Theists, I want your best reasoning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So why not save a step Tomasia, and conclude that the universe doesn't have a "beginning"?

We could. In fact we don't have to call it the universe, just in case there are some who believe in another something that caused the universe that always existed, we'll just call in the first cause.

And rather than talking about God or the Universe, we can just talk about this. The beginning-less cause of everything else, the source of the music of the spheres.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 08:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Where did your God come from?

Why would God have to come from anywhere?

Why would the universe have to come from somewhere?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-12-2014, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2014 09:34 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:12 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So... just proposing a deity adds more complexity than it simplifies....

What I find it to be odd, that the question of God, since the advent of Dawkins has a particular framing problem, particularly when you imagine God as an addition, rather than a condition. This issue would not have arose with early unbelievers, who at least understood how to properly frame the question, to argue against God's existence in a meaningful way.

A meaningful discussion about God, is not a discussion about another being per se, but reality itself, whether it has a sense of moral direction, whether it's is nihilistic and meaningless, does it have a rhythm and tune. For me to talk of a God that is something other than a discussion of these sorts of things, is for me not to be talking about God at all, but rather some sort of demiurge that I never believed in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why would the universe have to come from somewhere?

It doesn't have to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 08:54 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ^Then from whence came god?

Your reasoning is self refuting.

Here's the thing, most atheists that I have come across who acknowledge that something can't come from nothing, will generally point to some first cause, a first something, that has always existed, that had no beginning that gave rise to everything else. I don't see anything wrong with this view, and doesn't appear to be unreasonable. And if I was an unbeliever I would likely accept something like this to be true.

I don't see why I would have to assume this first something, had no beginning, yet have to assume that God had a beginning.

So if atheists don't have to assume a beginning for a first cause, why would i have to?

Because (and Peebothuhul touched on this in a way that is probably more eloquent) the idea of a god is more than just the idea of some kind of initial incident for the universe. Off the top of my head the assumptions that are required for the GOA to exist are:

-A thing with all of these, extremely complex traits can come from nothing without rising from a set of simple conditions.
-That things can change without time.*
-Something immaterial can interact with the material world.*
-That an immaterial thing has a spacial relationship with the material world.*
-A mechanism exists through which the immaterial thing can interact with the material world in a way that violates casualty and relativity.
-An intelligence can exist without a brain.* (Or if you prefer; Immaterial things exist.)
-That this intelligence has attributable, humanlike characteristics.
-That intelligence can also create something from nothing using some mechanism.*
-The various physical laws as we understand them can be bypassed.
-Information is not interpretive.* (This applies to both the idea of moral absolutism and the idea that omniscience in some way implies objectivity.)

*Logical impossibility.

And it gets worse when you get down to the narrative surrounding the deity that rises from these assumptions:

That this potential deity has communicated with us, that its communications are in any way trustworthy when it describes itself, that its communications are accurate in any way when it's not talking about it's self and when it tells us things that we know aren't true, that only one of these intelligence exist when they can apparently rise without apparent cause, that this god decides to act in a certain way without apparent motive or consistent behavior, and c. and c. and c. and c.

Edit: Just saw the time. I need to get up in two hours. Morning everybody.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
04-12-2014, 09:37 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't see how something can come from nothing.

If true then:

Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore, nothing comes from nothing and everything comes from something.
Therefore, there cannot be a first anything because each thing (everything) had to have something before it from which it came.
Therefore, a god cannot be the first thing because nothing can be.

"Something cannot come from nothing" is not an argument in favor of a god as creator of everything else.

The usual cop out from this logic is "God always existed" so that's how he didn't have to come from nothing.

The problem with that cop out is it's also possible that it's the universe that always existed. We see the universe and know it exists. We don't see God. So, if something always existed, my money is on the universe.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
04-12-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 09:12 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So... just proposing a deity adds more complexity than it simplifies....

What I find it to be odd, that the question of God, since the advent of Dawkins has a particular framing problem, particularly when you imagine God as an addition, rather than a condition. This issue would not have arose with early unbelievers, who at least understood how to properly frame the question, to argue against God's existence in a meaningful way.

A meaningful discussion about God, is not a discussion about another being per se, but reality itself, whether it has a sense of moral direction, whether it's is nihilistic and meaningless, does it have a rhythm and tune. For me to talk of a God that is something other than a discussion of these sorts of things, is for me not to be talking about God at all, but rather some sort of demiurge that I never believed in the first place.

The most meaningful way to argue for or against the existence of anything is with evidence.
Claiming that god is everything does not exclude you from the burden of proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
04-12-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't see how something can come from nothing.

Something doesn't come from something either. The thing just takes on a different form.

Matter is condensed from energy. Matter can be converted back into energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 09:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  A meaningful discussion about God, is not a discussion about another being per se, but reality itself, whether it has a sense of moral direction, whether it's is nihilistic and meaningless, does it have a rhythm and tune. For me to talk of a God that is something other than a discussion of these sorts of things, is for me not to be talking about God at all, but rather some sort of demiurge that I never believed in the first place.

And therein lies the difference. “Reality” doesn’t have goals. You and me as people can create goals and use our evolved intellect to apply to our daily lives what are called morals. Inanimate things, whether a grain of sand or the known universe, don’t have an opinion or a reason for being or a preconcieved direction.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
04-12-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
Impulse said what I was going to say, but in a much smarter way. Sad

My way:

You suppose the eternal something we cannot see (God).

But not the thing we can see (universe).

Oooooooo tay!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: