it took him an infinite amount of time to create a finite universe, he's not so omnipotent.

maybe he was just watching reruns of friends.

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

magicbastarder

actually, as an aside (in relation to other universes), i wonder how christians square away the notion of extra terrestrial life (i knew a priest once who believed in it, but i never got to talk to him seriously about it); would it imply that there are other civilisations out there which christ visited?

mikhail

magicbastarder wrote: »

if god is eternal and had no beginning, and he created the universe 14 or so billion years ago, then why did he wait (eternity - 14 billion years) before creating the universe? is he lazy? if it took him an infinite amount of time to create a finite universe, he's not so omnipotent.

maybe he was just watching reruns of friends.

He created the universe and then 14 billion years later created the universe? He's more powerful than we thought.

PDN wrote: »

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

Neither do you.

sink

PDN wrote: »

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

Or even if he exist! :pac:

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote: »

if god is eternal and had no beginning, and he created the universe 14 or so billion years ago, then why did he wait (eternity - 14 billion years) before creating the universe? is he lazy? if it took him an infinite amount of time to create a finite universe, he's not so omnipotent.

maybe he was just watching reruns of friends.

No, sorry, I'm with PDN on this. The question of God being bored or lazy is pretty irrelevant, and the certainly not the kind of thing we need to resort to to attack the tenability of the Christian position.

L31mr0d

OP, you have to understand that in regards to Theism, your argument accomplishes nothing.

As has been previously stated, you've put forward an argument for Deism.

I personally have no qualms with Deists. To me, Deists are just wishful thinking Atheists. In all the practical areas that matter they are similar to Atheists, ergo, Naturalists, Empiricists... etc.

Either the Universe created itself (Atheists) or God created it (Deists). Nobody can say for certain, but it's a fun game to speculate about it though.

The problem arises when you try and use this argument as a proof for Theism, because Theism doesn't just require that God creates this Universe, it requires that he actively interferes with the operation of this Universe (answering prayers, miracles, burning bushes, prophets... etc).

If you are a Deist, then bully for you. If you are a Theist... well, then... your argument needs more cowbell

PDN

mehfesto wrote: »

Whereas with Christians, well they never make invalid claims...

I can't speak for all of them, but this one generally tries to ensure that I understand others' beliefs before criticising them.

Generalisations are great. They really add to a good debate, I find.

Dear me, the paintballers are rusty today, aren't they?

You say "Christians" whereas I said "many atheists". Still, if it makes you happier, we could amend my statement to "some atheist posters (and mods) on boards.ie"

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

No, sorry, I'm with PDN on this. The question of God being bored or lazy is pretty irrelevant, and the certainly not the kind of thing we need to resort to to attack the tenability of the Christian position.

it was deliberately flippant.
however, i do find the idea of an eternal deity to be absurd, so that was a quasi-serious point to base it on.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

I can't speak for all of them, but this one generally tries to ensure that I understand others' beliefs before criticising them.

There are many beliefs that are so ridiculous that you don't need understand them before criticizing them.

strobe

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, as an aside (in relation to other universes), i wonder how christians square away the notion of extra terrestrial life (i knew a priest once who believed in it, but i never got to talk to him seriously about it); would it imply that there are other civilisations out there which christ visited?

I asked this before on T.O.F if you are interested in the responses.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055878319&highlight=bible+planet+earth

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Dear me, the paintballers are rusty today, aren't they?

We were out last night. Dades and Mrs. Dades had a re-committment ceremony and then we went carousing after the Black Mass, drunk on schnapps and the blood of the innocent.

L31mr0d

strobe wrote: »

I asked this before on T.O.F if you are interested in the responses.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055878319&highlight=bible+planet+earth

your desired user name

It could be some bedtime story that took on a life of its own

good vs evil

take away an o and add a d

god vs devil

eblistic

PDN wrote: »

ensure that I understand others' beliefs before criticising them.

Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

On the "begotten not made" can someone help me with how begetting something is so wildly different to making it? Isn't beget a synonym for "produce", usually? Or, literally, some kind of procreation procedure?

bnt

I have this vision in my head of the OP, A Christian thrown in to the Roman arena, expecting to be eaten ... but all the lions want is a good old scratch behind the ears. Squee! :pac:

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Only in the sense of being wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus was 'begotten not made' - so no creation there.

Still, never mind, it appears to be a matter of pride among many atheists to make inaccurate statements about what Christians believe and, when corrected, to say, "Well, it's all a load of codswallop anyway!"

You were quoting me weren't you

L31mr0d

eblistic wrote: »

Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

"If you ever properly understood Christianity then you'd still be a Christian. The fact you no longer believe it is proof that you never fully understood it."

I positively love this argument :mad:

PDN

eblistic wrote: »

Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

On the "begotten not made" can someone help me with how begetting something is so wildly different to making it? Isn't beget a synonym for "produce", usually? Or, literally, some kind of procreation procedure?

Actually the word translated 'begotten' can mean 'unique' or 'one and only' in Greek. However, somewhere in the switch between Greek and Latin that apparently got lost along the way. Therefore the RC Church came up with a doctrine whereby the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father - but never had a beginning since the 'begetting' is eternal. The Nicene Creed, which Robin referred to, included the phrase "begotten not created" (as does the Christmas Carol 'O Come All Ye Faithful), in order to combat the false teaching of the Arian heresy which denied the eternal nature and deity of Christ.

Well, you did ask!

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Actually the word translated 'begotten' can mean 'unique' or 'one and only' in Greek. However, somewhere in the switch between Greek and Latin that apparently got lost along the way.

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god

MagicMarker

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god

They'd love to but apparently God means ''homosexuals rock my world'' in greek or something, and they'd rather just not highlight that fact.

krudler

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god

Thats the beauty of that troublesome little book, the varying religions can interpret and reinterpret everything in it to suit themselves.

"no no, 7 days doesnt actually mean 7 days, day is taken from the greek to hebrew translation of a roman word based on a chinese symbol that was written on a cookie, so when we say god made the world in 7 days? we actually mean 14 billion years" :pac:

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world.

Not at all. The same is true of any book that has been translated into many languages over a long period of time. Of course it seems more so with the Bible due to it being more popular, and more widely translated, than any other book in human history.

Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god

Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. The same is true of any book that has been translated into many languages over a long period of time. Of course it seems more so with the Bible due to it being more popular, and more widely translated, than any other book in human history.


Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

God damn it PDN! We all got ourselves riled up and came here to tear down some theist arguments. Stop being right about things. Spoil sport.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

Oh right :P

I do like to read fantasy books but my preference is for the likes of Terry Pratchett

silent sage

I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Dades

Lads, can we leave the exegesis or whatever it is for someone who gives a crap. Let's face it do we might as well argue what Melville meant in Moby Dick.

The OP has enough to respond to without the clutter.

eblistic

Dades wrote: »

Lads, can we leave the exegesis or whatever it is for someone who gives a crap. Let's face it do we might as well argue what Melville meant in Moby Dick.

The OP has enough to respond to without the clutter.

Sorry. I had to ask.

sink

silent sage wrote: »

I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

"Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

I love this quote.

pH

use logic please wrote: »

<snip>

I like your argument, let me see if I got things right.

A) Everything must have a cause,
Nothing can be eternal

THEREFORE:

God exists and is both without cause and eternal because nothing can be.

Nemi

bnt wrote: »

The short answer to that: even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".

I think you put your finger on it here. David Hume made a similar point - and I've no doubt other people before and since. All philosophy can state about a first cause is that it was capable of creating what followed. It offers no proof of any god with a special interest or grá for humans, or even of a first cause capable of being aware that it had just created something.

Now, obviously lots of people claim knowledge of a god. But, wherever that knowledge comes from, its not philosophy.

raah!

pH wrote: »

I like your argument, let me see if I got things right.

A) Everything must have a cause,
Nothing can be eternal

THEREFORE:

God exists and is both without cause and eternal because nothing can be.

Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.

strobe

silent sage wrote: »

I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Thanks for posting that man. Could listen to the guy talk all day.

strobe

raah! wrote: »

Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.

All must have a cause.
None can be eternal.

Same (non)thing.

Paparazzo

PDN wrote: »

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

Whatever he's doing, do you reckon he's interested in us rattling off Our Fathers and not coveting our neighbours goods?

Liamario

If God exists, it clearly has better things to be doing than keeping an eye on planet earth.

raah!

strobe wrote: »

All must have a cause.
None can be eternal.

Same (non)thing.

It's not quite the same. It's much easier to accept that "all things have causes" than "all have causes", so the argument is easier to accept. The latter sentence makes slightly less sense (or even no sense). Anyway, I'm only clearing up misinterpretations of the fellows argument If I were to respond as a materialist, I would say "non-things don't exist".

strobe

raah! wrote: »

It's not quite the same. It's much easier to accept that "all things have causes" than "all have causes", so the argument is easier to accept. The latter sentence makes slightly less sense (or even no sense). Anyway, I'm only clearing up misinterpretations of the fellows argument If I were to respond as a materialist, I would say "non-things don't exist".

If I was to respond to that or your previous post or the post you responded to I would have an interest in word games. I don't, or do I, or do I not, but I did, or did I? Depends on what the meaning of "I" or "did" is? What is "is"? Far enough away from the topic for you? By "you", I mean raah! By "I", I mean me.

raah!

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

strobe

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

I wasn't "offended" by your understanding of the word.



Really I was just being facetious rahh!. Far too often one side seeks to drag the conversation away from it's intent for it's own reasons. I prefer to keep things relative and approximate to the actual discussion taking place. It's just a pet peeve of mine. I see it happen far too often to work on the presumption that it is constructive in nature. I think it is better when people focus on the ideas and points being discussed disregarding whether the language being used was intentional or not, or if it was relevant to the crux of the discussion. No offense meant.

If you really want to p1ss me off correct my spelling and grammar in this post and say Jimi Hendrix was over rated.

As an aside, the point you were attempting to make was addressed in the thread already several times.

raah!

I'll agree on you this much, I said "not a thing in the sense that things are things" in that way because I like how it rolls off the anus.

But it was also a legitimate criticism of peoples interpretation of the argument, which is running through this thread, and seen in the very first post. He Gives his reasons why certain things can self cause and others can't, and the first reply is "why can't [things which op just said can't self cause for his cited reasons] be first causes".

strobe

raah! wrote: »

I'll agree on you this much, I said "not a thing in the sense that things are things" in that way because I like how it rolls off the anus.

But it was also a legitimate criticism of peoples interpretation of the argument, which is running through this thread, and seen in the very first post. He Gives his reasons why certain things can self cause and others can't, and the first reply is "why can't [things which op just said can't self cause for his cited reasons] be first causes".

I agree with the point you were trying to make, just not in how you tried to make it. It's my own neurosis in that regard. I constantly see these things(conversations) devolve into word games. I think it ruins interesting discussions. Also like I said, it was addressed at other points in the thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

use logic please wrote: »

Where did everything in existence come from? It must have come from something.

We do not know this "must" is true at all I am afraid, it is wholly your assumption. The funny thing however is that you are almost realising this when you say:

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters

This is exactly the problem. Your imaginary "must" is based on linear time based thought. The entire basis for you thinking it "must" be this way is because you are thinking in temporal terms, which as you say is almost impossible for humans NOT to do.

However time itself was created when the universe took on its current form. So "before" this point your thinking does not apply and there is no such "must" as you describe it. The whole requirement for x1 to create x2 to create x3 simply does not apply at this point because the linear claim your problem is based on is temporal based and time was not an attribute at this point.

So if this is the only reason you have for thinking there is a god entity, you are on seriously weak footing from the outset.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

Well given you have not even attempted to establish the first iota of a reason to lend credence to the idea that the entity in question exists, it is hardly an onus on us to worry about what said entity did or did not do is it?

It makes about as much sense, really, as closing a door on an empty room, and then wondering what the tall man in that room likes for his breakfast of a Sunday morning.

Try presenting the first reason to even thing the entity exists, then we can start discussions about what its actions may or may not be.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time.

The problem being that his entire opening “argument” is linear time based. So what his “argument” has got to do with something he is postulating which is outside time… I do not know, nor is it becoming any clearer in proportion to the length of this thread.

If you want to postulate an imaginary entity existing outside time, then that is great. However the first thing to do is realise that temporal arguments and temporal logic simply do not apply to it, so using them is a little unusual.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well given you have not even attempted to establish the first iota of a reason to lend credence to the idea that the entity in question exists, it is hardly an onus on us to worry about what said entity did or did not do is it?

It makes about as much sense, really, as closing a door on an empty room, and then wondering what the tall man in that room likes for his breakfast of a Sunday morning.

Try presenting the first reason to even thing the entity exists, then we can start discussions about what its actions may or may not be.

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Max Power1

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

With regard to #2, "god did it", "he did it because he is omnipotent" and the ilk, are not politely and helpfully answering the question. They are blindly expressing one belief, without any logic or proof to back it up.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

Another generalisation? They appear to be your forte.

However, if you want to prove the generalisation true, I heartily recommend you focus on your point 4. You exiting this forum is not something I expect to see happen any time soon and I reckon you will be back sooner rather than later. So have fun proving your own generalisation wrong by single handedly destroying point 4.

pH

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

Well argument may well be too strong a word for the OP, it appears to start with some logic about things having causes, then halfway through God is defined as the creator of the universe, argument through axiom if you like.

A) God is the creator of the Universe.

Therefore

God is the creator of the universe.

Langerland

This is an age old argument and extremely interesting to both observe and participate in. To be a devout believer in God or an absolute atheist takes a huge amount of blind faith on both counts. To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap. Even at the cutting edge of theoretical physics, we are merely scratching the surface of our full understanding on the universe and beyond. Which means to a large extent can only hypothesize about the truth. To prove things either way from within the current confines of our understanding is practically impossible. Of course, as humans, we find this extremely frustrating (well at least I do) as we crave understanding. To those with the blind faith in both camps, I wish I could have your same confidence in your beliefs with my own limited intellect.