Is God... PG Version

[Dre89]

Ballin4death I never gave God a personality.

And no God can't do the rock thing, I just explained that omnipotence means He can create being, not do logically contradictory things.

 

[GwJ]

I don't see how you know it couldn't do logically contradictory things; it's omnieverything.

 

[_Keno_]

And no God can't do the rock thing, I just explained that omnipotence means He can create being, not do logically contradictory things.

So can he do anything within the universe? Or is he limited by some certain laws?

And is God outside of space/time because the Bible says so or because it is the only logically possible way? Or both?

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin4death I never gave God a personality.

And no God can't do the rock thing, I just explained that omnipotence means He can create being, not do logically contradictory things.

Hmm, I thought we had a big debate on whether God could have a will if he's really this abstract entity.

I also don't see how it is logically contradictory to create a rock that no being can lift. I don't think your explanation really changes anything.

 

[Dre89]

God can lift things too heavy for physical beings, but not a rock He designs with "unloftability" in it's essence, meaning a rock that is supposed to be unliftable, He doesn't contradict logic.

God being outside of space and time is due to necessity.

Aristotle's notion of God, prior to Christianity, depicted that there was in fact no time, and that time was merely the way we perceive change.

 

[_Keno_]

God being outside of space and time is due to necessity.

Care to elaborate?

time is merely the way we perceive change.

yep, we just defined what we percieve as change "time." Its just easier to describe the world by calling it time.

 

[asianaussie]

Care to elaborate?

Isn't it because space and time are properties of this universe, and assuming that an all-powerful God created said universe, he shouldn't need said properties to exist, excluding circumstances so improbable we would call them impossible? I suppose this might also assume what we refer to as omnipotence, which I personally regard as questionable.

yep, we just defined what we percieve as change "time." Its just easier to describe the world by calling it time.

Did you just...

change = time
change = world
world = time

Think about that again? Without change, how would you know time had not stopped? Various laws of false equivalencies apply here, but change is how I measure time's passing, so the reverse could well be regarded as true. The concepts we refer to when saying 'change' and 'time' could well be the same.

I apologise in advance for my level of ignorance concerning this, but if God truly is almighty, wouldn't it be plausible that he would be what we consider implausible? In other words, how would we, deigned as his creations, be able to measure his abilities with our logic, which, as far as I can see, is wholly ours, or else designed in us by said God without the ability to understand his methods, ways, etc?

It's just been bothering me that everyone is using debate methods we would use in a discussion on, say, climate change (with a fair few more philosophical assumptions, but that's a given), when our actual topic is something that can be described as transcending our notion of celestial...if this has been discussed already, I apologise, but I don't have the dedication to read through however many pages of deity discussion.

 

[_Keno_]

Did you just...

change = time
change = world
world = time

Heh, my "it" was referring to change, so just time = change.

I apologise in advance for my level of ignorance concerning this, but if God truly is almighty, wouldn't it be plausible that he would be what we consider implausible? In other words, how would we, deigned as his creations, be able to measure his abilities with our logic, which, as far as I can see, is wholly ours, or else designed in us by said God without the ability to understand his methods, ways, etc?
It's just been bothering me that everyone is using debate methods we would use in a discussion on, say, climate change (with a fair few more philosophical assumptions, but that's a given), when our actual topic is something that can be described as transcending our notion of celestial...if this has been discussed already, I apologise, but I don't have the dedication to read through however many pages of deity discussion.

I suppose a theist should answer this, which I am not.

 

[_Keno_]

double post =/

 

[Dre89]

Space and time have specific structures.

If the first cause existed in space and time, then the real first cause would be space and time, and then we get into my problem with having specific principles as the first cause.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Ballin4death I never gave God a personality.

Right, because God doesn't have a human personality, He certainly sent Jesus to the world in a human shape to represent humanity and pay what we'd have had to pay for.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm saying that if you define God as a first cause you have to give a reason that this first cause has a will (like we usually think of God as having).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Right, because God doesn't have a human personality, He certainly sent Jesus to the world in a human shape to represent humanity and pay what we'd have had to pay for.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Dre isn't Christian. Anyway, God made humans in his image (spiritual image), not the other way around.

 

[GwJ]

How can it have a spiritual image without having a personality? That's in regards to your response of emmanuel.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Dre isn't Christian. Anyway, God made humans in his image (spiritual image), not the other way around.

Yes I've also noticed that from Dre's posts so far, even he has a clear view about it though. And I also know that God made humas in his Spiritual image.

How can it have a spiritual image without having a personality? That's in regards to your response of emmanuel.

Because "Personality" are particular qualities of a behavior that defines a person, and since God is not a person, the word "Personality" doesn't apply to Him.

 

[ballin4life]

That's a restrictive definition of personality.

What we meant is desires. For example, according to Christians, God wants people to go to church. That means God has a set of desires that includes "I want people to go to church".

The question is, if you define God as the first cause, then what basis do you have to say that he has desires, or a consciousness at all?

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Well, For creating the world in "7 days"? of course consciousness was present.
And desires... aside of what you say, that He wants us to go to church, it's more like He's telling us to go to church because He knows that's good for us, if a christian stops going to church (Define church as a group of christians together glorifying God's name), the chances of that God's follower getting away of God's way are high.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, For creating the world in "7 days"? of course consciousness was present.
And desires... aside of what you say, that He wants us to go to church, it's more like He's telling us to go to church because He knows that's good for us, if a christian stops going to church (Define church as a group of christians together glorifying God's name), the chances of that God's follower getting away of God's way are high.

Tectonic plate shifts created the continents (over the course of millions of years), but you wouldn't say that the tectonic plates are conscious, right?

I don't see how anything you said here was a justification for assigning consciousness to a "first cause". You are just thinking about your notion of God already, not defining God as the first cause and showing his properties.

Basically my argument is this:

You can't show that the first cause has the properties of the Christian God.

You can't show that the Christian God has to be the first cause (I mean, you can't even show that the Christian God exists directly anyway. And even if some form of the Christian God does exist, it's possible that he's just some random super-powerful being who created the world and humans without being the first cause of the world).

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Tectonic plate shifts created the continents (over the course of millions of years), but you wouldn't say that the tectonic plates are conscious, right?

No the Tectonic plate, but the one who did put them there made them move to create the continents. It's not a casualty, but part of a plan.
Or you're gonna tell me that it is a coincidence that the world is where it is at now, which is what the Bible says it'd be, War, rumors of war, people killing each other, fights between a family...?

 

[ballin4life]

The tectonic plates comment was an example of how something can cause something else without being conscious. Your argument amounted to "He created the world in 7 days, of course he was conscious" which doesn't follow at all (not to mention that it takes the Bible literally).

And I don't understand the second statement at all. There have always been wars/killing/fighting ...

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Yes, but with that argument you're taking away the posibility that the tectonic plates were there for some reason, because "God" wanted them to be there to create the continents.

That example you gave is similar to a bunch of dominoes pieces placed standing in a row so that when you push one of the sides toward the others it's gonna cause that the rest fall down because of that one you pushed, there still is a first cause.

And if by "There have always been wars/killing/fighting..." you mean even since Cain and Avel, then yes, but all that/this was written that it was/is suppose to happen.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not the one making assumptions here.

Your argument basically was "Of course the first cause/God was conscious"

This is just asserting your conclusion. You have no reasons to say that the first cause would be conscious, except that you already believe it.

I'm not taking away any possibilities. I'm asking for reasoning why you would assign consciousness and desires to the first cause.

You can't show that the first cause has the properties of the Christian God.

You can't show that the Christian God has to be the first cause (I mean, you can't even show that the Christian God exists directly anyway. And even if some form of the Christian God does exist, it's possible that he's just some random super-powerful being who created the world and humans without being the first cause of the world).

With the "Cain and Abel" comment you just assume that the Bible is literally true in that case. Maybe the whole Cain/Abel story was metaphorical? Anyway, considering that the Bible was written way after that supposedly happened, and since that time there had always been wars/killing, it's not that great of an accomplishment to predict that there would be wars in the future.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I'm not saying desires, but consciousness.

That quoted message sort of contradicts itself, first you say "you can't even show that the Christian God exists directly anyway."
And then right after you put that in doubt with "And even if some form of the Christian God does exist..."

And it's not just about wars/killing... I said that because it's the most clearly thing to point out, as everybody knows about 'em.

 

[GwJ]

I don't understand what you're trying to prove here, Manny.

 

[_Keno_]

That quoted message sort of contradicts itself, first you say "you can't even show that the Christian God exists directly anyway."
And then right after you put that in doubt with "And even if some form of the Christian God does exist..."

He isnt contradicting himself, he is leaving all options open, which is what he should be doing.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I don't understand what you're trying to prove here, Manny.

That everything that has happened so far is part of a plan, there's some power behind it, lets say "God/The first cause"
Coincidence at this level does not exist, Jumpy.

He isnt contradicting himself, he is leaving all options open, which is what he should be doing.

It's just that first he says something like: "You're not right about that..." but then he says "But you could be..." it's a two sides thought, leaving options open in that way makes me wonder what exactly does he think?

 

[GwJ]

Coincidence at this level does exist and has been proven to be able to exist.

Refuted?

 

[ballin4life]

It's just that first he says something like: "You're not right about that..." but then he says "But you could be..." it's a two sides thought, leaving options open in that way makes me wonder what exactly does he think?

That's debate. For example, I don't necessarily agree with the first cause argument itself, but I'm still trying to show that even if we accept the first cause argument it doesn't lead to the Christian God.

It's the double whammy. You say "You made a wrong assumption here, but even if we accept that then you're still wrong". A neutral observer might disagree that the assumption was wrong, but will still side with you on the debate.

 

[asianaussie]

You can use that to strengthen your argument as well. Take a false assumption to its logical (and, if all goes well, illogical) conclusion and you'll show how weak an argument or its underlying assumptions is/are, even if they are taken as true.

The best thing to do is to not close off any options so as not to debate with a closed mind. While this might strengthen your personal view on something, it's not good debating.

ciaza, either get rights to post or gtfo you jerk lurker...jurker

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Ok, I got your point guys, and I like to have an open mind...

That's debate. For example, I don't necessarily agree with the first cause argument itself

Then what do you say that the first cause is, in case there was any, where/what does would it leads to?
Or you say it's all a coincidence?

 

[ballin4life]

I don't know the answer to the first cause question. I think all of the following are plausible:

1) There is a specific first cause (maybe God, maybe the Big Bang, etc.)
2) There are multiple "first causes" in the sense that nothing caused them
3) There is no first cause, and instead there is an infinite causal chain

I also think that "cause" isn't very well defined.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Ok, but I personally think that this first cause IS God, I find the other things I've lisetened leads to an dead end.
That's what faith is all about, believe in something you can't see, if you don't have faith, you won't probably believe in God being the first cause, even in God at all (the one we're talking about here, the creator of everything), as there're are many more "gods" which is a relative term.

 

[GwJ]

So your evidence for believing in god is basically:

I have no evidence in god but since I've never seen another explanation that I like and makes me happy, I'll believe in it anyway.

 

[Dre89]

Gw is right Emmanuel, if you have no argument for God outside of blind faith, then you don't have anything to debate, because your belief is not based on reason.

Ballin4death- Virtually every theory except there being one singular unified cause is logically implausible. Infinite regress has been proven to be mathematically implausible anyway.

The problem the claim that there can be multiple causes, or that the first cause is the unity of multiple separate principles, is metaphysical, yet athiests never try justify this assumption, they just state naturalist explanations and just assume this metaphysical claim.

Besides, if there can be multiple first causes, or the first cause is a combination of distinct principles, then I might as well believe that the first cause is the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That everything that has happened so far is part of a plan, there's some power behind it, lets say "God/The first cause"
Coincidence at this level does not exist, Jumpy.

Does. Arguing statistics at this level is, well, ridiculous, for multiple reasons (not the least of which that all of the times where bringing life to an intelligent stand failed seem to be completely discounted). There's a 1 in 10^39479827987978 chance that Homo Sapiens came to existence and dominance in this particular spot. There's almost a 1 in 1 chance that intelligent life developed somewhere in the universe. This argument is massively flawed, as it pretty much was "just a coincidence" which was bound to happen sooner or later in a universe this size. And as the only beings who can reasonably talk about it are those lucky ones... well...

 

[ballin4life]

Gw is right Emmanuel, if you have no argument for God outside of blind faith, then you don't have anything to debate, because your belief is not based on reason.

Ballin4death- Virtually every theory except there being one singular unified cause is logically implausible. Infinite regress has been proven to be mathematically implausible anyway.

Show your work. I don't see a problem with infinite causal chains, especially not a mathematical one. Mathematics tends to have a much better grasp of infinity than other fields.

The problem the claim that there can be multiple causes, or that the first cause is the unity of multiple separate principles, is metaphysical, yet athiests never try justify this assumption, they just state naturalist explanations and just assume this metaphysical claim.

Besides, if there can be multiple first causes, or the first cause is a combination of distinct principles, then I might as well believe that the first cause is the flying spaghetti monster.

You have to give a reason NOT to assume this metaphysical claim - a reason that you couldn't have multiple separate principles.

There's no reason to assume that you couldn't have multiple principles acting in the creation of the universe.

For example, I hold that human actions are a "first cause" in the sense that they are caused by a human mind, which does not have a direct prior cause (sure, many factors go into the decisions you make. But it's not the same as with physics, where you can make near perfect predictions of what will happen. With humans, there appears to be some kind of "free will" that makes it very difficult to predict their actions). These causes can exist simultaneously.


Slight tangent here, but I think this is the strongest argument for God having a consciousness. Human consciousness has the "first-cause" property, so the first cause of the universe should have the consciousness property as well. I don't think this is fully justified, but it's a better argument imo than what has been presented in response to my questions.


Also don't strawman the flying spaghetti monster. As I have stated before, there are two possible uses - the first is to show that you don't have any basis for assigning properties to God (for all you know God manifests in the universe as a flying spaghetti monster), and the second is to show that a powerful flying spaghetti monster could fulfill all the roles that people usually assign to God (this was the original use of the flying spaghetti monster in the intelligent design debate - humans could have been "designed" by some non-God creature - and so the argument was that if you teach God design in school you then have to teach flying spaghetti monster design in school as well)

 

[jaswa]

You have to give a reason NOT to assume this metaphysical claim - a reason that you couldn't have multiple separate principles.

No you have to give reason for the assumption. Otherwise another person can make the same claim just assuming stuff, or a person could make an opposite claim with the same assumption. People can just freely make assumptions all they want then according to you, then you'd have to show why not to assume all those things then, yes? Well that's just silly Ballin4death.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I am kinda wondering why suddenly the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim in metaphysics...

 

[ballin4life]

No you have to give reason for the assumption. Otherwise another person can make the same claim just assuming stuff, or a person could make an opposite claim with the same assumption. People can just freely make assumptions all they want then according to you, then you'd have to show why not to assume all those things then, yes? Well that's just silly Ballin4death.

Yes people can make assumptions. You are the one claiming that it is impossible to have multiple "first causes". You thus need to have reasoning to back up that claim.

The initial position is that things are possible until they are shown to be impossible. If we don't have a reason to posit that assumption A is false, well then we can't just automatically reject it.

 

[Dre89]

I am kinda wondering why suddenly the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim in metaphysics...

Thiesm and athiesm are both metaphysical claims....