@mistara31415 They, don't have to be relative... but without God, they are. " On the other hand a moral doctor might make you suffer in a treatment to prevent greater future suffering." Hitler thought that he was doing that in comparison to the Human race. He was set on advancing the human race by eugenics. Societies do have universal axioms, but they are still subjective (if No God exists). The universal idea is not an old one. The zodiac indicates we are now entering the age of Aquarius.
@mistara31415 I will say this: Those principles are relative IF there is no ultimate basis for what is moral (God). Hitler's basis for morality maybe different from mine and who is to decide what is right for Hitler, but Hitler. Society? Not ultimately. Also, reality is without contradiction given the context of the individual. For example, motion. It is relative to the object, especially if one were to relate motion to different dimensions. You can't fully see a 3-d sphere in 2-d.
@mistara31415 Alright, one more... In short, so many things that I can't even list them all, but they all have roots in truth. Here are a few to list: fulfillment of prophecy, The resurrection case, no doctrinal error, existence of spiritual consciousness, origins, it explains the existence of intelligence i.e. mathematic law, DNA, constants, etc...it answers all of the Big* questions that alternative views can't; I see that the evidence agrees with it & I could give you so many more reasons...
Good luck with that... especially without God. For more information about the flood and the effects it had, you should take a look into the Creationist Catastophism seminar of Professor/Dr. Professor Walter J. Veith who was formally an Macroevolutionary professor for many years before becoming a Christian. I know He taught zoology and wrote many books, but if you want you can do some more reasearch on Him. I hope I was able to help you with your ?s in the midst of all the comments.
@mistara31415 What is wrong with the flood story? I have studied much about it and at first I didn't see that it made much sense as far as the ark holding all the animals and the Geologogical impact of the flood upon the earth- even the Historical record (in reference mesopotamian origins) didn't seem to agree, but I found otherwise. As far as your question, you must believe in Objective morality, rather than moral relativism so there would seem to be a basis for all morals. cont....
@mistara31415 pt.2 ....Your ? is "Does God do moral actions, because moral actions are moral, OR are moral actions moral because God does them?" If one were to put God into a category of morality, He would be the basis b/c morals came from Him. He transcends the laws He set into play, but He's held to the standards He set for Himself. Sometimes we may not understand what He does, because He trandscends our knowledge, but that doesn't mean He is unjust or immoral because we may not understand.
Like I said, having a Biblical/doctrinal knowledge of God's sovereighnty is crucial. Hopefully you were able to understand what I was attempting to relate to you in text. I recommend searching for some more credible sources, but I know it is difficult because some appear to be Biblical in what they say, but really aren't like Mormons, true Catholics, and muslims. If they do not use the Bible and use it to explain itself, they most likely are false teachers. Misconceptions aren't contradictions.
@mistara31415 ever heard of the flood (Most likely the Biggest factor)? Ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or "the frog principle" hehe? When man sinned, creation started to fail; the flood could have increased the speed of the earth's destruction. The Bible says that God will make a new earth uncursed by sin that will never "wax old" as the Bible says.
@mistara31415 Already answered your question twice man. The fall of creation and man's sin is ultimately Why can't we have free will without suffering, because man is sinful in nature. God hasn't dstroyed evil yet, that is another reason. The reason that evil exists. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) is another reason. Reason that babies suffer is for they are out of the sin of their beholders. We are all born corrupted by sin although we may not have sinned.
@xTheUnknownTruthx I meant to put why we as in all humans can't have free will with suffering at the moment, but doesn't matter. Evil is why we have death suffering etc....it is a product of misued free will.
@mistara31415 I answered your question twice already. It seems that nothing I type is sinking in whatsoever. "How could a loving God create the moving plates, which kill thousands in earth quakes?" -Result of the fall of man. Man's initial sin caused the fall of creation. God is both mortal and Immortal. As far as morality, morality is a result from God. So what He does with what is His is within His sovereighnty.
@mistara31415 What? Do you suppose that your rigteousness is greater than that of God? Even David saw the Total Righteousness of God. You should know that, since you read the Bible front to back. He was called "the man after God's own Heart." Humans initially did have free will without suffering. The teachings from Christ about alleveating suffering are in some parts reference to healings on earth, but the other is about Him carrying the burden of Man's total sin to the cross. Remember the...
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 2 ...verse is matthew 11 where Jesus said, Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Jesus did heal people, but the reason He came to the earth was to be a pure sacrifice so that we may have a gift of salvation through Him. Now for the answer to your question. He wanted us to have...
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 3 ...the ability to love Him by choice. The only way to accomplish this was free will. He didn't want to have to force people to love Him. God is Holy. Man was once pure in God's eyes, but now we bare the curse that came from Sin/dissobedience. We are under the accountability of our own faults and the consequences can be felt through the generations. Our own actions add to it. God is the most High and perfect Judge....
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 4 ...God loved us enough to send Christ (God's Son, also one of three entities that make God. He is also God.*) as a sacrifice for us (you, me, & all). Picture this: (If Saved) You are at Judgment after death in a court. You are being judged based on God's standard of perfection, and you are guilty...then Christ stands up and and takes the judgment of yours upon Himself so that you may have eternal in God's kingdom. That's love. John talks all about God's Love for man.
@mistara31415 You've read the Bible front to back so you say....You remeber where it says in exodus for those who disobey/hate God, the 4th to 5th generations could pay? Punishment is not at all the only reason as I have stated. Based on what you shared in your comment, it looks as if you haven't thought about anything I've typed thus far. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Sometimes people don't want to accept reality, but reality is reality whether you like it or not. The fall happened.
@mistara31415 I asked the abortion question, so you could go back and see that the reason why God hasn't ultimately stopped people from doing them Yet. God doesn't go off of our time, but His. I could say that the sun will never burn out, but that doesn't mean it will never burn out just because the Sun hasn't went out on the time I gave to burn out. Also, it seems you are still confused on what actually constitues the omni-s based on Biblical doctrine..+ I already answered your 1st premise..?s?
@mistara31415 Being raised in Christian fundamentalism, & becoming a Christian by choice isn't the same. Some times Jesus Camp type people use ungrounded religion to control masses (like the apostate Catholic church, whose origins R against Christ's teachings anyways, but that's another topic). People don't need religion for salvation, but rather a relationship w/ Christ. The religion of Christianity comes after the fact or at least it should. Sometimes people think they R Christians, but aren't
@mistara31415 Sometimes, the child pays for the sins of the father/mother. That doesn't mean that the child did anything to deserve it? The child will not get punished for anything out of accountability (whether they know right from wrong). God is the all righteous judge. Why doesn't God stop abortions? It is what it is. Just as accidents happen, when something is set into motion like the fall- corruption will not be destroyed until the birth pains are over.
@mistara31415 Not really, the correct context is needed for understanding. The disobedience that came from a misuse of free will is what led to the fall of creation. The suffering that you are referring too is mostly result due to gratuitous evil as a result of the fall. the other part is either due to punishment by God or used by Him to Promote something else within what would be His plan (prophecy, protection of His people, etc..); Gratuitous evil was not the intended plan but contrary to it.
@xTheUnknownTruthx I should probably explain what gratuitous evil is, but you ask me or Google it if you do not understand. Do you want to move on why I said that you have a misunderstanding of the "omni-s" (based on Biblical doctrine) when referring to God?
@xTheUnknownTruthx I understand that many people (like that of my brother-in-law) who have these questions just haven't been exposed to Biblical doctrine and Christian Theological teaching. He doesn't believe in God. I understand why he doesn't for the reason that everything he has been exposed too over the years has shown him that a God doesn't need to exist, therefore He doesn't. That is just a result of a foundation built off of an un-submissive paradigm. Truth isn't a flavor of ice cream.
@mistara31415 It Does make a difference. Would you agree that most, if not all people, have the potential to kill another human? That doesn't make them a murderer, although they have the potential to be one. It is a far cry from it. God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him. If He had not allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own will.
@mistara31415 Your running on a slipperry slope here. One topic at a time man. Steamrolling me is not going to help you get the answers that you are looking for. That is not going one step at a time. Now, lets start with the presumption of what you say are the limits of God. This is where a knowledge of God's sovereignty/nature is critical to understand the big picture. God is limited based on the limits that He has set for himself and that is it. God created potential for evil, but not evil.
@mistara31415 We have to take this one topic at at time, because almost every time I do this the subject tends to be changed by the counter party...anyways...
God's sovereignty (His right to do what He wants with what is His; His self induced limits) is only part of it, but His Sovereignty on the basis of sin (i.e. suffering, corruption, etc.) is that He allowed/allows it to exist in the universe for now at least...you must be confused about what the omni's mean in relation to God's sovereignty.
@xTheUnknownTruthx I am going to answer your question based on what I think you are asking. Why does God allow most suffering, why now? It would be an interference to "free choice" if God were to interfere with the consequences of individual and collective choices. God hasn't rid the earth of suffering yet, but will. We deserve suffering as a result of consequence. God uses suffering sometimes. so on, so on....Any questions?
@xTheUnknownTruthx There is alot of information on this topic, and answers to you questions in the Bible....but it seems that you don't want a Biblical tossup, or at least that is not the interest of most of the individuals that I encounter. If you want more information, let me know. Thanks.
@mistara31415 Have you looked for them, honestly? You have to take into account His sovereignty to see the logic that is there, but you are missing it. You say the fall of man "story" is problematic..? Things can seem that way, if you don't possess the knowledge necessary to piece together the information correctly...like solving Algebraic equations. I have asked the ancestor question before too, but the answer is there. If you really want to know, we can go one step/question at a time.
@mistara31415 Yes it does! We aren't on your time clock, but God's. God hasn't abolished sin, and suffering in this fallen world YET, but you probably have read the passages to know that...I have already seen all these arguments like that of why God will not heal an amputee....Here you don't seem to be taking into account God's Sovereignty either...I don't see why some choose not to open their mind to both sides of the spectrum, especially with topics like this.
Stating that you are ussing a clasical definition of what the theistic god s atributes are does not negate the nesesity to show that these atributes are consistent. You said earlier that if this god did not conform to these conditions then said god would conflict with the knowen laws of the universe but placing this god outside of the universe as a statement of existence conflicts with those same laws because it conflicts with the known laws of existence as a sub set of the laws of the universe.
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? No, it isn't. But then again absence of evidence for a horse that can run on water is not evidence of its absence, either. Yet, I'm in no more hurry to prostrate myself before a crucifix in avoidance of hell than I am to start looking for a waterproof saddle. Science examines things that are evident and of clear consequence to the world. We can argue what might exist all day, it doesn't get us anywhere.
If premise 1 is the definition of natural, then premise 2 cannot be true, for how is it logically necessary that all things are governed by a deterministic set of laws? Imagine a world where only thought exists and there is no matter whatsoever, or a world where the laws of physics change periodically, or where no laws exist and there is only chaos.
To clarify: my objection is not so much with atheism as it is with metaphysical naturalism, or its sibling, causal closure.
That 3 point argument seems to me to be pure sophistry, as the two premises use different definitions of "natural" in an attempt to simply define supernatural (or immaterial) causation out of existence.
Mistara, thank you for bring up the contradictory attributes objection towards theism. Could you please raise the two objections that you mentioned (i.e. Fatalistic argument, argument from evil) in video form ... however simplistic, it could be a 30 sec text video, when Veritas, dawahfilms and myself ask for psitive arguments? I'd let you know when? That way I could address some of them. Let me know.
@telemantros I really don't see how this is worthy of a video response. This argment has been hashed out time and time again, and I always hear the same response: it's part of god's plan. What plan? To say that god has a plan is to denote that he is striving for an end that is for now out of his reach. Isn't he supposed to be the alpha and the omega? All is present with him? Nothing is beyond his power?
Haha! yeah. What religion am I? How do I answer this? I follow the halacha Modern Orthodox Judaism (I don't wear the kippah when I'm acting), yet my theology is closer to some sort of Evangelicalism, even though I don't believe in original sin. So maybe I'm some sort of Messianic Jew, or maybe just a theistic freethinker.
However, my beliefs in God and in Old Earth Creationism are held independently of any scriptural evidence, and I would believe both even if I lost faith in the Bible.
Thanks. Are you open to the possibility of the existence of supernatural agents such as God? Or put another way, do you believe that every single effect in the material world has material and only material causes? If so, why?
Say we grant that a personal God must exist, as broadly defined as creator and source of objective moral standards. Yet we reject the Bible and Koran as valid sources of information regarding this God and posit that though a God must exist, "He" has yet to reveal "Himself".
Would this be a theist position? Theist in waiting?
Interesting question. It really depends on the involvement of said God. The personal attribute typically is a main distinguisher between deism and theism. So to answer your question, it really depends ... if the God has not revealed himself at all then this sounds more like a deistic God.
Many of the arguments used by Christian and Muslim apologists to lay the ground for the existence of a personal God are general enough that they could apply to all three monotheistic religions, a creator that takes an active interest in His creation, a maximally good being, and so forth. So say we grant these arguments which are used to support a personal God over a deistic one as logically necessary. Does it then follow that we must choose...(con't)
...from texts that have been written claiming knowledge of this being or is it possible that this being, much like that described in the three monotheisms but differing in certain as of yet unknown details, has yet to reveal himself. All previous attempts to describe him having been jumping the gun, intuiting that such a being must exist but not given actual revelation?
When you mention the arguments for a 'personal' God do you have some specific ones in mind (e.g. Kalam, Historical)? You see, without knowing which arguments you have in mind, I think it would follow that you would need to consult historical arguments before you move to an unrevealed 'personal' God for the simple fact that there is a lot of dissension around Jesus of Nazareth.
If we were to assume that God has not yet revealed, we would need to address that topic first.
One example would go along the lines: there are objective moral laws therefore there must be an objective moral law giver. This I think, implies a being that does more than a Deistic God, if we accept the argument it gives us some positive attribute, some indication of this being's nature. Yet though such a being is described in the Bible, does it follow that the Bible is accurate in it's account? Would you see it as illogical to say "I accept that there must be an objective law giver (con't)
...but I do not accept any text claiming knowledge of this being as having been divinely inspired or the product of revelation. Therefore, God has yet to reveal himself.
There are theists who argue this way, I believe Leibniz was close to such a position ... I'm pretty sure he refused the inspiration of the Torah (he was Jewish). But Leibniz still held to some form of Judaism although his position has been coined Leibnizian rationalism.
I personally would say that you can't move to a 'theist in waiting' position until you adequately address the historical arguments of Jesus' resurrection in context with his divine claims. Otherwise you have an argument against.
What's the problem here? You believe that the laws of mathematics exist necessarily and didn't come into existence. What's the problem with believing that about God?
You're right. We don't know everything. How is this justification for presupposing that the natural world is all that is, or that the universe is a closed system under physics?
That's my ultimate question. Naturalism is a claim to know something, how does that not bear a burden of proof?
As I stated, the definition of supernatural does not preclude the ability to stand in causal relation with the natural world. Where, exactly, is the contradiction?
What supernaturalist would accept such a definition of supernatural? I sure don't.
I'd define the supernatural as "that which was not produced at the big bang, and is not made of quarks/strings/whatever the physical world is made of. An unembodied mind could be an example of that. How is it logically impossible for such a thing to act on matter?
I was using the math argument merely to show that some things are self-existent. You seem to believe that at least math is, what is so incoherent about saying that God is?
How does the double slit experiment violate the laws of logic? It merely shows that light has properties of particles, and properties of waves. It doesn't seem like an explicit contradiction. Perhaps it's a third category.
Finally, if "logic" as we perceive it is not universal, is that statement universally true?
I would then respond with "where do the laws of logic come from?" Or I could ask about other abstract objects such as numbers. Are they not self-existent?
Or to answer the question of "where did God come from" I would answer just be rewording the question. "What caused the first, (therefore by definition, uncaused) cause?"
Or to restate my original question, why think it logically impossible that something supernatural could interact with something natural?
Not sure what you mean by 'stronger,' do you mean more tenable? The main distinguishing feature would be that theism holds to a God who is involved and personal vs. a static God. From my specific theistic view (Christianity), I would hold that God was involved through the man of Jesus for instance.
What is the purpose of Point 3 in this video? If the atheist fails to meet the requirements in Point 3, he still falls back to the default position of non-belief everyone is born with (including theists). Only after theists meet their burden in Point 5 will the person move from his default position; failure to meet Point 3 is insufficient.
Point 3 would be necessary only for people that are BORN with a default, innate belief in some concept of God (which is practically impossible)
Babies don't have a concept of anything. How is not having a concept of anything a "default position" that is also the same as a rational rejection of a claim?
I never said we are born atheists. As I said in your video, I believe it is ridiculous to think that rocks or babies are atheists. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the [contemplated] *position* that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Babies are born WITHOUT belief or knowledge of God. Atheists simply never move from this default position because they've been given no justification to do so.
The argument from non-belief is a positive argument showing that in the case of God (a being who most strongly desires people believe in him) the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Its an interesting epistomological question, of great relevance to a deistic god, as to weather absence of evidence is evidence of absence though.
Hehe, this type of response was so predictable. RobTheMonk8 already said he's agnostic towards any definition of God that is not expected to leave evidence. So what do you do? In Premise 3 you say that it's the atheist's burden to prove the God you're proposing is expected to leave evidence. This entire debate is futile if you play the game like this, just as I stated in Veritas' "Moving Along" video. You're never going to sway an atheist with this line of reasoning (assuming that's your goal).
i agree and i thought that this would be a more honest debate on the proof of each of these peoples god. not just some vague plausible deist god with the space that reads place your gods name here.
the easiest way to prove there god would be to show how the supernatural is or has entered the world at some point in time. like the zombies that rise from the dead when jesus dies if we had tons of things in history outside the bible say things like this it wouldn't be total proof it happened.
but we would entertain the idea if we also had faith healers also healing people with just a touch and some prayer.
i find it hard to believe that these people dont just do what jesus said when 2 or more come together god hears and answers your prayers jesus also said anything you ask for in his name he will grant. or just have the faith of the mustard seed and move a mountain.
atheist would be hard pressed to deny there god if any of this stuff was true. so far it is epic fail on all points.
also, if "God" has the mental capacity of a human, then something would have had to create him. the only way he could have avoided being created is if he existed out of time (every finite thing has a beginning--every being existing w/in our dimension of time is finite--infinite beings are more intelligent than finite beings due to length and capacity of existence).
It is my tentative belief that pretty soon, science and tech will reach their limits.
again the more logical thought is their is nothing outside of time. i.e. no god exists. you see there is no reason to think there is a god to start with. if there is some timeless matter less being this being would be unknowable to use so foreign to use are minds couldn't even register them as being alive as we understand life. it surely wouldn't have wants and needs like humans. if god is timeless why create the universe at one point or another as time is not something that exist to him.
*sarcasm* oh yah because it isn't at all possible that there could ever be ANYTHING beyond human understanding, I mean we're just so dang smart.
actually, you are kinda right. human logic ends at the point that it reaches something beyond its comprehension. however it stands to reason that there is something beyond human comprehension for example, the beginning of the finite universe. if time is a limitless line moving in both directions, how could our universe start?
so this deist god you speak of is nothing like the god of the bible or koran. as this god has wants and desires and act like humans he want worship. he demands it or else burn forever. he is said to interact all the time with humans.
but he also is everywhere at once but the bible also says he is not where evil is. in job god asks satan where he was why ask he should know. then satan temps god and god says no but then say ok and hands job over. Christians say he was testing job.
but why would he test any one of his creations as he knows there heart and mind. contradictions like this about god and his nature make no sense to atheist.
as a theist i believed all this stuff and just took it at face value and said who am i to question. until i did and said im a human with my own mind and this doesn't make sense. if there is a god he made me like this one who questions things and he shouldn't fault me for this. if he does he cant be all loving like they say.
say you construct a series of interconnecting tubes that leads to some ending point like a maze. say you put a rat into the entrance and track its progress. say it comes to a fork in the pipe. you know it will either go left, or right and you can see its path thru either direction so in effect you know how it is going to go thru, no matter what. does the rat still have a choice or did you force it to go thru the tube it chooses next.
God had faith in Job, that he would do the right thing.
no a being out side time would see the whole history of the universe from its start to finish in one snap shot. so he wouldn't just know all ways the rat could go but would know which way the rat actually took because he sees the rats whole life in one snap shot. i can send the argument for this it is much to long for me to put up here. but it will show you the problem.
why would a god need faith? faith is only for those who dont have all the information and must just believe.
that would be true, if existing outside of time has the same properties as existing in time. the problem w/ arguing about this is we might as well be arguing about what the fourth dimension is. we're like two blind people trying to describe sight, you don't believe it exists and I do it's just that since I've never experienced it before so I can't describe it. and even if I did you wouldn't understand anyway.
vickmackey, If you listen closely I actually stated that the atheist needs to demonstrate the two criteria hold (in point 3) and also that the theist must demonstrate that they don't (point 5). Did you miss that? I'm not arguing that atheism should be the one offering exclusive arguments, I stated that both should.
Oh believe me, I did listen closely. I've already summarized your argument in your previous video and given you counter-examples clearly demonstrating the flaws in your rationale.
But anyway, here's my point. You're the one providing the definition of God here, in this case, a deistic one. Your Point #3 implies that you DO NOT expect this God to leave evidence, which of course is your prerogative. But, this necessarily FORCES RobTheMonk8 into a position of agnosticism, as he already stated.
why dont they just fight for there god truth value. why all this round about crap i find the debates fun but really they dont make the point they want to make and that is there god is real.
if your a christian say im a christian my god is real here are the logical arguments for him.we can only refute them or accept them.
I am defending a theistic God vick, the attribute of personal is not a quality of the deistic God and I clearly stated such a property. In addition, I gave three types of evidence I would expect this God to leave behind (not exhaustive) so I was not defending the view that he would leave no evidence behind.
4. Personal experience (hearsay- insufficient to justify belief in God by others)
THESE are the things you need to focus on and defend as being *valid* and *sufficient* to justify movement from the default position of non-belief to belief in God. The rest of the video is just intellectual masturbation.
Each of those arguments of "evidence" can (and have) been refuted thousands of times in multiple ways; I won't bother going into it here. But I do want to reiterate that a mountain of (weak) evidence is useless until it meets the minimum standard evidence that justifies movement from the DEFAULT position of non-belief to positive belief in God. The burden is yours to convince the atheist that your standard of evidence is sufficient to justify belief in God and that the evidence meets that burden
Right and wrong is irrelevant here, only that which justifies BELIEF. Naturally, standards of evidence will almost always vary from person to person for different claims. The weaker your evidence is, the fewer [rational] people you'll convince. It's that simple. And so far, all the things telemantros has suggested are evidence for God have been either unsubstantiated, proven to be invalid, or proven to be insufficient to rationally justify belief in the *extraordinary* claim of God.
No amount of word play or philosophical mumbo jumbo and magic tricks will allow you to escape the reality of what I just said.
For example, suppose I tell you I was abducted by aliens; this counts as "weak evidence." Is that sufficient for you to believe (or LEAN towards belief) in alien abductions, since you lack any evidence that proves it isn't possible? Clearly not, since this would be a rather extraordinary claim where hearsay is insufficient to rationally justify belief.
Can you please read the four points I just presented to telemantros, and tell me which of them you disagree with? The natural conclusion of those premises is that theists shoulder the full burden of proof, since they're the ones making the claim. Please tell me where the logic is flawed.
"(2) False, because you are confusing the lack of conception with the rejection of a claim."
I'm referring to "negative atheism" here.
Looking forward to your video explanation for your rejection of premise 3.
"(4) False. Please provide evidence that this statement is true."
Easy, I'll do it with an example:
I saw Big Foot. This qualifies as weak, hearsay evidence. Should you now believe, or lean towards belief, in Big Foot? If not, why not? Answer: standard of evidence not met.
I don't know why I talk with such ignorant people who make such statements...you've just shown why it's pointless to continue dialogue with you after this statement.
Believe in scientific evidence all you want as the only way to know something. That's nice. When you realize that you can't justify your own views, then we'll talk about what is really "rational".
Let me ask you something... do you believe solipsism is a rational position or just philosophical mumbo jumbo? If you agree that it's mumbo jumbo in a practical sense, then come down from your high horse and try discussing this in pragmatic terms. If your goal is just to argue for the sake of arguing, then fine, by all means continue. But if your goal is to sway atheists, you're going to have to do a lot better. It's a matter of practicality, not ignorance.
Don't be silly. Philosophers of science typically use coherentist epistemologies and can justify their views just fine by probabilistic arguments grounded in evidence. Theists, on the other hand, simply make shit up and declare X is TRUE and build from there.
Calling that a "justification" or "rational" is laughable, not least because of all the contradictory "justified"(lol) versions of theism. Theist epistemology clearly doesn't guarantee anything in the form of accuracy.
I'm not talking about ethical judgments or whether something exist is true or not. I am talking about justifications.
You have yet to show that what he has offered is insufficient . And, as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to believe in God based on "evidence". God is a belief that is justified without evidence (which I will explain in my next video).
"God is a belief that is justified without evidence"
Then you are at odds with the beliefs of Veritas48 and telemantros. Both of them believe evidence (empirical or cognitive) is required to justify belief.
So it seems you guys are all over the place in your justifications here... ironically, the same thing Veritas accused atheists of ;)
Curious. Maybe you'll support this argument by pointing to children who believe their parents w/o evidence for their own good... am I close? :)
Claiming that a belief is justified without evidence is simply beyond stupid. It is equivalent to stating that you have no reason to refer to reality to figure out what reality entails.
This is especially important because the evidence points to a probabilistic universe that undermines all the classic theist arguments like first causes and the like.(Although they are also based on evidence... causation and time are both inferred from observation)
Well now, following this debate is going to require watching rather a large number of videos I think.
I have to say I found this video somewhat clearer than your original video (though maybe I was just concentrating more this time) though, if I had to be critical, it still suffers from the usual abrahamic imperialistic tendencies (i caught a brief mention of pantheism i think but there is so much more)
Still, very nice video (however much I disagree with it)
I agree with your two avenues of disproof but also believe there is a third.
If God is both a name and a job title, successfully stripping away all roles, or a least the major/relevant roles, defined by that job title is the equivalent of proving there is no God. Having a figurehead entity that goes by the title of God, regardless of the unused powers it may have, is not the equal of a God existing. In this case for the rose to be a rose, it must smell as sweet.
This is partially why I disagree with Veritas defining the minimal agnostic god as only having the role of creator. Unless the something out of nothing argument holds (and I believe it doesnt), a limited universe no matter how substantial does not require an unlimited intellect or power for its creation.
Indeed, there is no specific reason why the 'creator' need be any greater in intellect than ourselves - in fact were I a betting man I'd put money on a creator being as intelligent as ourselves (but technologically much more advanced) well before I'd put my hard earnt cash betting on an omniscient creator.
how could any being as stupid as a human create the universe? I would be surprised if we even learned how to colonize other planets at the rate we're going.
who created war? cults? "america's top model"?
who uses drugs? alcohol?
seriously, if there is a God there is no way he isn't at least infinitely more intelligent than any of us.
Technology is the answer. We are obsessed with the creation of artificial intelligence and virtual worlds and who is to say that in 10,000 years time we will not have the technology to create a 'virtual universe' (or part of) simulation potentially or instantaneously seeded with virtual intelligences? ...and if we could do it once we could do it a dozen times ... so for ever 'real universe with sentient life like ourselves there is, potentially, a greater number of virtual...
The conclusion Nick Bostrom, the originator of this idea draws is that given these conditions we ourselves are more likely to be in a virtual universe than a 'real' one.
This is an interesting idea in itself but more interesting, for me, is what it says about the potential for our 'god' to be very unspectacular (should a god exist ofc).
I take your point regarding day time tv though hehe, we are a sad and sorry species in many ways ;)
your kidding right just in the last 100 years human knowledge has grown out of control. i was just watching a program on tech and in 50 years at the rate we were going the fastest processor will cost a penny. now take this small space of time and add 4000 years to this. you dont think we will be able to colonize worlds. 100 thousand years from know humans want to send human kind to the far reaches of the universe cloning is easily done. a large ship with AI robots control the ship and when
Humans redefined the word and presented several fictional beings w/ the title and the new female version "goddess," but this was done out of ignorance. the word "God" in the christian definition describes a being, a species (if you will).
as there is only one God in existance and he is immortal, the term "god" would be useless as a title as there is and will only ever be one God.
if I were immortal and important, my name might as well be my title.
Dreal, I am not completely sure I follow your objection. A name given my men is still a name. To this name have been attached with some variation a set of attributes and a set of functions. My argument is that without both possessing a fairly complete set of those attributes and performing a fairly complete set of those roles, there effectively is no 'god'. Regardless of the fact that there may indeed be some real being referred to as god. Creation alone is not sufficient clear this hurdle.
I'm not sure if I was objecting to your statement. I was just clarifying a truth.
are you saying that since God doesn't perform "godly duties" then he is not "God" but rather a being whom we christened "God"? If so, who defines what a god does? if there is only one God, then isn't every action he performs by definition a Godly act?
Thank you for the clarification. I do not agree with your 'truth' nor have I used the phrase 'godly duties'.
Yes, I do affirm that if there is no being who fairly completely fulfills both the list of attributes and the list of roles attached to god, effectively there is no god.
Nor am I interested in following you into the rabbit hole of redefining 'god'.
I suppose I am at base arguing that if you accept this addition disproof, there is standing to argue 'absence of evidence, is evidence.'
if earth was created by an impersonal being whose only ability was the act of creating and we called it "God" then wouldn't that be the definition of "God"?
once again, I am not sure if we are disagreeing on anything.
If we and the Universe were created by super smart aliens, we would call them super smart aliens not 'God'.
I also think personal is a requirement, as opposed to the impersonal you used above. Without personal you start to come awfully close to Spinoza's God, which uses God as a placeholder only.
i think this would be a more honest approach to seeing if god exists lets say we tackle your god, because the goal is not to see if any god exist but the one you ascribe to. i mean if it was you would be a deist not a theist. lets look at that because really you dont care to say all gods are possible, but that your god is possible. unless your just trying to use the any god is possible to move our position closer to say your is the one that i said god
You said that if God is not timeless spaceless and immaterial then God could not have created the universe. If God has these attributes then how can God exist at all? How can something come from nothing or how could something meterial come from something immaterial?
agreed. its kind of like saying god is unknowable but yet want a personal relation ship with you, or that he is outside time and space. so how could one comment on something out side of are time and space? we only experience this time and space. so i think telemontros response to rob didn't fix the problem of this type of being.
its like saying i know these definitions are impossible to refute but thats what i want them to be. rob said there would be no point to this and i agree.
i know i think its because when he talks it more like he is reading from a text book. its not his fault. i think it just makes sense when he writes it down and if you were reading it side by side the rebuttal it would be easier to follow.
i would ask tele to speak like he was speaking to a person in front of him and not reading point one, point two ect. if he broke it down in layman's terms more people would comment on this, not a stab just a suggestion.
@4McClain I think the question "how could something nonphysical interact with something physical?" is just an argument from ignorance. Our lack of knowledge as to how such a process works does not serve as a refutation of that process. Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity would have to be rejected, as no one is exactly sure how to reconcile them.
Quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) should be rejected, and replaced with a grand unified theory (GUT). Unfortunately, such a theory is not yet available (the current contenders have not been verified). But, one could safely assume that both QM and GR are good approximations of the GUT, in the same way that Newtonian physics is a good approximation of relativity. So even after the GUT is verified, I expect QM and GR will remain as useful models in undergraduate textbooks.
Then let me give other examples. Exactly how is it that space expands? What does our universe expand into? How is it that the sun's corona got so much hotter than the rest of the sun? How is it that the laws of physics seem to be stable over time, instead of fluctuating wildly?
And there plenty more "how" questions even if those should be answered. My point remains: you cannot say something is disproven just because you don't understand how it works.
@PraetorDrew, I did no say interect, but rather come from, but non matter interecting with matter would be just as perplexing. At any rate it is not an arguement for ignorance, but one based on evidence. The first law of thermodynamics, E=MC2, etc. Theists actually make the argument all the time that something cannot come from nothing and then insert "God" which they define using the same terms as one would describe nothing. Inserting God before the big bang is an example.
How are the laws of thermodynamics evidence that only something physical can interact with something physical? The laws of physics only describe the physical world and would not preclude supernatural intervention.
The Kalam argument states "whatever begins to exist (comes into being) has a cause"
God is defined not as nothing but as an unembodied mind. On theism, the first cause is God. On atheism, I'm not sure what the first uncaused cause is.
@PraetorDrew , The first law has nothing to do with matter interacting with non matter. you said interact, I said come from. it says that energy cannot come from nothing. the same applies to mass (conserv of mass). Is not an "unembodied mind" timeless, spaceless, and imeterial. if not, then what would it be composed of? Do you have any evidence that a mind can exist without matter? Is that not an arguement for ignorance? We don't know so insert God.
Right. The laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe normally operates when nothing supernatural is messing with it. They describe nature, but not the supernatural.
What is mind composed of? Memory, will, intentionality...etc. What if I turn the question around and ask "what is energy composed of?" and if you have an answer, I'll just reiterate "what is that composed of, and does this process go on to infinity?"
Well if E=mc^2 is true then huge amounts of energy are equivalent to small amounts of matter. First law of thermo - energy is neither created or destroyed but conserved (changes form). If this is true and I have no reason that it is not, then how could one even ask what created energy or how it got here?
Even Victor Stenger admitted at Caltech that the laws of physics are not inviolable, because they do not make anything happen. They are merely descriptions of how the natural world normally operates. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Hence, any argument saying that God cannot violate the laws of physics is vacuous. Why then think that theism is somehow incoherent?
@mistara31415 (If no God) It can and has been.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 They, don't have to be relative... but without God, they are. " On the other hand a moral doctor might make you suffer in a treatment to prevent greater future suffering." Hitler thought that he was doing that in comparison to the Human race. He was set on advancing the human race by eugenics. Societies do have universal axioms, but they are still subjective (if No God exists). The universal idea is not an old one. The zodiac indicates we are now entering the age of Aquarius.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 I will say this: Those principles are relative IF there is no ultimate basis for what is moral (God). Hitler's basis for morality maybe different from mine and who is to decide what is right for Hitler, but Hitler. Society? Not ultimately. Also, reality is without contradiction given the context of the individual. For example, motion. It is relative to the object, especially if one were to relate motion to different dimensions. You can't fully see a 3-d sphere in 2-d.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Alright, one more... In short, so many things that I can't even list them all, but they all have roots in truth. Here are a few to list: fulfillment of prophecy, The resurrection case, no doctrinal error, existence of spiritual consciousness, origins, it explains the existence of intelligence i.e. mathematic law, DNA, constants, etc...it answers all of the Big* questions that alternative views can't; I see that the evidence agrees with it & I could give you so many more reasons...
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Good luck with that... especially without God. For more information about the flood and the effects it had, you should take a look into the Creationist Catastophism seminar of Professor/Dr. Professor Walter J. Veith who was formally an Macroevolutionary professor for many years before becoming a Christian. I know He taught zoology and wrote many books, but if you want you can do some more reasearch on Him. I hope I was able to help you with your ?s in the midst of all the comments.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 What is wrong with the flood story? I have studied much about it and at first I didn't see that it made much sense as far as the ark holding all the animals and the Geologogical impact of the flood upon the earth- even the Historical record (in reference mesopotamian origins) didn't seem to agree, but I found otherwise. As far as your question, you must believe in Objective morality, rather than moral relativism so there would seem to be a basis for all morals. cont....
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 pt.2 ....Your ? is "Does God do moral actions, because moral actions are moral, OR are moral actions moral because God does them?" If one were to put God into a category of morality, He would be the basis b/c morals came from Him. He transcends the laws He set into play, but He's held to the standards He set for Himself. Sometimes we may not understand what He does, because He trandscends our knowledge, but that doesn't mean He is unjust or immoral because we may not understand.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Like I said, having a Biblical/doctrinal knowledge of God's sovereighnty is crucial. Hopefully you were able to understand what I was attempting to relate to you in text. I recommend searching for some more credible sources, but I know it is difficult because some appear to be Biblical in what they say, but really aren't like Mormons, true Catholics, and muslims. If they do not use the Bible and use it to explain itself, they most likely are false teachers. Misconceptions aren't contradictions.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 ever heard of the flood (Most likely the Biggest factor)? Ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or "the frog principle" hehe? When man sinned, creation started to fail; the flood could have increased the speed of the earth's destruction. The Bible says that God will make a new earth uncursed by sin that will never "wax old" as the Bible says.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Already answered your question twice man. The fall of creation and man's sin is ultimately Why can't we have free will without suffering, because man is sinful in nature. God hasn't dstroyed evil yet, that is another reason. The reason that evil exists. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) is another reason. Reason that babies suffer is for they are out of the sin of their beholders. We are all born corrupted by sin although we may not have sinned.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I meant to put why we as in all humans can't have free will with suffering at the moment, but doesn't matter. Evil is why we have death suffering etc....it is a product of misued free will.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mistara31415 I answered your question twice already. It seems that nothing I type is sinking in whatsoever. "How could a loving God create the moving plates, which kill thousands in earth quakes?" -Result of the fall of man. Man's initial sin caused the fall of creation. God is both mortal and Immortal. As far as morality, morality is a result from God. So what He does with what is His is within His sovereighnty.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 What? Do you suppose that your rigteousness is greater than that of God? Even David saw the Total Righteousness of God. You should know that, since you read the Bible front to back. He was called "the man after God's own Heart." Humans initially did have free will without suffering. The teachings from Christ about alleveating suffering are in some parts reference to healings on earth, but the other is about Him carrying the burden of Man's total sin to the cross. Remember the...
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 2 ...verse is matthew 11 where Jesus said, Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Jesus did heal people, but the reason He came to the earth was to be a pure sacrifice so that we may have a gift of salvation through Him. Now for the answer to your question. He wanted us to have...
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 3 ...the ability to love Him by choice. The only way to accomplish this was free will. He didn't want to have to force people to love Him. God is Holy. Man was once pure in God's eyes, but now we bare the curse that came from Sin/dissobedience. We are under the accountability of our own faults and the consequences can be felt through the generations. Our own actions add to it. God is the most High and perfect Judge....
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx pt. 4 ...God loved us enough to send Christ (God's Son, also one of three entities that make God. He is also God.*) as a sacrifice for us (you, me, & all). Picture this: (If Saved) You are at Judgment after death in a court. You are being judged based on God's standard of perfection, and you are guilty...then Christ stands up and and takes the judgment of yours upon Himself so that you may have eternal in God's kingdom. That's love. John talks all about God's Love for man.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 You've read the Bible front to back so you say....You remeber where it says in exodus for those who disobey/hate God, the 4th to 5th generations could pay? Punishment is not at all the only reason as I have stated. Based on what you shared in your comment, it looks as if you haven't thought about anything I've typed thus far. I am not going to keep repeating myself. Sometimes people don't want to accept reality, but reality is reality whether you like it or not. The fall happened.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 I asked the abortion question, so you could go back and see that the reason why God hasn't ultimately stopped people from doing them Yet. God doesn't go off of our time, but His. I could say that the sun will never burn out, but that doesn't mean it will never burn out just because the Sun hasn't went out on the time I gave to burn out. Also, it seems you are still confused on what actually constitues the omni-s based on Biblical doctrine..+ I already answered your 1st premise..?s?
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 I don't like to be blunt, but I really have already answered your first premise. Look back at the comments.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Being raised in Christian fundamentalism, & becoming a Christian by choice isn't the same. Some times Jesus Camp type people use ungrounded religion to control masses (like the apostate Catholic church, whose origins R against Christ's teachings anyways, but that's another topic). People don't need religion for salvation, but rather a relationship w/ Christ. The religion of Christianity comes after the fact or at least it should. Sometimes people think they R Christians, but aren't
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Sometimes, the child pays for the sins of the father/mother. That doesn't mean that the child did anything to deserve it? The child will not get punished for anything out of accountability (whether they know right from wrong). God is the all righteous judge. Why doesn't God stop abortions? It is what it is. Just as accidents happen, when something is set into motion like the fall- corruption will not be destroyed until the birth pains are over.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Not really, the correct context is needed for understanding. The disobedience that came from a misuse of free will is what led to the fall of creation. The suffering that you are referring too is mostly result due to gratuitous evil as a result of the fall. the other part is either due to punishment by God or used by Him to Promote something else within what would be His plan (prophecy, protection of His people, etc..); Gratuitous evil was not the intended plan but contrary to it.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I should probably explain what gratuitous evil is, but you ask me or Google it if you do not understand. Do you want to move on why I said that you have a misunderstanding of the "omni-s" (based on Biblical doctrine) when referring to God?
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I understand that many people (like that of my brother-in-law) who have these questions just haven't been exposed to Biblical doctrine and Christian Theological teaching. He doesn't believe in God. I understand why he doesn't for the reason that everything he has been exposed too over the years has shown him that a God doesn't need to exist, therefore He doesn't. That is just a result of a foundation built off of an un-submissive paradigm. Truth isn't a flavor of ice cream.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 God didn't necessarily make everything that exists, disobedience had a hand in some things.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 It Does make a difference. Would you agree that most, if not all people, have the potential to kill another human? That doesn't make them a murderer, although they have the potential to be one. It is a far cry from it. God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him. If He had not allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own will.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Your running on a slipperry slope here. One topic at a time man. Steamrolling me is not going to help you get the answers that you are looking for. That is not going one step at a time. Now, lets start with the presumption of what you say are the limits of God. This is where a knowledge of God's sovereignty/nature is critical to understand the big picture. God is limited based on the limits that He has set for himself and that is it. God created potential for evil, but not evil.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 We have to take this one topic at at time, because almost every time I do this the subject tends to be changed by the counter party...anyways...
God's sovereignty (His right to do what He wants with what is His; His self induced limits) is only part of it, but His Sovereignty on the basis of sin (i.e. suffering, corruption, etc.) is that He allowed/allows it to exist in the universe for now at least...you must be confused about what the omni's mean in relation to God's sovereignty.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I am going to answer your question based on what I think you are asking. Why does God allow most suffering, why now? It would be an interference to "free choice" if God were to interfere with the consequences of individual and collective choices. God hasn't rid the earth of suffering yet, but will. We deserve suffering as a result of consequence. God uses suffering sometimes. so on, so on....Any questions?
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx There is alot of information on this topic, and answers to you questions in the Bible....but it seems that you don't want a Biblical tossup, or at least that is not the interest of most of the individuals that I encounter. If you want more information, let me know. Thanks.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Have you looked for them, honestly? You have to take into account His sovereignty to see the logic that is there, but you are missing it. You say the fall of man "story" is problematic..? Things can seem that way, if you don't possess the knowledge necessary to piece together the information correctly...like solving Algebraic equations. I have asked the ancestor question before too, but the answer is there. If you really want to know, we can go one step/question at a time.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Yes it does! We aren't on your time clock, but God's. God hasn't abolished sin, and suffering in this fallen world YET, but you probably have read the passages to know that...I have already seen all these arguments like that of why God will not heal an amputee....Here you don't seem to be taking into account God's Sovereignty either...I don't see why some choose not to open their mind to both sides of the spectrum, especially with topics like this.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
@mistara31415 Its called the fall of man....one cannot doubt for at least the possibility of gratuitous evil exists as a result of the fall.
xTheUnknownTruthx 1 year ago
Stating that you are ussing a clasical definition of what the theistic god s atributes are does not negate the nesesity to show that these atributes are consistent. You said earlier that if this god did not conform to these conditions then said god would conflict with the knowen laws of the universe but placing this god outside of the universe as a statement of existence conflicts with those same laws because it conflicts with the known laws of existence as a sub set of the laws of the universe.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense but evidence of absense is evidence.
ooglebydoogleby 1 year ago
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? No, it isn't. But then again absence of evidence for a horse that can run on water is not evidence of its absence, either. Yet, I'm in no more hurry to prostrate myself before a crucifix in avoidance of hell than I am to start looking for a waterproof saddle. Science examines things that are evident and of clear consequence to the world. We can argue what might exist all day, it doesn't get us anywhere.
PachucoDesigns 1 year ago
Hey telemantros, do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster??
No?
What, you have presumed to be an aFSMist?
Sheesh! how arrogant are you!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
great you created an argument for atheists not to argue with you. Big fuckin deal. It still doesn't prove gods existence
sambricky 1 year ago
If premise 1 is the definition of natural, then premise 2 cannot be true, for how is it logically necessary that all things are governed by a deterministic set of laws? Imagine a world where only thought exists and there is no matter whatsoever, or a world where the laws of physics change periodically, or where no laws exist and there is only chaos.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
To clarify: my objection is not so much with atheism as it is with metaphysical naturalism, or its sibling, causal closure.
That 3 point argument seems to me to be pure sophistry, as the two premises use different definitions of "natural" in an attempt to simply define supernatural (or immaterial) causation out of existence.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Mistara, thank you for bring up the contradictory attributes objection towards theism. Could you please raise the two objections that you mentioned (i.e. Fatalistic argument, argument from evil) in video form ... however simplistic, it could be a 30 sec text video, when Veritas, dawahfilms and myself ask for psitive arguments? I'd let you know when? That way I could address some of them. Let me know.
telemantros 2 years ago
@telemantros I really don't see how this is worthy of a video response. This argment has been hashed out time and time again, and I always hear the same response: it's part of god's plan. What plan? To say that god has a plan is to denote that he is striving for an end that is for now out of his reach. Isn't he supposed to be the alpha and the omega? All is present with him? Nothing is beyond his power?
PachucoDesigns 1 year ago
My extended family on both sides is comprised of metaphysical naturalists, so I am familiar with the view.
Personally, I can see no evidence whatsoever for believing that the universe is a giant, closed, deterministic machine. And saying that:
1. everything that has impact in nature is natural, and that
2. all natural things are governed by physics, therefore,
3. All things in the natural world are governed by physics
is one massive fallacy of equivocation
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Haha! yeah. What religion am I? How do I answer this? I follow the halacha Modern Orthodox Judaism (I don't wear the kippah when I'm acting), yet my theology is closer to some sort of Evangelicalism, even though I don't believe in original sin. So maybe I'm some sort of Messianic Jew, or maybe just a theistic freethinker.
However, my beliefs in God and in Old Earth Creationism are held independently of any scriptural evidence, and I would believe both even if I lost faith in the Bible.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Thanks. Are you open to the possibility of the existence of supernatural agents such as God? Or put another way, do you believe that every single effect in the material world has material and only material causes? If so, why?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Say we grant that a personal God must exist, as broadly defined as creator and source of objective moral standards. Yet we reject the Bible and Koran as valid sources of information regarding this God and posit that though a God must exist, "He" has yet to reveal "Himself".
Would this be a theist position? Theist in waiting?
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
Interesting question. It really depends on the involvement of said God. The personal attribute typically is a main distinguisher between deism and theism. So to answer your question, it really depends ... if the God has not revealed himself at all then this sounds more like a deistic God.
telemantros 2 years ago
Many of the arguments used by Christian and Muslim apologists to lay the ground for the existence of a personal God are general enough that they could apply to all three monotheistic religions, a creator that takes an active interest in His creation, a maximally good being, and so forth. So say we grant these arguments which are used to support a personal God over a deistic one as logically necessary. Does it then follow that we must choose...(con't)
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
...from texts that have been written claiming knowledge of this being or is it possible that this being, much like that described in the three monotheisms but differing in certain as of yet unknown details, has yet to reveal himself. All previous attempts to describe him having been jumping the gun, intuiting that such a being must exist but not given actual revelation?
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
When you mention the arguments for a 'personal' God do you have some specific ones in mind (e.g. Kalam, Historical)? You see, without knowing which arguments you have in mind, I think it would follow that you would need to consult historical arguments before you move to an unrevealed 'personal' God for the simple fact that there is a lot of dissension around Jesus of Nazareth.
If we were to assume that God has not yet revealed, we would need to address that topic first.
telemantros 2 years ago
One example would go along the lines: there are objective moral laws therefore there must be an objective moral law giver. This I think, implies a being that does more than a Deistic God, if we accept the argument it gives us some positive attribute, some indication of this being's nature. Yet though such a being is described in the Bible, does it follow that the Bible is accurate in it's account? Would you see it as illogical to say "I accept that there must be an objective law giver (con't)
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
...but I do not accept any text claiming knowledge of this being as having been divinely inspired or the product of revelation. Therefore, God has yet to reveal himself.
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
There are theists who argue this way, I believe Leibniz was close to such a position ... I'm pretty sure he refused the inspiration of the Torah (he was Jewish). But Leibniz still held to some form of Judaism although his position has been coined Leibnizian rationalism.
I personally would say that you can't move to a 'theist in waiting' position until you adequately address the historical arguments of Jesus' resurrection in context with his divine claims. Otherwise you have an argument against.
telemantros 2 years ago
What's the problem here? You believe that the laws of mathematics exist necessarily and didn't come into existence. What's the problem with believing that about God?
You're right. We don't know everything. How is this justification for presupposing that the natural world is all that is, or that the universe is a closed system under physics?
That's my ultimate question. Naturalism is a claim to know something, how does that not bear a burden of proof?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
As I stated, the definition of supernatural does not preclude the ability to stand in causal relation with the natural world. Where, exactly, is the contradiction?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
What supernaturalist would accept such a definition of supernatural? I sure don't.
I'd define the supernatural as "that which was not produced at the big bang, and is not made of quarks/strings/whatever the physical world is made of. An unembodied mind could be an example of that. How is it logically impossible for such a thing to act on matter?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
I was using the math argument merely to show that some things are self-existent. You seem to believe that at least math is, what is so incoherent about saying that God is?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
How does the double slit experiment violate the laws of logic? It merely shows that light has properties of particles, and properties of waves. It doesn't seem like an explicit contradiction. Perhaps it's a third category.
Finally, if "logic" as we perceive it is not universal, is that statement universally true?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
I would then respond with "where do the laws of logic come from?" Or I could ask about other abstract objects such as numbers. Are they not self-existent?
Or to answer the question of "where did God come from" I would answer just be rewording the question. "What caused the first, (therefore by definition, uncaused) cause?"
Or to restate my original question, why think it logically impossible that something supernatural could interact with something natural?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Is your definition of "god" any stronger than the god of the deists? If so, in what ways?
I don't understand how a deist or atheist would behave any differently (except in arguments on YouTube).
jokidder 2 years ago
Not sure what you mean by 'stronger,' do you mean more tenable? The main distinguishing feature would be that theism holds to a God who is involved and personal vs. a static God. From my specific theistic view (Christianity), I would hold that God was involved through the man of Jesus for instance.
telemantros 2 years ago
Does this involved and personal theistic god answer prayers?
Does it speak directly and clearly to any humans?
Why talk about "theism" rather than Christianity?
If you are asking the atheist to argue against some broader notion of God, please clarify what this notion is with some specificity.
jokidder 2 years ago
Comment removed
Scientialist 2 years ago
@telemantros
What is the purpose of Point 3 in this video? If the atheist fails to meet the requirements in Point 3, he still falls back to the default position of non-belief everyone is born with (including theists). Only after theists meet their burden in Point 5 will the person move from his default position; failure to meet Point 3 is insufficient.
Point 3 would be necessary only for people that are BORN with a default, innate belief in some concept of God (which is practically impossible)
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@vickmackey24
Why do you keep inferring we are born Atheists?
Babies don't have a concept of anything. How is not having a concept of anything a "default position" that is also the same as a rational rejection of a claim?
DawahFilms 2 years ago
Comment removed
vickmackey24 2 years ago
I never said we are born atheists. As I said in your video, I believe it is ridiculous to think that rocks or babies are atheists. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the [contemplated] *position* that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. Babies are born WITHOUT belief or knowledge of God. Atheists simply never move from this default position because they've been given no justification to do so.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
The argument from non-belief is a positive argument showing that in the case of God (a being who most strongly desires people believe in him) the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Its an interesting epistomological question, of great relevance to a deistic god, as to weather absence of evidence is evidence of absence though.
unassumption 2 years ago
Hehe, this type of response was so predictable. RobTheMonk8 already said he's agnostic towards any definition of God that is not expected to leave evidence. So what do you do? In Premise 3 you say that it's the atheist's burden to prove the God you're proposing is expected to leave evidence. This entire debate is futile if you play the game like this, just as I stated in Veritas' "Moving Along" video. You're never going to sway an atheist with this line of reasoning (assuming that's your goal).
vickmackey24 2 years ago 4
i agree and i thought that this would be a more honest debate on the proof of each of these peoples god. not just some vague plausible deist god with the space that reads place your gods name here.
the easiest way to prove there god would be to show how the supernatural is or has entered the world at some point in time. like the zombies that rise from the dead when jesus dies if we had tons of things in history outside the bible say things like this it wouldn't be total proof it happened.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
but we would entertain the idea if we also had faith healers also healing people with just a touch and some prayer.
i find it hard to believe that these people dont just do what jesus said when 2 or more come together god hears and answers your prayers jesus also said anything you ask for in his name he will grant. or just have the faith of the mustard seed and move a mountain.
atheist would be hard pressed to deny there god if any of this stuff was true. so far it is epic fail on all points.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
also, if "God" has the mental capacity of a human, then something would have had to create him. the only way he could have avoided being created is if he existed out of time (every finite thing has a beginning--every being existing w/in our dimension of time is finite--infinite beings are more intelligent than finite beings due to length and capacity of existence).
It is my tentative belief that pretty soon, science and tech will reach their limits.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
again the more logical thought is their is nothing outside of time. i.e. no god exists. you see there is no reason to think there is a god to start with. if there is some timeless matter less being this being would be unknowable to use so foreign to use are minds couldn't even register them as being alive as we understand life. it surely wouldn't have wants and needs like humans. if god is timeless why create the universe at one point or another as time is not something that exist to him.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
*sarcasm* oh yah because it isn't at all possible that there could ever be ANYTHING beyond human understanding, I mean we're just so dang smart.
actually, you are kinda right. human logic ends at the point that it reaches something beyond its comprehension. however it stands to reason that there is something beyond human comprehension for example, the beginning of the finite universe. if time is a limitless line moving in both directions, how could our universe start?
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
so this deist god you speak of is nothing like the god of the bible or koran. as this god has wants and desires and act like humans he want worship. he demands it or else burn forever. he is said to interact all the time with humans.
but he also is everywhere at once but the bible also says he is not where evil is. in job god asks satan where he was why ask he should know. then satan temps god and god says no but then say ok and hands job over. Christians say he was testing job.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
but why would he test any one of his creations as he knows there heart and mind. contradictions like this about god and his nature make no sense to atheist.
as a theist i believed all this stuff and just took it at face value and said who am i to question. until i did and said im a human with my own mind and this doesn't make sense. if there is a god he made me like this one who questions things and he shouldn't fault me for this. if he does he cant be all loving like they say.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
say you construct a series of interconnecting tubes that leads to some ending point like a maze. say you put a rat into the entrance and track its progress. say it comes to a fork in the pipe. you know it will either go left, or right and you can see its path thru either direction so in effect you know how it is going to go thru, no matter what. does the rat still have a choice or did you force it to go thru the tube it chooses next.
God had faith in Job, that he would do the right thing.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
no a being out side time would see the whole history of the universe from its start to finish in one snap shot. so he wouldn't just know all ways the rat could go but would know which way the rat actually took because he sees the rats whole life in one snap shot. i can send the argument for this it is much to long for me to put up here. but it will show you the problem.
why would a god need faith? faith is only for those who dont have all the information and must just believe.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
that would be true, if existing outside of time has the same properties as existing in time. the problem w/ arguing about this is we might as well be arguing about what the fourth dimension is. we're like two blind people trying to describe sight, you don't believe it exists and I do it's just that since I've never experienced it before so I can't describe it. and even if I did you wouldn't understand anyway.
yes I'd love that argument.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
cool ill seen it to you
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
can i send you the argument that describes this in detail? at least then you can look it over and see if what i say is true or not.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
vickmackey, If you listen closely I actually stated that the atheist needs to demonstrate the two criteria hold (in point 3) and also that the theist must demonstrate that they don't (point 5). Did you miss that? I'm not arguing that atheism should be the one offering exclusive arguments, I stated that both should.
telemantros 2 years ago
Oh believe me, I did listen closely. I've already summarized your argument in your previous video and given you counter-examples clearly demonstrating the flaws in your rationale.
But anyway, here's my point. You're the one providing the definition of God here, in this case, a deistic one. Your Point #3 implies that you DO NOT expect this God to leave evidence, which of course is your prerogative. But, this necessarily FORCES RobTheMonk8 into a position of agnosticism, as he already stated.
vickmackey24 2 years ago 2
i totally agree.
why dont they just fight for there god truth value. why all this round about crap i find the debates fun but really they dont make the point they want to make and that is there god is real.
if your a christian say im a christian my god is real here are the logical arguments for him.we can only refute them or accept them.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
I am defending a theistic God vick, the attribute of personal is not a quality of the deistic God and I clearly stated such a property. In addition, I gave three types of evidence I would expect this God to leave behind (not exhaustive) so I was not defending the view that he would leave no evidence behind.
telemantros 2 years ago
@telemantros
Let's go through your ideas of evidence for God:
1. Unknowns (presumption of miracles)
2. First-mover (presumption universe was caused)
3. Intelligent design (presumption of design)
4. Personal experience (hearsay- insufficient to justify belief in God by others)
THESE are the things you need to focus on and defend as being *valid* and *sufficient* to justify movement from the default position of non-belief to belief in God. The rest of the video is just intellectual masturbation.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Each of those arguments of "evidence" can (and have) been refuted thousands of times in multiple ways; I won't bother going into it here. But I do want to reiterate that a mountain of (weak) evidence is useless until it meets the minimum standard evidence that justifies movement from the DEFAULT position of non-belief to positive belief in God. The burden is yours to convince the atheist that your standard of evidence is sufficient to justify belief in God and that the evidence meets that burden
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@vickmackey24
What if your conception of what constitutes as a default position and evidence is simply wrong? Have you ever considered that?
DawahFilms 2 years ago
@DawahFilms
Right and wrong is irrelevant here, only that which justifies BELIEF. Naturally, standards of evidence will almost always vary from person to person for different claims. The weaker your evidence is, the fewer [rational] people you'll convince. It's that simple. And so far, all the things telemantros has suggested are evidence for God have been either unsubstantiated, proven to be invalid, or proven to be insufficient to rationally justify belief in the *extraordinary* claim of God.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@DawahFilms
No amount of word play or philosophical mumbo jumbo and magic tricks will allow you to escape the reality of what I just said.
For example, suppose I tell you I was abducted by aliens; this counts as "weak evidence." Is that sufficient for you to believe (or LEAN towards belief) in alien abductions, since you lack any evidence that proves it isn't possible? Clearly not, since this would be a rather extraordinary claim where hearsay is insufficient to rationally justify belief.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@DawahFilms
Can you please read the four points I just presented to telemantros, and tell me which of them you disagree with? The natural conclusion of those premises is that theists shoulder the full burden of proof, since they're the ones making the claim. Please tell me where the logic is flawed.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@vickmackey24
(1) I agree with this.
(2) False, because you are confusing the lack of conception with the rejection of a claim.
(3) False, because someone may simply be mistaken with what is required to justify a position or to move to another position.
(4) False. Please provide evidence that this statement is true.
Oh wait...you can't...hence I shouldn't believe you.
DawahFilms 2 years ago
@DawahFilms
"(2) False, because you are confusing the lack of conception with the rejection of a claim."
I'm referring to "negative atheism" here.
Looking forward to your video explanation for your rejection of premise 3.
"(4) False. Please provide evidence that this statement is true."
Easy, I'll do it with an example:
I saw Big Foot. This qualifies as weak, hearsay evidence. Should you now believe, or lean towards belief, in Big Foot? If not, why not? Answer: standard of evidence not met.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
@vickmackey24
"Philosophical mumbo jumbo"
I don't know why I talk with such ignorant people who make such statements...you've just shown why it's pointless to continue dialogue with you after this statement.
Believe in scientific evidence all you want as the only way to know something. That's nice. When you realize that you can't justify your own views, then we'll talk about what is really "rational".
DawahFilms 2 years ago
Let me ask you something... do you believe solipsism is a rational position or just philosophical mumbo jumbo? If you agree that it's mumbo jumbo in a practical sense, then come down from your high horse and try discussing this in pragmatic terms. If your goal is just to argue for the sake of arguing, then fine, by all means continue. But if your goal is to sway atheists, you're going to have to do a lot better. It's a matter of practicality, not ignorance.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Don't be silly. Philosophers of science typically use coherentist epistemologies and can justify their views just fine by probabilistic arguments grounded in evidence. Theists, on the other hand, simply make shit up and declare X is TRUE and build from there.
Calling that a "justification" or "rational" is laughable, not least because of all the contradictory "justified"(lol) versions of theism. Theist epistemology clearly doesn't guarantee anything in the form of accuracy.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
@vickmackey24
I'm not talking about ethical judgments or whether something exist is true or not. I am talking about justifications.
You have yet to show that what he has offered is insufficient . And, as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to believe in God based on "evidence". God is a belief that is justified without evidence (which I will explain in my next video).
DawahFilms 2 years ago
@DawahFilms
"God is a belief that is justified without evidence"
Then you are at odds with the beliefs of Veritas48 and telemantros. Both of them believe evidence (empirical or cognitive) is required to justify belief.
So it seems you guys are all over the place in your justifications here... ironically, the same thing Veritas accused atheists of ;)
Curious. Maybe you'll support this argument by pointing to children who believe their parents w/o evidence for their own good... am I close? :)
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Claiming that a belief is justified without evidence is simply beyond stupid. It is equivalent to stating that you have no reason to refer to reality to figure out what reality entails.
This is especially important because the evidence points to a probabilistic universe that undermines all the classic theist arguments like first causes and the like.(Although they are also based on evidence... causation and time are both inferred from observation)
Gnomefro 2 years ago
@telemantros
Please tell me which points you disagree with:
1. People are born without belief or knowledge of God (it doesn't require justification; it's simply a FACT)
2. It is neither practical nor possible to believe in everything by default, so the default position is always non-belief
3. To rationally move from this default position of non-belief, evidence is required
4. Meeting a minimum standard of evidence for belief is required to rationally justify movement to a position of belief
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Did you get my message?
reprise92 2 years ago
PS: perhaps you should post a ling to robthemonks' film in your sidebar?
:)
noelplum99 2 years ago
I should you are right ... i'll get to it ; )
telemantros 2 years ago
Well now, following this debate is going to require watching rather a large number of videos I think.
I have to say I found this video somewhat clearer than your original video (though maybe I was just concentrating more this time) though, if I had to be critical, it still suffers from the usual abrahamic imperialistic tendencies (i caught a brief mention of pantheism i think but there is so much more)
Still, very nice video (however much I disagree with it)
noelplum99 2 years ago
Glad it's getting clearer. To what you disagree with, would love to hear what, and, 'fair enough'.
telemantros 2 years ago
I agree with your two avenues of disproof but also believe there is a third.
If God is both a name and a job title, successfully stripping away all roles, or a least the major/relevant roles, defined by that job title is the equivalent of proving there is no God. Having a figurehead entity that goes by the title of God, regardless of the unused powers it may have, is not the equal of a God existing. In this case for the rose to be a rose, it must smell as sweet.
ChooseThisLife 2 years ago
This is partially why I disagree with Veritas defining the minimal agnostic god as only having the role of creator. Unless the something out of nothing argument holds (and I believe it doesnt), a limited universe no matter how substantial does not require an unlimited intellect or power for its creation.
ChooseThisLife 2 years ago
@ChooseThisLife
Indeed, there is no specific reason why the 'creator' need be any greater in intellect than ourselves - in fact were I a betting man I'd put money on a creator being as intelligent as ourselves (but technologically much more advanced) well before I'd put my hard earnt cash betting on an omniscient creator.
noelplum99 2 years ago
how could any being as stupid as a human create the universe? I would be surprised if we even learned how to colonize other planets at the rate we're going.
who created war? cults? "america's top model"?
who uses drugs? alcohol?
seriously, if there is a God there is no way he isn't at least infinitely more intelligent than any of us.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
@DRealfriknKeenan
Technology is the answer. We are obsessed with the creation of artificial intelligence and virtual worlds and who is to say that in 10,000 years time we will not have the technology to create a 'virtual universe' (or part of) simulation potentially or instantaneously seeded with virtual intelligences? ...and if we could do it once we could do it a dozen times ... so for ever 'real universe with sentient life like ourselves there is, potentially, a greater number of virtual...
noelplum99 2 years ago
...ones.
The conclusion Nick Bostrom, the originator of this idea draws is that given these conditions we ourselves are more likely to be in a virtual universe than a 'real' one.
This is an interesting idea in itself but more interesting, for me, is what it says about the potential for our 'god' to be very unspectacular (should a god exist ofc).
I take your point regarding day time tv though hehe, we are a sad and sorry species in many ways ;)
noelplum99 2 years ago
your kidding right just in the last 100 years human knowledge has grown out of control. i was just watching a program on tech and in 50 years at the rate we were going the fastest processor will cost a penny. now take this small space of time and add 4000 years to this. you dont think we will be able to colonize worlds. 100 thousand years from know humans want to send human kind to the far reaches of the universe cloning is easily done. a large ship with AI robots control the ship and when
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
@noproofforjesus
human knowledge about the external world has grown in the sense that we have built up powerful systems to manipulate nature
but human knowledge dealing with understanding what it means to be human has atrophied and is all but absent in most cultures,
cruelfate45 2 years ago
yesyes
and also within that a hundred years time we have also created a way to destroy the earth 7 times over.
our technological growth has not only lead to more ways to create, but also even more ways to destroy.
I'll be surprised if we don't kill each other off before the apocalypse.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
"God" is neither a name, nor a title.
Humans redefined the word and presented several fictional beings w/ the title and the new female version "goddess," but this was done out of ignorance. the word "God" in the christian definition describes a being, a species (if you will).
as there is only one God in existance and he is immortal, the term "god" would be useless as a title as there is and will only ever be one God.
if I were immortal and important, my name might as well be my title.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Dreal, I am not completely sure I follow your objection. A name given my men is still a name. To this name have been attached with some variation a set of attributes and a set of functions. My argument is that without both possessing a fairly complete set of those attributes and performing a fairly complete set of those roles, there effectively is no 'god'. Regardless of the fact that there may indeed be some real being referred to as god. Creation alone is not sufficient clear this hurdle.
ChooseThisLife 2 years ago
I'm not sure if I was objecting to your statement. I was just clarifying a truth.
are you saying that since God doesn't perform "godly duties" then he is not "God" but rather a being whom we christened "God"? If so, who defines what a god does? if there is only one God, then isn't every action he performs by definition a Godly act?
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Thank you for the clarification. I do not agree with your 'truth' nor have I used the phrase 'godly duties'.
Yes, I do affirm that if there is no being who fairly completely fulfills both the list of attributes and the list of roles attached to god, effectively there is no god.
Nor am I interested in following you into the rabbit hole of redefining 'god'.
I suppose I am at base arguing that if you accept this addition disproof, there is standing to argue 'absence of evidence, is evidence.'
ChooseThisLife 2 years ago
if earth was created by an impersonal being whose only ability was the act of creating and we called it "God" then wouldn't that be the definition of "God"?
once again, I am not sure if we are disagreeing on anything.
DRealfriknKeenan 2 years ago
Not necessarily should we call it 'God'.
If we and the Universe were created by super smart aliens, we would call them super smart aliens not 'God'.
I also think personal is a requirement, as opposed to the impersonal you used above. Without personal you start to come awfully close to Spinoza's God, which uses God as a placeholder only.
ChooseThisLife 2 years ago
i think this would be a more honest approach to seeing if god exists lets say we tackle your god, because the goal is not to see if any god exist but the one you ascribe to. i mean if it was you would be a deist not a theist. lets look at that because really you dont care to say all gods are possible, but that your god is possible. unless your just trying to use the any god is possible to move our position closer to say your is the one that i said god
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
You said that if God is not timeless spaceless and immaterial then God could not have created the universe. If God has these attributes then how can God exist at all? How can something come from nothing or how could something meterial come from something immaterial?
4McClain 2 years ago
If God is timeless how could he have a personality?
His personality would not exist until time started.
Scientialist 2 years ago
agreed. its kind of like saying god is unknowable but yet want a personal relation ship with you, or that he is outside time and space. so how could one comment on something out side of are time and space? we only experience this time and space. so i think telemontros response to rob didn't fix the problem of this type of being.
its like saying i know these definitions are impossible to refute but thats what i want them to be. rob said there would be no point to this and i agree.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago 2
@noproofforjesus I would agree. To be honest I just could not follow what Telemantros was getting at.
4McClain 2 years ago
i know i think its because when he talks it more like he is reading from a text book. its not his fault. i think it just makes sense when he writes it down and if you were reading it side by side the rebuttal it would be easier to follow.
i would ask tele to speak like he was speaking to a person in front of him and not reading point one, point two ect. if he broke it down in layman's terms more people would comment on this, not a stab just a suggestion.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
Maybe time took on Gods personality.
hellavadeal 2 years ago
I personally hold that God was timeless prior to the act of creation and then entered time (became temporal).
telemantros 2 years ago
God Bless you telemantros!! Always loved your videos!!
InDefenseofChrist 2 years ago
God had to create time so his personality could pop into existence.
Scientialist 2 years ago
@4McClain I think the question "how could something nonphysical interact with something physical?" is just an argument from ignorance. Our lack of knowledge as to how such a process works does not serve as a refutation of that process. Otherwise, quantum theory and general relativity would have to be rejected, as no one is exactly sure how to reconcile them.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) should be rejected, and replaced with a grand unified theory (GUT). Unfortunately, such a theory is not yet available (the current contenders have not been verified). But, one could safely assume that both QM and GR are good approximations of the GUT, in the same way that Newtonian physics is a good approximation of relativity. So even after the GUT is verified, I expect QM and GR will remain as useful models in undergraduate textbooks.
kinslayer421 2 years ago
Then let me give other examples. Exactly how is it that space expands? What does our universe expand into? How is it that the sun's corona got so much hotter than the rest of the sun? How is it that the laws of physics seem to be stable over time, instead of fluctuating wildly?
And there plenty more "how" questions even if those should be answered. My point remains: you cannot say something is disproven just because you don't understand how it works.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
@PraetorDrew, I did no say interect, but rather come from, but non matter interecting with matter would be just as perplexing. At any rate it is not an arguement for ignorance, but one based on evidence. The first law of thermodynamics, E=MC2, etc. Theists actually make the argument all the time that something cannot come from nothing and then insert "God" which they define using the same terms as one would describe nothing. Inserting God before the big bang is an example.
4McClain 2 years ago
How are the laws of thermodynamics evidence that only something physical can interact with something physical? The laws of physics only describe the physical world and would not preclude supernatural intervention.
The Kalam argument states "whatever begins to exist (comes into being) has a cause"
God is defined not as nothing but as an unembodied mind. On theism, the first cause is God. On atheism, I'm not sure what the first uncaused cause is.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
If a thing (A) interacts with something physical (B)... what sense does it make to call A non-physical?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Because it does not occupy space, have weight, and is not composed of quarks, strings, or whatever we think matter is made of.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
@PraetorDrew , The first law has nothing to do with matter interacting with non matter. you said interact, I said come from. it says that energy cannot come from nothing. the same applies to mass (conserv of mass). Is not an "unembodied mind" timeless, spaceless, and imeterial. if not, then what would it be composed of? Do you have any evidence that a mind can exist without matter? Is that not an arguement for ignorance? We don't know so insert God.
4McClain 2 years ago
Right. The laws of physics are descriptions of how the universe normally operates when nothing supernatural is messing with it. They describe nature, but not the supernatural.
What is mind composed of? Memory, will, intentionality...etc. What if I turn the question around and ask "what is energy composed of?" and if you have an answer, I'll just reiterate "what is that composed of, and does this process go on to infinity?"
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Well if E=mc^2 is true then huge amounts of energy are equivalent to small amounts of matter. First law of thermo - energy is neither created or destroyed but conserved (changes form). If this is true and I have no reason that it is not, then how could one even ask what created energy or how it got here?
4McClain 2 years ago
Even Victor Stenger admitted at Caltech that the laws of physics are not inviolable, because they do not make anything happen. They are merely descriptions of how the natural world normally operates. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Hence, any argument saying that God cannot violate the laws of physics is vacuous. Why then think that theism is somehow incoherent?
PraetorDrew 2 years ago
Nice beard!
MetaphysicsAddict 2 years ago
@MetaphysicsAddict I like the hat, too. You should definitely don them both if you ever decide to debate omedyashar.
PraetorDrew 2 years ago