The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Luminesa]

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.

You said, “I expected more from a Yale professor.” I don’t think he needs to perform for you, he’s taking the time to answer your questions and to debate, as a good professor would do. And like a good professor, he has seen arguing with a person who doesn’t want answers is pointless and has moved forward.

[Tarsonis]

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.

You said, “I expected more from a Yale professor.” I don’t think he needs to perform for you, he’s taking the time to answer your questions and to debate, as a good professor would do. And like a good professor, he has seen arguing with a person who doesn’t want answers is pointless and has moved forward.

I should note that I'm not a professor, but I do have a job interview Monday in Boston so, any prayers would be much appreciated.

[Luminesa]

You said, “I expected more from a Yale professor.” I don’t think he needs to perform for you, he’s taking the time to answer your questions and to debate, as a good professor would do. And like a good professor, he has seen arguing with a person who doesn’t want answers is pointless and has moved forward.

I should note that I'm not a professor, but I do have a job interview Monday in Boston so, any prayers would be much appreciated.

Shoot, I thought you already were one. I SHALL PRAY FOR YOU AND YOU CAN DO IT.

You sound like a professor anyway.

[Tarsonis]

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?

Special pleading is only fallacious if there's not sufficient grounds for the exception.

[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?

Special pleading is only fallacious if there's not sufficient grounds for the exception.

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

[Tarsonis]

Special pleading is only fallacious if there's not sufficient grounds for the exception.

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

Infinite egresss is impossible, so God necessarily exists without creation.

[Lost Memories]

Special pleading is only fallacious if there's not sufficient grounds for the exception.

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

Eh, your hard time of understanding this matter of a creator of the world comes from your lack of a concept of divinity.
(as Luminesia already pointed out, but you may have missed it)
Which leads you to believe there is only the world, and nothing outside it. Which in turns keeps you limited to the rules of the world to explain the origin of the world.

The point of divinity is that it's not part of the world, nor it does submit to the rules of the world. (included sequentiality)
The infinite regress happens only if you try to frame the origin as a part of the world. That's not an issue of god, but a failure to define a first cause. To define a first cause the rules of the world are insufficient, because the first cause existed before the world, so the rules of the world can't apply.

If the world is the box, you're failing to think outside the box.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Yes, but your reason that God is exempt from needing a creator is that otherwise it’s an infinite regress. That’s not sufficient grounds for exemption. “God is exempt because otherwise the argument falls apart.”

Eh, your hard time of understanding this matter of a creator of the world comes from your lack of a concept of divinity.
(as Luminesia already pointed out, but you may have missed it)
Which leads you to believe there is only the world, and nothing outside it. Which in turns keeps you limited to the rules of the world to explain the origin of the world.

The point of divinity is that it's not part of the world, nor it does submit to the rules of the world. (included sequentiality)
The infinite regress happens only if you try to frame the origin as a part of the world. That's not an issue of god, but a failure to define a first cause. To define a first cause the rules of the world are insufficient, because the first cause existed before the world, so the rules of the world can't apply.

If the world is the box, you're failing to think outside the box.

The concept of divinity is really just special pleading. Plus, if a god exists, I'd like to see some serious explanation on why it has to be the Judeo-Christian god, or the god of any existing religion for that matter, as opposed to any indifferent god which created the universe and did not intervene in it at all, let alone let intelligent apes on one specific planet know that they exist and impose draconian rules on their actions backed by promises of eternal pleasure and threats of eternal suffering?

[Lost Memories]

If the world is the box, you're failing to think outside the box.

The concept of divinity is really just special pleading.

This same point, 2 pages ago.

I'm starting to think that infinite regression doesn't come from trying to explain a first cause by using world rules, but from the lack of ability to follow a discourse in its entirety.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

The concept of divinity is really just special pleading.

This same point, 2 pages ago.

I'm starting to think that infinite regression doesn't come from trying to explain a first cause by using world rules, but from the lack of ability to follow a discourse in its entirety.

An eternal first cause does not have to be a god

[Lost Memories]

An eternal first cause does not have to be a god

That's a logical fallacy.

The first cause needs to be of otherwordly nature. (see previous reasoning, about how a first cause can't be wordly)
The first cause is only one. (multiple first causes is like multiple first places in a competition, there are better explanations than this)
The first cause has a will. (Tarsonis addressed this point some pages back)
The first cause is a single otherwordly entity with a will, that is what a god is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And those things came from? and then Those things came from? You see what I'm getting at? This isn't an argument of natural science but of reason. Go back and read my post.

And God came from... ?

Edit: The universe could come directly or indirectly from an eternal cause (this doesn't mean that the eternal cause is God, as opposed to any naturalistic first cause)

The problem is you are not really attacking the nature of God with this argument to be fair.

All you are really saying is that there could be a naturalistic cause for the beginning of the universe, and that's all good, but you really are not disproving the existence of God by claiming there are natural means by which the universe was created. You're merely not attributing said means to God, but attributing said beginning to nature and not God doesn't put the existence of God at odds with a naturalistic universe, even if you were to argue that the causes of the creation of the universe were naturalistic, which is merely another means to say "it just happened".

If it just happened, then why did it happen? To what can we attribute the universe, with its own set of rules, existing? Notice, this is not an attempt at explaining the "how", but instead it is trying to explain the "why". Why did the universe come into existence? Why this universe and not another universe, or, perhaps, nothing at all?

You have to come with a counterargument not as to what made the first thing happen, but why did it happen. That is, you need a counterargument that successfully argues as to why nothing at all (or, really, your preferred choice of prime cause even if it is not "nothing") was required for the universe to exist, instead of a first mover as the cosmological argument implies. And, despite the favorite online meme, the null hypothesis is not sufficient to deal with the issue, because this is not an issue of science, it's an issue of philosophy and reason because you are trying to explain a "why", not a "how".

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

And God came from... ?

Edit: The universe could come directly or indirectly from an eternal cause (this doesn't mean that the eternal cause is God, as opposed to any naturalistic first cause)

The problem is you are not really attacking the nature of God with this argument to be fair.

All you are really saying is that there could be a naturalistic cause for the beginning of the universe, and that's all good, but you really are not disproving the existence of God by claiming there are natural means by which the universe was created. You're merely not attributing said means to God, but attributing said beginning to nature and not God doesn't put the existence of God at odds with a naturalistic universe, even if you were to argue that the causes of the creation of the universe were naturalistic, which is merely another means to say "it just happened".

If it just happened, then why did it happen? To what can we attribute the universe, with its own set of rules, existing? Notice, this is not an attempt at explaining the "how", but instead it is trying to explain the "why". Why did the universe come into existence? Why this universe and not another universe, or, perhaps, nothing at all?

You have to come with a counterargument not as to what made the first thing happen, but why did it happen. That is, you need a counterargument that successfully argues as to why nothing at all (or, really, your preferred choice of prime cause even if it is not "nothing") was required for the universe to exist, instead of a first mover as the cosmological argument implies. And, despite the favorite online meme, the null hypothesis is not sufficient to deal with the issue, because this is not an issue of science, it's an issue of philosophy and reason because you are trying to explain a "why", not a "how".

1. To the best of our knowledge, there is no reason why the universe exists. If I roll a dice, why does it land a 3, and not a 2 or 6?

2. We can't prove with any certainty that God exists or does not exist. Say that you have a jar filled with coins, with the lid glued shut. As we cannot take the coins out of the jar and count them, we cannot know how many coins there are in the jar. if I say "There is not definitely an even number of coins in the jar", that does not mean "there is an odd number of coins in the jar".

[Luminesa]

Eh, your hard time of understanding this matter of a creator of the world comes from your lack of a concept of divinity.
(as Luminesia already pointed out, but you may have missed it)
Which leads you to believe there is only the world, and nothing outside it. Which in turns keeps you limited to the rules of the world to explain the origin of the world.

The point of divinity is that it's not part of the world, nor it does submit to the rules of the world. (included sequentiality)
The infinite regress happens only if you try to frame the origin as a part of the world. That's not an issue of god, but a failure to define a first cause. To define a first cause the rules of the world are insufficient, because the first cause existed before the world, so the rules of the world can't apply.

If the world is the box, you're failing to think outside the box.

The concept of divinity is really just special pleading. Plus, if a god exists, I'd like to see some serious explanation on why it has to be the Judeo-Christian god, or the god of any existing religion for that matter, as opposed to any indifferent god which created the universe and did not intervene in it at all, let alone let intelligent apes on one specific planet know that they exist and impose draconian rules on their actions backed by promises of eternal pleasure and threats of eternal suffering?

Well first of all, we would have to address every other misunderstanding you’ve posted. Technically the god proposed in The Watchmaker Theory is the Christian God, or a version of the Christian god. The people who suggested that theory were deists, not necessarily atheists. Why would it be the Judeo-Christian God? God is all-reaching and all-powerful. I can throw it back at you. Why wouldn’t it be the Judeo-Christian God? Can you name another single deity who created the universe and who runs it without the need for other gods? Who created humanity not even using words, but solely out of His desire to love? Are you suggesting some sort of other deity?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

An eternal first cause does not have to be a god

That's a logical fallacy.

No it isn't. Perhaps list the exact logical fallacy if you believe it's a logical fallacy? Strawman? Non sequitur?

The first cause needs to be of otherwordly nature. (see previous reasoning, about how a first cause can't be wordly)

Ok, it's outside this universe. Still, could be a quantum fluctuation in a parallel universe, or two universes colliding in a higher dimension.

The first cause is only one. (multiple first causes is like multiple first places in a competition, there are better explanations than this)

We all know that

The first cause has a will. (Tarsonis addressed this point some pages back)

No, it does not need to have a will. Plus, you have not categorically disproven infinite regression.

The first cause is a single otherwordly entity with a will, that is what a god is.

Given that the third premise is false, the conclusion is false. Also, why does the god give two shits about human behaviour, let alone demand worship?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

The concept of divinity is really just special pleading. Plus, if a god exists, I'd like to see some serious explanation on why it has to be the Judeo-Christian god, or the god of any existing religion for that matter, as opposed to any indifferent god which created the universe and did not intervene in it at all, let alone let intelligent apes on one specific planet know that they exist and impose draconian rules on their actions backed by promises of eternal pleasure and threats of eternal suffering?

Well first of all, we would have to address every other misunderstanding you’ve posted. Technically the god proposed in The Watchmaker Theory is the Christian God, or a version of the Christian god. The people who suggested that theory were deists, not necessarily atheists. Why would it be the Judeo-Christian God? God is all-reaching and all-powerful. I can throw it back at you. Why wouldn’t it be the Judeo-Christian God? Can you name another single deity who created the universe and who runs it without the need for other gods? Who created humanity not even using words, but solely out of His desire to love? Are you suggesting some sort of other deity?

You do not have to limit your presumption of what gods can exist to the boundaries of human religion - an infinite number of hypothetical gods worshipped by no existing religion could exist. The Watchmaker Theory makes no assumption that the god has to be the Judeo-Christian God as opposed to any other monotheistic deity, and is flawed anyway -here's Charles Darwin's refutation of it (he was a theist):

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

Why would a god even directly create humanity, as opposed to just creating the fundamental particles of the universe and letting physics (formation of atoms), chemistry (formation of complex organic molecules, abiogenesis) and biology (natural selection, evolution) do their own thing? And yes, I am suggesting some other deity.

[Aellex]

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

Neither is denying Jesus-Christ's divinity and calling him a "cunning magician".
But then again, he was as much of a Christian than Grenartia themselves is so I'm not surprised they try and defend him.

Honestly, there is not much point even engaging with them m8; no matter how many, many time they're shown wrong, they will keep on claiming they're winning and carry on repeating the same thing in spite of everything through hubris alone.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

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

Neither is denying Jesus-Christ's divinity and calling him a "cunning magician".
But then again, he was as much of a Christian than Grenartia themselves is so I'm not surprised they try and defend him.

Honestly, there is not much point even engaging with them m8; no matter how many, many time they're shown wrong, they will keep on claiming they're winning and carry on repeating the same thing in spite of everything through hubris alone.

Perhaps it's the other way round? Perhaps no matter how many times you're shown wrong, you will keep on claiming you're winning and carry on repeating the same thing in spite of everything through hubris alone?

[Aellex]

Perhaps it's the other way round? Perhaps no matter how many times you're shown wrong, you will keep on claiming you're winning and carry on repeating the same thing in spite of everything through hubris alone?

"If I repeat the very same thing but inverse the person saying it and the person toward which it is directed, it will makes me sounds smart and clever!"

Well there boyo, if such is the case do point when and where I did that.

[Lost Memories]

Honestly, there is not much point even engaging with them m8; no matter how many, many time they're shown wrong, they will keep on claiming they're winning and carry on repeating the same thing in spite of everything through hubris alone.

On one hand, they're making a fool of themselves by criticizing not what christians believe, but their faulty idea of what christians believe. So in a sense they're criticizing only their own ignorance, but at the same time they don't realize to be ignorant.
On the other hand, having them continue like that for some time makes them a sad thing to look at. Which may remind of the spiritual works of mercy, the first ones in particular:
1 To instruct the ignorant.
2 To counsel the doubtful.
3 To admonish the sinners.
4 To bear patiently those who wrong us.
5 To forgive offenses.
6 To comfort the afflicted.
7 To pray for the living and the dead.
8 To contemplate God's creation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is you are not really attacking the nature of God with this argument to be fair.

All you are really saying is that there could be a naturalistic cause for the beginning of the universe, and that's all good, but you really are not disproving the existence of God by claiming there are natural means by which the universe was created. You're merely not attributing said means to God, but attributing said beginning to nature and not God doesn't put the existence of God at odds with a naturalistic universe, even if you were to argue that the causes of the creation of the universe were naturalistic, which is merely another means to say "it just happened".

If it just happened, then why did it happen? To what can we attribute the universe, with its own set of rules, existing? Notice, this is not an attempt at explaining the "how", but instead it is trying to explain the "why". Why did the universe come into existence? Why this universe and not another universe, or, perhaps, nothing at all?

You have to come with a counterargument not as to what made the first thing happen, but why did it happen. That is, you need a counterargument that successfully argues as to why nothing at all (or, really, your preferred choice of prime cause even if it is not "nothing") was required for the universe to exist, instead of a first mover as the cosmological argument implies. And, despite the favorite online meme, the null hypothesis is not sufficient to deal with the issue, because this is not an issue of science, it's an issue of philosophy and reason because you are trying to explain a "why", not a "how".

1. To the best of our knowledge, there is no reason why the universe exists. If I roll a dice, why does it land a 3, and not a 2 or 6?

2. We can't prove with any certainty that God exists or does not exist. Say that you have a jar filled with coins, with the lid glued shut. As we cannot take the coins out of the jar and count them, we cannot know how many coins there are in the jar. if I say "There is not definitely an even number of coins in the jar", that does not mean "there is an odd number of coins in the jar".

Again, you are answering the "how" and not the "why".

You are so stuck in this "yea but let me tell you HOW it happened" bit that you fail to notice nobody is arguing the how with the cosmological argument, but the why, as that is what philosophy (and theology to an extent) actually does.

[Tarsonis]

The first cause has a will. (Tarsonis addressed this point some pages back)

No, it does not need to have a will. Plus, you have not categorically disproven infinite regression.

I’ve made the argument that it does, which you’ve chosen to ignore upnto this points. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a sufficient rebuttals

Secondly infinite regression is absurd by all stretch of reason. The burden of proof would be on you to prove it, not us to disprove it.

The first cause is a single otherwordly entity with a will, that is what a god is.

Given that the third premise is false, the conclusion is false.

You’ve failed to demonstrate the third premise as being false, thus your assertion the conclusion is false is invalid.

Also, why does the god give two shits about human behaviour, let alone demand worship?

Nope, full stop. You’re moving the goalposts.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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 did, multiple times. The Cosmological argument doesn't necessitate and infinite regression, you were the one who argued in favor of an infinite regression.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And those things came from? and then Those things came from? You see what I'm getting at? This isn't an argument of natural science but of reason. Go back and read my post.

And God came from... ?

Edit: The universe could come directly or indirectly from an eternal cause (this doesn't mean that the eternal cause is God, as opposed to any naturalistic first cause)

The problem with a naturalistic first cause, as I pointed out earlier, is that if there was a naturalistic first cause, it doesn't explain many things. The problem with the Big Bang, for example, is that it simply shouldn't be physically possible, any singularity shouldn't be able to expand due to force of gravity holding it together.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

And God came from... ?

Edit: The universe could come directly or indirectly from an eternal cause (this doesn't mean that the eternal cause is God, as opposed to any naturalistic first cause)

The problem with a naturalistic first cause, as I pointed out earlier, is that if there was a naturalistic first cause, it doesn't explain many things. The problem with the Big Bang, for example, is that it simply shouldn't be physically possible, any singularity shouldn't be able to expand due to force of gravity holding it together.

Actually, a black hole singularity loses mass via Hawking radiation