The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Grenartia]

Your post did not adequately answer the question. If you're going to apply the Cosmological Argument God of the Gaps to the universe, you must also apply it to what created the universe, by your own argument. You can't half-ass the job. If you claim God created the universe, then your own argument requires you explain the origin of God. God of the Gaps applies to God just as equally as it does to science.

God, by His very nature, exists outside of the parameters of the universe (i.e. outside of space-time). Such cannot be said for any material origin of the universe, and the beginning of the universe must predate the laws of physics, as otherwise the Big Bang would have happened much earlier than it happened. Moreover, that there was a beginning proves that time and space did not always exist, which also must prove that there exists something beyond our conception of existence.

Oh, look, you managed to construct a post arguing against claims I didn't make!

[New haven america]

>Implying RW is a credible source.

But seriously, the problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it attempts to solve a problem of infinite regress. Except it fails to explain how that unmoved mover is the Christian God, (Kalam is a different argument), it fails to explain by what mechanism God would will himself into existence, and it definitely doesn’t address that pesky fact: The Order of Creation described in Genesis is somewhat out of order with the actual Big Bang.

Second, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It’s a theological discourse on the origins of the beliefs of the Jewish people. Also the Big Bang theory was thought-up by a Catholic scientist, fun fact.

Yes it is.

It also gets further expanded upon if you research Jewish Creationism and Kabbalah.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

God, by His very nature, exists outside of the parameters of the universe (i.e. outside of space-time). Such cannot be said for any material origin of the universe, and the beginning of the universe must predate the laws of physics, as otherwise the Big Bang would have happened much earlier than it happened. Moreover, that there was a beginning proves that time and space did not always exist, which also must prove that there exists something beyond our conception of existence.

Oh, look, you managed to construct a post arguing against claims I didn't make!

His post directly attacks the idea that the origin of God needs explanation, an idea expressed in your post.

[Grenartia]

The part where it didn't make any sense and as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said in this thread. And furthermore, there's no obvious application of the sentence fragment "that which was not created", to this discussion.

If I am incorrect on this point, and you have, indeed, made a post containing that fragment in a context that actually makes sense, I would like to see a link to it, however, not even the search bar has revealed such a post.



>calling me intellectually dishonest
>literally refusing to even attempt to prove me wrong or concede the argument

Kden.

If my questions are making you question your faith, then that is not my problem, though I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School.

1.You’re really inflating your posts to be a lot more important and devastating than they actually are, 2. if you actually think that stepping out of a useless argument = “I’m losing my faith, oh nu”. 3. The point here is he has been explaining himself and you continue to argue on a single term. He’s been arguing with you, 4. I think the point of the matter is you don’t want an answer. 5. No answer is good enough for someone who truly thinks a person stepping out to chill means they’ve somehow converted them to atheism or whatever.

1. I am not.

2. I'm just operating on what I've previously observed. IME, people only say they're stepping out of arguments when they realize they cannot defend their position anymore, and refuse to concede the point.

3. Your statement here implies that he's been arguing with me on multiple terms. He has not. I am addressing every point he has made in his arguments against me.

4. I do want an answer. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. Where you've gotten the idea I don't want an answer, I have no idea.

5. That isn't what's happening here.

[Grenartia]

Oh, look, you managed to construct a post arguing against claims I didn't make!

His post directly attacks the idea that the origin of God needs explanation, an idea expressed in your post.

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

[Luminesa]

Also, “It doesn’t make sense” really isn’t a good rebuttal. Why doesn’t it make sense? You’re either being purposefully vague or the entire argument has gone over your head.

So what on the origin of God Himself? How can there be an unmoved mover, a creatorless creator? If God is outside of space and time, He does not apply to the laws of biogenesis, requiring for a living thing to come from a living thing. “Divinity” is a state of being that is beyond merely “living” or “created”. It is. For something to be “living” it must first be created. “Divinity” does not require this, and thus there is no “gap”. The Incarnation is the Second Person of the Trinity, an amortal being, coming down and becoming mortal, while also keeping His amortal nature. Whatever “gap” existed is closed by the fact that God is both outside of time and also constantly involved in the work of salvation.

But I see UMN mentioned much of this already, and you ignored a good two sentences to focus on the one claim where you can say, “Haha! Gotcha!” The problem is you’re not actually addressing any of the arguments, but merely trying to discredit your opponents by...what? Changing terms around? You want to play with semantics, but we are actually debating something far more complicated and complex than “cosmological argument” versus “God of the Gaps”. So perhaps actually debate.

[Luminesa]

1.You’re really inflating your posts to be a lot more important and devastating than they actually are, 2. if you actually think that stepping out of a useless argument = “I’m losing my faith, oh nu”. 3. The point here is he has been explaining himself and you continue to argue on a single term. He’s been arguing with you, 4. I think the point of the matter is you don’t want an answer. 5. No answer is good enough for someone who truly thinks a person stepping out to chill means they’ve somehow converted them to atheism or whatever.

1. I am not.

2. I'm just operating on what I've previously observed. IME, people only say they're stepping out of arguments when they realize they cannot defend their position anymore, and refuse to concede the point.

3. Your statement here implies that he's been arguing with me on multiple terms. He has not. I am addressing every point he has made in his arguments against me.

4. I do want an answer. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. Where you've gotten the idea I don't want an answer, I have no idea.

5. That isn't what's happening here.

Where did I get that idea? You’re oversimplifying the argument to match your own thoughts on the matter, rather than actually trying to understand the point. Hence why you keep changing the term “Cosmological Argument” to “God of the Gaps”. I could sit here and call you “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice”, but is that really going to change the debate? “Nuh uh” and “haha stupid professor” are also invalid debating points. Address the arguments given instead of sitting and trying to pull them down to whatever level you want to debate at.

[Kowani]

Also, “It doesn’t make sense” really isn’t a good rebuttal. Why doesn’t it make sense? You’re either being purposefully vague or the entire argument has gone over your head.

So what on the origin of God Himself? How can there be an unmoved mover, a creatorless creator? If God is outside of space and time, He does not apply to the laws of biogenesis, requiring for a living thing to come from a living thing. “Divinity” is a state of being that is beyond merely “living” or “created”. It is. For something to be “living” it must first be created. “Divinity” does not require this, and thus there is no “gap”. The Incarnation is the Second Person of the Trinity, an amortal being, coming down and becoming mortal, while also keeping His amortal nature. Whatever “gap” existed is closed by the fact that God is both outside of time and also constantly involved in the work of salvation.

But I see UMN mentioned much of this already, and you ignored a good two sentences to focus on the one claim where you can say, “Haha! Gotcha!” The problem is you’re not actually addressing any of the arguments, but merely trying to discredit your opponents by...what? Changing terms around? You want to play with semantics, but we are actually debating something far more complicated and complex than “cosmological argument” versus “God of the Gaps”. So perhaps actually debate.

This is what’s called special pleading and didn’t I have this exact same debate on this very thread? Like 20 pages ago? Where everyone used the exact same arguments?

[Luminesa]

Also, “It doesn’t make sense” really isn’t a good rebuttal. Why doesn’t it make sense? You’re either being purposefully vague or the entire argument has gone over your head.

So what on the origin of God Himself? How can there be an unmoved mover, a creatorless creator? If God is outside of space and time, He does not apply to the laws of biogenesis, requiring for a living thing to come from a living thing. “Divinity” is a state of being that is beyond merely “living” or “created”. It is. For something to be “living” it must first be created. “Divinity” does not require this, and thus there is no “gap”. The Incarnation is the Second Person of the Trinity, an amortal being, coming down and becoming mortal, while also keeping His amortal nature. Whatever “gap” existed is closed by the fact that God is both outside of time and also constantly involved in the work of salvation.

But I see UMN mentioned much of this already, and you ignored a good two sentences to focus on the one claim where you can say, “Haha! Gotcha!” The problem is you’re not actually addressing any of the arguments, but merely trying to discredit your opponents by...what? Changing terms around? You want to play with semantics, but we are actually debating something far more complicated and complex than “cosmological argument” versus “God of the Gaps”. So perhaps actually debate.

This is what’s called special pleading and didn’t I have this exact same debate on this very thread? Like 20 pages ago? Where everyone used the exact same arguments?

I wasn’t reading this 20 pages ago.

[Luminesa]

His post directly attacks the idea that the origin of God needs explanation, an idea expressed in your post.

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

You haven’t made much of a challenge. “I expected more from a Yale Professor” is just a flimsy attempt get him riled-up, not an actual challenge.

[Kowani]

This is what’s called special pleading and didn’t I have this exact same debate on this very thread? Like 20 pages ago? Where everyone used the exact same arguments?

I wasn’t reading this 20 pages ago.

I’m just pointing out that every time this argument happens, everyone pulls out the same tired responses and we go in circles.

[Luminesa]

I wasn’t reading this 20 pages ago.

I’m just pointing out that every time this argument happens, everyone pulls out the same tired responses and we go in circles.

Eh. Going in circles happens. With a lot of things in this thread, no matter who is arguing. *Shrugs.*

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

I reread the posts, and that is indeed what it looks like you’re doing, I concede that.

[Lord Dominator]

I wasn’t reading this 20 pages ago.

I’m just pointing out that every time this argument happens, everyone pulls out the same tired responses and we go in circles.

That's the nature of age-old arguments. Which like last time, I'm pretty sure are supposed to be outside this thread's purview.

[Grenartia]

1. Also, “It doesn’t make sense” really isn’t a good rebuttal. 2. Why doesn’t it make sense? You’re either being purposefully vague or the entire argument has gone over your head.

3. So what on the origin of God Himself? How can there be an unmoved mover, a creatorless creator? 4. If God is outside of space and time, He does not apply to the laws of biogenesis, requiring for a living thing to come from a living thing. 5. “Divinity” is a state of being that is beyond merely “living” or “created”. It is. For something to be “living” it must first be created. “Divinity” does not require this, and thus there is no “gap”. 6. The Incarnation is the Second Person of the Trinity, an amortal being, coming down and becoming mortal, while also keeping His amortal nature. 7. Whatever “gap” existed is closed by the fact that God is both outside of time and also constantly involved in the work of salvation.

But I see UMN mentioned much of this already, and 8. you ignored a good two sentences to focus on the one claim where you can say, “Haha! Gotcha!” 9. The problem is you’re not actually addressing any of the arguments, but merely trying to discredit your opponents by...what? Changing terms around? 10. You want to play with semantics, but we are actually debating something far more complicated and complex than “cosmological argument” versus “God of the Gaps”. 11. So perhaps actually debate.

1. Its not a rebuttal. Its a challenge.

2. I've explained why it doesn't make sense. If you think that my explanation is somehow lacking, then that's one thing, but I did explain.

3. That's precisely the question that is begged when one applies the "Cosmological Argument" to God Him/Her/Themself.

4. This does not at all remove God from the Cosmological Argument.

5. On what basis can you make that claim? It sounds like you pulled it straight out of the Pope's ass.

6. You must have missed the part of the discussion where Tarsonis explicitly stated this was not about proving the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but rather proving the need for a deity in general to exist.

7. Except, being "outside of time" doesn't close any gaps whatsoever, and in fact, arguably creates more.

8. I didn't. I read the whole thing, and none of it really applied to my statements. Likely because he, like you, presumably jumped in to this discussion without being familiar with its history.

9. How have I not addressed the arguments? What arguments apply to my statements that I have missed? I'm not making rhetorical questions here. I want actual instances of me doing these things you claim I'm doing.

10. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that the only thing being debated right now IS whether or not ANY God, in general, is logically required to exist.

11. Perhaps you should practice what you preach, sister.

[Grenartia]

1. I am not.

2. I'm just operating on what I've previously observed. IME, people only say they're stepping out of arguments when they realize they cannot defend their position anymore, and refuse to concede the point.

3. Your statement here implies that he's been arguing with me on multiple terms. He has not. I am addressing every point he has made in his arguments against me.

4. I do want an answer. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. Where you've gotten the idea I don't want an answer, I have no idea.

5. That isn't what's happening here.

Where did I get that idea? You’re oversimplifying the argument to match your own thoughts on the matter, rather than actually trying to understand the point. Hence why you keep changing the term “Cosmological Argument” to “God of the Gaps”. I could sit here and call you “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice”, but is that really going to change the debate? “Nuh uh” and “haha stupid professor” are also invalid debating points. Address the arguments given instead of sitting and trying to pull them down to whatever level you want to debate at.

I keep changing the term Cosmological Argument to God of the Gaps because from what I see, there is functionally no difference. Without dragging this into an abortion debate, I can fully articulate the differences between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. I have seen no such articulation from Tarsonis on the differences between CA and GG. Either there are no differences, or he is unwilling to articulate them. I doubt he is unable, given his claimed education.

Also, I never said "haha stupid professor". I simply stated that given his claimed education, I expected a better performance from him on this topic.

[Grenartia]

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

You haven’t made much of a challenge. “I expected more from a Yale Professor” is just a flimsy attempt get him riled-up, not an actual challenge.

Again, you don't have nearly as much of the picture here as you think you do. You are making claims based on a single puzzle piece of the discussion, without looking at the picture on the box.

[Grenartia]

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

I reread the posts, and that is indeed what it looks like you’re doing, I concede that.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

[Kowani]

I’m just pointing out that every time this argument happens, everyone pulls out the same tired responses and we go in circles.

That's the nature of age-old arguments. Which like last time, I'm pretty sure are supposed to be outside this thread's purview.

And that’s why I’m staying far, far away from the argument. This way, I can sit over here with my popcorn and enjoy the debacle without actually getting involved.

[Northern Davincia]

I'm speaking in the context of the knowledge Bruno had available. His ideas were impossible to test during his lifetime.

That is not a legitimate criterion to use. Plenty of hypothesized phenomena were thought to be impossible to test during the hypothesizer's lifetime.

But, going back to Einstein and relativity, let's examine gravitational waves. Their existence was doubted, even by Einstein, but they were heavily implied in the relativistic equations. He died 20 years before we even got indirect evidence, through examining pulsar mergers. It took another 4 decades, almost an entire century from relativity's first prediction of them, in order to directly observe them, and that required technology that quite frankly, wasn't even thought of when he published the first paper on relativity, much less actually existing when he died (lasers being another half-decade away when he died).

Einstein had reason to doubt gravitational waves, because it wasn't possible to examine them at the time, even though the math suggested their existence. Bruno did not have the luxury of mathematical support either.

Regardless, that wasn't what he was executed for.

Except it was, because his hypotheses were determined to be heretical. And he was executed for heresy.

Dismissing the Holy Trinity and believing in reincarnation ain't a hypothesis.

[Tarsonis]

All ask your the same question, “what part of that which was not created” was too hard for you?

The part where it didn't make any sense and as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said in this thread. And furthermore, there's no obvious application of the sentence fragment "that which was not created", to this discussion.

If I am incorrect on this point, and you have, indeed, made a post containing that fragment in a context that actually makes sense, I would like to see a link to it, however, not even the search bar has revealed such a post.

A. It's not my fault you didn't read the context of the discussion between me and New Haven before you interjected.
B. It's further not my fault that either by willful ignorance, or insufficient intellectual capacity, that you can't comprehend the cosmological argument that I have restated multiple times on this thread.

Don’t bother answering cause I’m done with you. I’m not gonna bother with this intellectual dishonesty.

>calling me intellectually dishonest
>literally refusing to even attempt to prove me wrong or concede the argument

Kden.

I've called you intellectually dishonest, because it is the most I'm allowed to say within the rules of the forum. The reason I've called you intelectuily dishonest is because of your continued God of the Gaps comments. I've explained twice now why it's not applicable to the Cosmological Argument, but you keep repeating it in asinine fashion as if it constitutes a a refutation, and not just an annoying and childish taunt.

The reason I'm not "proving you wrong" is because you haven't even attempted to make an argument. You just keep repeating "God of the Gaps" like a senile parrot.

If my questions are making you question your faith, then that is not my problem, though I would have expected better from somebody who makes a point of saying in their sig that they went to Yale Divinity School.

The only thing you're making me question is the merits of democracy.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not the one making the claim that the origin of God needs explanation. Tarsonis did that. I simply highlighted it and challenged him on it.

I reread the posts, and that is indeed what it looks like you’re doing, I concede that.

That's amusing then, because that's not what I did. The cosomoligical argument does not explain the existence of God, it's entirely predicated on the fact that God is eternal with out cause. It's the entire fucking basis of the argument

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I reread the posts, and that is indeed what it looks like you’re doing, I concede that.

That's amusing then, because that's not what I did. The cosomoligical argument does not explain the existence of God, it's entirely predicated on the fact that God is eternal with out cause. It's the entire fucking basis of the argument

Then I’m thoroughly confused as to what’s going on, if I misrepresented your argument then I apologise.

[Tarsonis]

That's amusing then, because that's not what I did. The cosomoligical argument does not explain the existence of God, it's entirely predicated on the fact that God is eternal with out cause. It's the entire fucking basis of the argument

Then I’m thoroughly confused as to what’s going on, if I misrepresented your argument then I apologise.

Seems to be going around.

What happened is I explained the Cosmological argument. Gen interjected on a conversation claiming a "God of the Gaps fallacy." I pointed out that this was incorrect, as the Cosmological argument isn't concerned with explaining observable phenomena, it's a logical deduction from reason concerning the nature of existence. They're not the same field of thought let alone the same question.

Rather than engage they asininely replied with "nu uh yes it is" and pulled a further taunting tactic with the strike coding. At which point my annoyance that i had suppressed dealing with the summer anti-theists, came out full force.

[Luminesa]

1. Also, “It doesn’t make sense” really isn’t a good rebuttal. 2. Why doesn’t it make sense? You’re either being purposefully vague or the entire argument has gone over your head.

3. So what on the origin of God Himself? How can there be an unmoved mover, a creatorless creator? 4. If God is outside of space and time, He does not apply to the laws of biogenesis, requiring for a living thing to come from a living thing. 5. “Divinity” is a state of being that is beyond merely “living” or “created”. It is. For something to be “living” it must first be created. “Divinity” does not require this, and thus there is no “gap”. 6. The Incarnation is the Second Person of the Trinity, an amortal being, coming down and becoming mortal, while also keeping His amortal nature. 7. Whatever “gap” existed is closed by the fact that God is both outside of time and also constantly involved in the work of salvation.

But I see UMN mentioned much of this already, and 8. you ignored a good two sentences to focus on the one claim where you can say, “Haha! Gotcha!” 9. The problem is you’re not actually addressing any of the arguments, but merely trying to discredit your opponents by...what? Changing terms around? 10. You want to play with semantics, but we are actually debating something far more complicated and complex than “cosmological argument” versus “God of the Gaps”. 11. So perhaps actually debate.

1. Its not a rebuttal. Its a challenge.

2. I've explained why it doesn't make sense. If you think that my explanation is somehow lacking, then that's one thing, but I did explain.

3. That's precisely the question that is begged when one applies the "Cosmological Argument" to God Him/Her/Themself.

4. This does not at all remove God from the Cosmological Argument.

5. On what basis can you make that claim? It sounds like you pulled it straight out of the Pope's ass.

6. You must have missed the part of the discussion where Tarsonis explicitly stated this was not about proving the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but rather proving the need for a deity in general to exist.

7. Except, being "outside of time" doesn't close any gaps whatsoever, and in fact, arguably creates more.

8. I didn't. I read the whole thing, and none of it really applied to my statements. Likely because he, like you, presumably jumped in to this discussion without being familiar with its history.

9. How have I not addressed the arguments? What arguments apply to my statements that I have missed? I'm not making rhetorical questions here. I want actual instances of me doing these things you claim I'm doing.

10. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that the only thing being debated right now IS whether or not ANY God, in general, is logically required to exist.

11. Perhaps you should practice what you preach, sister.

All I see is you trying to get an answer you don’t want from someone who you’re not listening to very much. I am debating. I gave an answer, after having read back through the discussion, and I called the parts of your argument I found the most glaringly deficient. Given Tars has been explaining his answer, you clearly want a particular answer, something along the lines of, “There is no reason for a God to logically exist.” Because he hasn’t given you the answer you want, you tell him you’re disappointed him in and presume he’s somehow questioning his faith over your non-responses and vague, general questions. And you will probably cut this paragraph apart as if that makes your responses look more meticulous.

Of course, if you actually want an answer, the basis for my response is because divinity in every religion is regarded as something beyond merely living. Something exists, in the world or around the world but not of it. Rather, above it, or below it. Maybe once you get through breaking this apart somehow, we can start over, and you can find some way to tell me as well how I’m losing my faith, because you’re making such devastating comments about my responses as, “Durr hurr you pulled that out of the pope’s butt.” Really?