Defending the Truth

Katczinsky · 08-23-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Kat.. God, simply by being God would need no cause.

The buck has to stop somewhere.

It's really not any more complicated than that, IMO.

Exactly; you are guilty of the same complications that you suggest atheists pose (that is, "just because").

1. Something is that which exists.
2. Nothing is that which does not exist.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.
4. God exists, therefore he is something (by definition of 1).
4.1 As something, God cannot come from nothing (by 3).
4.1.0.1 God must therefore come from something.
5. That something, as something, must come from something (by 3 again).
5.1 So on, ad infinitum.

Unless, of course, you suggest that God exists "just because".

If something can exist, on its own, inherently, "just because", why the unnecessary step of God not just the universe?

Katczinsky · 08-23-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Well, since there can't be an endless regression of causes...

You said that I suggested mechanisms, not reality as all of existence as a totality, was self-causing. And in terms of the latter, please do not suggest that God is less guilty of the problem of infinite regression. Actually it is moreso, since I never suggested I know whether there to be an ultimate cause.

Quote:

I think you just answered your own question.

What question?

mytmouse57 · 08-23-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Exactly; you are guilty of the same complications that you suggest atheists pose (that is, "just because").

1. Something is that which exists.
2. Nothing is that which does not exist.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.
4. God exists, therefore he is something (by definition of 1).
4.1 As something, God cannot come from nothing (by 3).
That's assuming God had a begining.
4.1.0.1 God must therefore come from something.
Again, assuming God would need a begining.
5. That something, as something, must come from something (by 3 again).
5.1 So on, ad infinitum.

Unless, of course, you suggest that God exists "just because".

No, I'm suggesting the existance of that which is finite and dependant suggest/points to the existance of something that is infinite and utterly independant. Just as ignorance is evidence of knowledge. And weakness is evidence of strenght.. and so on..
It's the same old thing, assuming the maker would be bound by that which limits the made.

If something can exist, on its own, inherently, "just because", why the unnecessary step of God not just the universe?

Because the universe exists in a state of dependance, in other words, it's compelled, by natural law, to do what it does. Take the simple example of water. If flows. Without will or intelligence.. it simply flows because that's what it is compelled to do.

Katczinsky · 08-23-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

That's assuming God had a begining

That assumption has already taken place by the theory of theism (something can't come from nothing, or, as a movement [something, creation] there needs to be a cause of this movement), and you also seem to be assuming that the universe (as in all of existence/space-time) is finite.

Quote:

No, I'm suggesting the existance of that which is finite and dependant suggest/points to the existance of something that is infinite and utterly independant.

First of all, how can something that is utterly independent interact? Complete inherent existence suggests...well...complete inherent existence. It's absurd to suggest something completely independent is connected with other phenomena let alone create other phenomena.

Second, the assumption that our reality is finite is a large one. And dependent upon what? How could there possibly be objective evidence of reality being dependent upon another, seeing as such an existence would be *literally* outside our existence?

Quote:

Just as ignorance is evidence of knowledge. And weakness is evidence of strenght.. and so on..
It's the same old thing, assuming the maker would be bound by that which limits the made.

Then by this logic, existence would be evidence of non-existence.

Quote:

Because the universe exists in a state of dependance, in other words, it's compelled, by natural law, to do what it does. Take the simple example of water. If flows. Without will or intelligence.. it simply flows because that's what it is compelled to do.

This thinking primarily comes from our subjective experience (that is, our limited data and 3-dimensional thinking). Just because there are physical laws in this universe doesn't necessarily they're directed by an invisible hand, or intelligence.

And by this logic, you're assuming that motion is dependent upon outside intelligent direction. This age-old theory of the god of the weather, the god of the sun, etc.,etc. simply falls upon itself. The act of creation (and outside direction) is itself a motion, and therefore according to its own logic would dictate that such a motion demands dependence (or, simply, a cause of a cause; a God of God) and of course that is subject to infinite regression as pointed out earlier. Unless of course you want to say that God exists "just because".

mytmouse57 · 08-23-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

That assumption has already taken place by the theory of theism (something can't come from nothing, or, as a movement [something, creation] there needs to be a cause of this movement), and you also seem to be assuming that the universe (as in all of existence/space-time) is finite.

Nope. I think it is infinite.. in both time and space. (In other words, existance also had no begining.) Plus, I don't think linear "time" really exists outside our perception of it.

First of all, how can something that is utterly independent interact? Complete inherent existence suggests...well...complete inherent existence. It's absurd to suggest something completely independent is connected with other phenomena let alone create other phenomena.

You're assuming a direct connection. Creation isn't "connected" to God. It eumulates (sp?) from God. Like words from a writer... or speech from a speaker. God doesn't literally "put" himself into creation. This is why I say Jesus would be God manifest.. not incarnate. Like a mirror pointed toward the sun. The sun and its various attributes (light, heat) "appear" in the mirror. But that does not mean the sun is literally IN the mirror. Hence, God "appears" in creation. And "appeared" to Humanity in the personage of Christ Jesus.

Second, the assumption that our reality is finite is a large one. And dependent upon what? How could there possibly be objective evidence of reality being dependent upon another, seeing as such an existence would be *literally* outside our existence?

I don't think reality is finite. It's make up of parts that are finite. Like our bodies, for instance.

Then by this logic, existence would be evidence of non-existence.

Not really. Weakness and strength are both known to exist, and they are evidence of one another.

This thinking primarily comes from our subjective experience (that is, our limited data and 3-dimensional thinking). Just because there are physical laws in this universe doesn't necessarily they're directed by an invisible hand, or intelligence.

No, but it's pretty damned powerful circumstantial evidence. Unless you're suggesting the laws pulled themselves out of their own arse.

And by this logic, you're assuming that motion is dependent upon outside intelligent direction. This age-old theory of the god of the weather, the god of the sun, etc.,etc. simply falls upon itself. The act of creation (and outside direction) is itself a motion, and therefore according to its own logic would dictate that such a motion demands dependence (or, simply, a cause of a cause; a God of God) and of course that is subject to infinite regression as pointed out earlier. Unless of course you want to say that God exists "just because".

What other option are you left with then? And ultimate non-cause? Doesn't it make more sense that the buck stops somewhere.. so to speak. An ultimate, uncaused-cause? It certianly seems so to me. And it also seems reasonable to assume such a thing or being would be utterly beyond our understanding. Therefore to say it can't exist because it defies our logic seems rather daft, IMO. Sort of like a rock trying to deny my existance because it woud not "compute" with rock logic.

The old "gods" are just names/personifications given to the attribute's of the creator's power.. which we now understand as the laws of existance.
Hense, the problem with personifying God(s).

Gadgetory · 08-23-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

I don't have an "image" of God. My faith clearly teaches me that as soon as I do that, I'm worshiping my own imagination. I think beyond a reasonable doubt that something exists, and "God" is just one word out of thousands we use to invoke that said something/some being.

I embraced the Baha'i Faith because after years of being a Christian, then being an agnostic/atheist ... not at all unlike yourself... then taking a look at many of the various religions, it was the first and only religion/system of thought that made total sense TO ME.

Your results may vary. You have to do what's right for you.

I am sorry you believing there is something doesn't make there actually be a God other then the one created by your belief there is one..again you created God to suit yourself...

I am neither an agnotic nor atheist..I am a realist.. I am not saying you shouldn't do whats right for you

Amazing how many different Gods there are..you'd think something as amazing as God could teach us who and or what s/he is without us having to develop different versions of God via religion ..

Gadgetory · 08-23-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

What other option are you left with then? And ultimate non-cause? Doesn't it make more sense that the buck stops somewhere.. so to speak. An ultimate, uncaused-cause? It certianly seems so to me. And it also seems reasonable to assume such a thing or being would be utterly beyond our understanding. Therefore to say it can't exist because it defies our logic seems rather daft, IMO. Sort of like a rock trying to deny my existance because it woud not "compute" with rock logic.

The old "gods" are just names/personifications given to the attribute's of the creator's power.. which we now understand as the laws of existance.
Hense, the problem with personifying God(s).

Its really convienient that you claim he is beyond our understanding..ansd you miss the point at one point in time God was logical, he made perfect logical sense to explain the world around us..he simply doesn't anymore

But when the people had the old Gods they thought the old gods were the actual God too...God changes to suit society hence human society create God not the other way around

fxashun · 08-23-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetory

I am sorry you believing there is something doesn't make there actually be a God other then the one created by your belief there is one..again you created God to suit yourself...

I am neither an agnotic nor atheist..I am a realist.. I am not saying you shouldn't do whats right for you

Amazing how many different Gods there are..you'd think something as amazing as God could teach us who and or what s/he is without us having to develop different versions of God via religion ..

Actually I can agree with you there. I consider myself a "realist" too. But even I don't think we are here just by some random happenstance. I'm even willing to buy the "we were brought here by a "master race" stories that have been floated. I don't know one way or the other. But I do seem to lean more toward the "creator" side of the religion scale. I just don't subscribe to any of the religions that we have to choose from.

mytmouse57 · 08-24-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetory

I am sorry you believing there is something doesn't make there actually be a God other then the one created by your belief there is one..again you created God to suit yourself...

How nice of you to patronize me. Again, no offense, but dude you come across just like an evangelical fundamentalist in that regard.

I am neither an agnotic nor atheist..I am a realist.. I am not saying you shouldn't do whats right for you.

But you do seem to be saying you have a monopoly on the truth. Good luck with that.

Amazing how many different Gods there are..you'd think something as amazing as God could teach us who and or what s/he is without us having to develop different versions of God via religion ..

There are many different CONCEPTS of what our Creator is, might be. They are as all true as they are false, IMO. The "different versions" have come about as a result of differences in culture and perspecive. Life would suck if everybody thought exactly the same thing, now wouldn't it?

mytmouse57 · 08-24-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetory

Its really convienient that you claim he is beyond our understanding..ansd you miss the point at one point in time God was logical, he made perfect logical sense to explain the world around us..he simply doesn't anymore.

"The big pissed off dude in the sky" doesn't make sense anymore. Never really did. And I think mystics and sages -- as well as rank and file faithful -- have gotten that all along. You're attacking a strawman based on the most ridiculous elements of religion that have been foisted at times by the ignorant or those in power who had a vested interest in keeping others ignorant. But the idea that God is too far removed from our understanding to personify is hardly new... nor is it at all unreasonable. It makes perfect sense, as a matter of fact.

But when the people had the old Gods they thought the old gods were the actual God too...God changes to suit society hence human society create God not the other way around

That might hold water if figures such as Jesus and Muhammed (to name just a couple) hadn't had such a profound effect on human society and history. Again, if they just made a bunch of crap up... then they did one hell of an amazing job.
Peoples' concept of God changes with their ability -- as individuals and collectively -- to grasp and understand things and the natrue of the world/universe around them.
Again, this makes perfect sense.. you don't hand a physics book to a second grader.. and you don't hand a coloring book and crayons to a graduate student.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode