Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

The only point of the immaterial argument is to prove that things exists that have no mass or form. The materialist believes that all that exists is material. this argument is only meant to refute the position of the materialist and show that immaterial exists. I will grant you that it does not 'verify' God. What it does though, is prove that God is plausible. So God cannot be ruled out by way of materialism.

No, it doesn't prove God is plausible. Firstly because your definition of God is laughably weak, and secondly your usage of immaterial is spurious. The laws of the universe are "immaterial", as you put it, abstract concepts that can only be described by another medium. In this case mathematics. They exist only insomuch as 2 + 2 = 4 exists.

Abstract concepts only describe how things work, they don't 'do' anything, so if you want to render your god to the position of something that doesn't do anything, then we can reach a point of agreement, because if there is a god, it seemingly is completely useless.

Glad you brought up mathematics. Where do the laws of mathematics come from? Did we invent them? No, however we discovered them. How many things are discovered but do not exists? From a materialistic worldview you would have no way of explaining where the laws of mathematics come from as they too are immaterial. Nor can you explain where laws of logic come from. Nor can you give an explanation as to where the laws of the universe come from. Saying they are inherent is a non answer. Inherent is an adjective. An adjective describes. A description does not explain where the laws that mathematics come from. A Description does not give an explanation as to where the laws or the natural universe come from. A description does not explain where the laws of logic come from. Laws of the universe, mathematics, and logic all have to come from somewhere or something or someone.

Abstract concepts only describe how things work, they don't 'do' anything

The immaterial laws by which the universe follows do not merely exist abstractly. If that were to be the case then the universe along with us, would not exist. So if the laws of the universe don't 'do' anything then how are they able to be described? They can be described through abstract thoughts by the way the natural universe interrelates. We cannot see the laws of inertia but we can describe how the laws of inertia interrelate by observing the effects of motion by observing moving objects.

"your definition of God is laughably weak"
Maybe this will help: God is immaterial: God is not made of material. God is timeless. God is outside of time, thus infinite. God is non spatial. God does not take up space. God is self- existent. God does not depend on anything to existent.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sorry but altering the narrative with a fiction character does not stand as a refutation.

Dear josephhasfun01 PLEASE READ Let me first start by apologising, I was up late last night and acted slightly childish however I attend to refute a few things and make a proposition. firstly the line I quoted above is just false, and allow me to use an analogy to explain why. Suppose a math students seeks to prove an equation he has devised, for whatever reason when he shows it to his teacher, the teacher has doubts maybe he isn't used to the notation or maybe the answer seems dubious, the teacher then believes his method is wrong, and to prove it he inputs this method into an alternate set of linear numbers and simplifies his equation. his result is 1=2 If this were to occur then the method would by necessity be wrong. If a method proves something which certainly false the method must be wrong. Now can't you see the analogy? I'm the teacher! You showed a dubious method and when I applied to a a situation I got an impossible result.
Here is my refutation of your premises for the third time please read these carefully
forgotten observer wrote:

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: God exist.

Premise one is questionable the natural laws of the universe are an inherent part of it, they are essentially qualities, are qualities physical or immaterial? They are a perceived description of an observable entity, the foundations of the quality are physical and as such the abstract interpretations are as well.
premise two: circular reasoning, you could name any hypothetical being, say Haruhi Suzumiya and make this claim, but it still relies upon the idea they exist in the first place, unless the you mean there is a CONCEPT with the quality of immateriality. Not to nit-pick but this conflation causes horrendous conclusions, I.E. the ontological argument, which requires solely this conflation to work

premise 3. Failed grammar and even more failed reasoning, simply because a quality can be observed in physical reality and a hypothetical being has this quality ascribed to it does not prove it's existence.

Premise 1.Haruhi Suzamiya is a hypothetical being with the concept of being eccentric and beautiful
Premise 2. there are laws defining how beauty and eccentricity are perceived in nature through the human mind
Conclusion Haruhi Suzumiya exists

Now as much as I would like this to be the case sadly it isn't and I hope you can see why.
I feel this argument isn't quite as stupid as you word it and in fact you are really leading on to this-
--->www.proofthatgodexists.org/

If that's what you wish me to refute I will very happily.
Thanks for reading, forgotten observer

Please reply and I'll make you an offer you can't refuse.

are qualities physical or immaterial?

Using the sense of the word 'qualities' in the context in which we are inferring to I take it you mean 'qualities' as an essential property; an essential identifying nature or character of somebody or something. The answer is yes. The laws of the universe have an essential identifying nature. God also has identifying qualities. Otherwise we would not be able to describe them abstractly. However the laws by which the natural universe follows are not merely concepts. Our perceptions do not keep our universe from collapsing my friend!

I feel this argument isn't quite as stupid as you word it and in fact you are really leading on to this-
--->www.proofthatgodexists.org/

I have not the time to look at www.anything. Just stay focused on the task at hand!

"unless the you mean there is a CONCEPT with the quality of immateriality."
Yes there is a concept. Immaterial exist outside of mere perception. Perception does not keep the universe from collapsing. Laws of the universe are immaterial. They are independent of material. The laws of the natural universe do not depend on material to exists. Material depends on the natural laws of the universe in order to exist and function.
It just so happens the laws require a law giver. Only something with intelligence could have put these laws in which the universe follows in place.
The problem with your thinking is that you will only take naturalistic explanations into consideration. This is short sighted and empty-headedness. By definition "natural" means non intelligent. How many non intelligent things have you seen specify complexity?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Bringing causality and quantum theory into the mix does nothing to change your position.
1. You should have never brought both because you understand neither, and I am particularly offended that you think that your misconceptions about science could pass as an argument.

2. The "law of causality that states that everything that exists has a cause" doesn't exist. This is falsehood straight out of a christian apologetic anus. You have no idea what causality means, and even tough to read this message you have probably looked straight at an example of an acausal system (and you have listened to them too), you couldn't name me an example of one to save your life.

3. Quantum theory hasn't changed anything about logic. When the quantum electrodynamics model was described to me for the first time it made sense, it explained why allot of phenomena was the way it was, it may not be the full picture but it is a very logical picture. It maybe strange that the best you can do is to compute the probabilities of a certain events, that the way to correctly compute (in what appears to be a simple model) is extremely complex as if things could be really nowhere but everywhere at once, as if things could travel back in time like there was nothing special about it. It just stops making sense when you want to see beyond the model, when you want to try and see it in terms of things you are familiar with in the macroscopic world, because the macroscopic world looks nothing like it, it is so alien to us that the mind simply protests. But intuition is not a criteria for it being correct, it just means that the mental baggage of our previously held certainties are simply in the way. The models of quantum mechanics are based on mathematical rules, rules that can be described logically. Do not confuse logic with prejudice.

4. Just because you don't know something, it doesn't mean that you are free to postulate that your God Shiva did it.

5. You are still under the misconception that the laws of physics exists in the same sense that my left shoe exists, despite the fact that you have been corrected on it.

'The "law of causality that states that everything that exists has a cause" doesn't exist.'
You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause". You state that the law of causality does not exist. Really? What 'caused' you to arrive at that conclusion? LOL

 

[Josephhasfun01]

It had to be: Self existent, non spatial, timeless, and immaterial.

Let me translate that for you:
Self existent = circular. I.e. It only exists if it exists. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Since there exists nothing that requieres it to exist, it doesn't.
non spatial = nowhere
timeless = never
immaterial = unfortunately by the definition of material you have been using this means "nothing".

Suffice to say. I couldn't agree more about your God.

"Self existent = circular. I.e. It only exists if it exists. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist."

Fail: self existent simply means that something self existent is not dependant on anything else to exist. It simply exists.

"Since there exists nothing that requieres it to exist, it doesn't."

Allow me to translate: By your above statement you have just invoked upon a circular argument. You are stating that everything needs a cause. By this reasoning you are indeed saying that there are infinite causes. This is called 'infinite regressions.' You are saying that instead of there being an infinite first cause that is outside of time and space, there must be an infinite number of causes that go on forever. I am scratching my head about how you would think that this is rational thinking. Do you believe in infinite causes rather than an infinite creator?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Inferno, after taking a few days to think on it, you're right. I will adjust my language accordingly.

Joseph... just wow. If I may use an old line, you're not even wrong. You go back and forth with definitions in clear equivocation fallacies with "law" and "material."

Please, for my sanity, define those two terms before you continue. Also, there's no reason to quote entire posts if you are only responding to one line and even less to post 4 times in a row.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Joseph,

You observe photons every day when you open your eyes.
We can pull out spectrometers and visibly view and use every wavelength of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and have used it to see far beyond the breaches that are offered by visible light into the stars and space. Shit, we have lasers with the strength to roast weenies on the surface of the moon from Earth.

I can observe, and master electromagnetic waves and radiation. I can build technology off of their existence. We wouldn't be having this conversation, pointing out your absolute ignorance of scientific principles, if we hadn't garnered mastery over electricity to the point of creating vast relays that rely solely upon electrical computation and storage.
So, for all intents and purposes, they are not "immaterial" as much as water running down a stream is immaterial - they both have real, understandable, plausible uses that never alter nor fail in any facet in their behaviors within non-quantum limits.
Your God is nowhere near as testable, provable, nor even remotely useful than anything you have described in this entire thread as "immaterial."

Build me a machine that runes solely on immaterial God-power (magic), and I'll pit it against a TI-82 in a reliability test.
Until the circuits burn out, or the batteries die, I'll be able to calculate everything from the curvature of the Earth to the expanses of space. Uniformly, observably, and keep on doing so getting a changing result based upon input.

You have no definition of "God" that does not beat out my own deity, nor any others that were claimed to exist in all of history in a test of logic (Conclusion: The Pagan Creator Deity of Hytegia exists because it is immaterial) nor utility, and have constantly failed to show that when pointed out that you are wrong on a time-and-time again basis.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Just as well -

You say that God can be a non-created creator, and posit him as the exception to your toted logic of causality. You go out of your way to apply exemptions from your own complaints, and say "Well, God doesn't count" when we address the same things.

Well, why can't anyone else cut the mess with something we have no evidence for and say that the Universe's (something we know exist) own mechanics are capable in and of themselves to be in such a manner for it to be self-creating and self-sustaining?

All you've done is make up arbitrary rules for a game, break them, and then when we call you out on them you say "I make the rules, so HA!"

 

[australopithecus]

Glad you brought up mathematics. Where do the laws of mathematics come from? Did we invent them? No, however we discovered them.

Yes, because they are an abstract concepts.

How many things are discovered but do not exists?

They do exist, as abstract concepts. They describe physical reality. You're hung up on material and immaterial like anything that isn't made of stuff is ethereal and mystical. It's borderline Platonic forms, and I fucking hate Plato.

From a materialistic worldview you would have no way of explaining where the laws of mathematics come from as they too are immaterial. Nor can you explain where laws of logic come from. Nor can you give an explanation as to where the laws of the universe come from.

They are ABSTRACT CONCEPTS that describe reality. They didn't come from anywhere or anyone, they are an emergent properties of reality.

Saying they are inherent is a non answer. Inherent is an adjective. An adjective describes. A description does not explain where the laws that mathematics come from. A Description does not give an explanation as to where the laws or the natural universe come from. A description does not explain where the laws of logic come from.

Saying they are inherent is an answer because they are. Saying "No it's not" because you don't like the implications is your problem. They didn't "come from" anywhere, because they are an inherent part of reality. If that doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside then tough.

Laws of the universe, mathematics, and logic all have to come from somewhere or something or someone.

No, they don't.

The immaterial laws by which the universe follows do not merely exist abstractly.

They kind of do.

If that were to be the case then the universe along with us, would not exist.

Argument from ignorance. Dismissed.

So if the laws of the universe don't 'do' anything then how are they able to be described?

The laws are the description of how reality works, they don't do anything in and of themselves. There isn't a floaty invisible ethereal 2nd law making sure that entropy increases. The law describes the motion of energy, nothing more.

They can be described through abstract thoughts by the way the natural universe interrelates. We cannot see the laws of inertia but we can describe how the laws of inertia interrelate by observing the effects of motion by observing moving objects.

The law of inertia doesn't do anything, the law is a description of interacting physical systems.

Maybe this will help: God is immaterial: God is not made of material. God is timeless. God is outside of time, thus infinite. God is non spatial. God does not take up space. God is self- existent. God does not depend on anything to existent.

Nope, still laughably weak. Throwing off a list of fancy sounding nonsense is still nonsense.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

'The "law of causality that states that everything that exists has a cause" doesn't exist.'
You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause". You state that the law of causality does not exist. Really? What 'caused' you to arrive at that conclusion? LOL

After that reply, that is really your response? Really?

You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause".

Ok then, I stand corrected. That doesn't exist either, that is a christian apologetics fabrication. As far as I am a concerned the jury is still out on either it makes any sense to say that anything had a beginning let alone need a cause.

You state that the law of causality does not exist. Really? What 'caused' you to arrive at that conclusion?

Because, contrary to you, I have this thing called "an education" that allows me to know this sorts of things.

Fail: self existent simply means that something self existent is not dependant on anything else to exist. It simply exists.

Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth. But of course saying that something is self existent does nothing to save your God. Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description. A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place. You think about that while I enjoy my delicious pie.
Oh and by the way self existence means, something which is responsible for itself to exist.

Allow me to translate: By your above statement you have just invoked upon a circular argument. You are stating that everything needs a cause....

Let me stop you right there. I haven't invoked such a thing. What I did was to point to the consequence that something that is responsible for itself to exist requires itself to exist before it could be the cause of its self existence.

The laws of the natural universe do not depend on material to exists. Material depends on the natural laws of the universe in order to exist and function.

I will explain you this for the last time. "The laws of physics are concepts, they do not physically exist".
And they certainly are dependent of the material, as concepts they need a mind to be encoded in. If humans for some reason humans were to be wiped-out of the face of the planet there would be no more concepts of the laws of physics, there would just be the rest of the universe doing what it does.

It just so happens the laws require a law giver. Only something with intelligence could have put these laws in which the universe follows in place.

The laws of physics are descriptions, they are not dictates. The only place where it makes sense passing a law prohibiting the tides not to rise or the sun not to rush in the sky is in the bible. But I guess that explains your mental state.

Adds to the magnitude of Gods infinite glory

What do you think Glory is and why is it so important to you that God has an infinite amount of it. From all God's properties that christians attribute to god, being a gloater is quite strange.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Just as well -

You say that God can be a non-created creator, and posit him as the exception to your toted logic of causality. You go out of your way to apply exemptions from your own complaints, and say "Well, God doesn't count" when we address the same things.

Well, why can't anyone else cut the mess with something we have no evidence for and say that the Universe's (something we know exist) own mechanics are capable in and of themselves to be in such a manner for it to be self-creating and self-sustaining?

All you've done is make up arbitrary rules for a game, break them, and then when we call you out on them you say "I make the rules, so HA!"

I like how you get make use of the quote function when referring to my dialog. Instead you make up your own false analogy of my quotes with I find is childish.

You say that God can be a non-created creator, and posit him as the exception to your toted logic of causality. You go out of your way to apply exemptions from your own complaints, and say "Well, God doesn't count" when we address the same things.

You might wanna retract your statement because it's gonna be exposed for it's attempt to mislead unless your are just not good at using the brain God gave you. I dont have to 'go outta my way to apply exemptions' for God. God in no way, violate's any rule of causation. Please do point out where you see a violation.

So since God has been defined as 'unmade' or 'un-created' like you say, means that I made up this attribute for God in order to stay within the confinds of causation? That is quit an accusation for you to make and quite frankly I find it offensive that you accuse me of being decietful. If you have a problem with it then take it up with the author of the bible....God!

Well, why can't anyone else cut the mess with something we have no evidence for and say that the Universe's (something we know exist) own mechanics are capable in and of themselves to be in such a manner for it to be self-creating and self-sustaining?

There was this guy named Albert Enstein and he had this theory called general relativity that required a beginning to space, matter and time, whether or not it all started with a big bang. I suppose you mean to say that your great mind trumps anyone considered smart and right back in the day? That's yesterdays knowledge right? It no longer applies to today where poeple need to make up their own rules in order to refute a position they don't find attractive enough to believe. Who want's to have to admit that they're a sinner when they can just alter or bend the rules a little bit, or in your case, drop them all together!?!

 

[guttural]

Are bananas racists? Is Gandalf able to fly? Your question is equally interesting. Well not quite. Actually I would really want to know if Gandalf had enough magic power to fly.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Is Gandalf able to fly?

He has eagles for that.

 

[australopithecus]

There was this guy named Albert Enstein and he had this theory called general relativity that required a beginning to space, matter and time, whether or not it all started with a big bang.

Perhaps step away from physics, because you're clearly clueless.

General relativity is an explanation of gravitation as a property of spacetime. It doesn't require a beginning to anything because it is a description of the physical reality. It requires a beginning to space, matter and time in so much that baking an apple pie requires a beginning to space, matter and time. Apples and pastry dough exist currently, as does spacetime, so you don't require a beginning of anything to explain them.

You don't need to invoke a beginning to explain properties of an already existing system. I don't need to explain how my computer was built in order to explain how I create things in photoshop.

 

[guttural]

Is Gandalf able to fly?

He has eagles for that.

Yeah, right. Just wondered if he really had such magic powers. Cause mostly what he's doing with his stick isn't very impressive.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Yeah, right. Just wondered if he really had such magic powers. Cause mostly what he's doing with his stick isn't very impressive.

I beg to disagree.



Do that once, it can be walking stick the rest of its existence and we should all still be impressed.

 

[forgotten observer]

IMPORTANT POST READ PLEASE

I feel that in the interest the interest of both Josephhasfun01 and the other members of the forum that this discussion would be far more effective if it was more focused and there was more thorough analysis of each post. I feel the best way to achieve this would an uninterrupted one on one debate.
THEREFORE I CHALLENGE JOSEPHHASFUN01 TO A DEBATE. If you wish to accept we can discuss the terms and condition such as the title, post-length and time-allocation by PM, if we reach an agreement I will send the details to Australopithecus or Gnug215. If you refuse I will not insult or pressure you any further to accept, I just feel this solution works better for everyone, you wouldn't have to communicate with anyone but me and the forum members wouldn't have to waste their time with redundant discussion due to an unfocused situation.

 

[IBSpify]

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: God exist.

The only point of the immaterial argument is to prove that things exists that have no mass or form. The materialist believes that all that exists is material. this argument is only meant to refute the position of the materialist and show that immaterial exists. I will grant you that it does not 'verify' God. What it does though, is prove that God is plausible.

Since you yourself stated that your premises do not support your conclusion will you admit that it is not necessary to debunk your original statement, since at best it is incomplete, and as such there is nothing to debunk.

Honestly I think you either need to revise your original statement, admit you were wrong, or leave because if you are not willing to listen to a refutation that you yourself give, then this conversation is over because there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

There was this guy named Albert Enstein sic and he had this theory called general relativity that required a beginning to space, matter and time, whether or not it all started with a big bang. I suppose you mean to say that your great mind trumps anyone considered smart and right back in the day?

It has absolutely nothing to do with that. Einstein's Relativity has no prerequisite for the Universal existence - it's a description for objects travelling in increasing speeds as they reach the speed of light and the energy equivalents required to reach said speed. It's actually nothing more than an equation with a description.

That's just as good as Carl Sagan saying "If you wish to make an Apple Pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe" - it has nothing to do with the flavor of pie nor the base materials to make it, he's just stating that pies are made of atoms. There's no evidence we have that suggests that the Universe cannot be a self-creating, expanding, retracting existence (but, well, it's on the same level as you claiming an invisible deity that has no evidence for existence is a self-creating existence).

Just as well, Joseph, I have to ask you:
What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

You seem to be juggling the terms around, and I'll have you know that they are two astronomically different things.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

'The "law of causality that states that everything that exists has a cause" doesn't exist.'
You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause". You state that the law of causality does not exist. Really? What 'caused' you to arrive at that conclusion? LOL

After that reply, that is really your response? Really?

You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause".

Ok then, I stand corrected. That doesn't exist either, that is a christian apologetics fabrication. As far as I am a concerned the jury is still out on either it makes any sense to say that anything had a beginning let alone need a cause.

You state that the law of causality does not exist. Really? What 'caused' you to arrive at that conclusion?

Because, contrary to you, I have this thing called "an education" that allows me to know this sorts of things.

Fail: self existent simply means that something self existent is not dependant on anything else to exist. It simply exists.

Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth. But of course saying that something is self existent does nothing to save your God. Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description. A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place. You think about that while I enjoy my delicious pie.
Oh and by the way self existence means, something which is responsible for itself to exist.

Allow me to translate: By your above statement you have just invoked upon a circular argument. You are stating that everything needs a cause....

Let me stop you right there. I haven't invoked such a thing. What I did was to point to the consequence that something that is responsible for itself to exist requires itself to exist before it could be the cause of its self existence.

The laws of the natural universe do not depend on material to exists. Material depends on the natural laws of the universe in order to exist and function.

I will explain you this for the last time. "The laws of physics are concepts, they do not physically exist".
And they certainly are dependent of the material, as concepts they need a mind to be encoded in. If humans for some reason humans were to be wiped-out of the face of the planet there would be no more concepts of the laws of physics, there would just be the rest of the universe doing what it does.

It just so happens the laws require a law giver. Only something with intelligence could have put these laws in which the universe follows in place.

The laws of physics are descriptions, they are not dictates. The only place where it makes sense passing a law prohibiting the tides not to rise or the sun not to rush in the sky is in the bible. But I guess that explains your mental state.

Adds to the magnitude of Gods infinite glory

What do you think Glory is and why is it so important to you that God has an infinite amount of it. From all God's properties that christians attribute to god, being a gloater is quite strange.

Josephhasfun01 wrote:You have miss quoted the Law of Causality. in #2 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause.' Not, 'everything has a cause".

Ok then, I stand corrected. That doesn't exist either, that is a christian apologetics fabrication.

This is a genetic fallacy. A fallacious argument.

As far as I am a concerned the jury is still out on either it makes any sense to say that anything had a beginning let alone need a cause.

Wow! This is most intriguing! Please let me know how you arrive at the conclusion that things do not have beginnings. And please tell me what caused you to conclude there are no causes.

Because, contrary to you, I have this thing called "an education" that allows me to know this sorts of things.

Oh! So your education was the cause for your intelligence?

Oh and by the way self existence means, something which is responsible for itself to exist.

Oh! I see what you did now! You created your own definition of "self-existent" to refute my argument!

Let me stop you right there. I haven't invoked such a thing. What I did was to point to the consequence that something that is responsible for itself to exist requires itself to exist before it could be the cause of its self existence.

Wait a minute! Hold the phone! I thought you said there is no such thing as causes?

"Self-existent" by no way means that something has to create itself to be self-existing. In fact that would be contradictive to 'self-existing' because it means that does depend on something else to exist. Something creating itself from nothing is not even logically feasible in the realm of reality. Your straw man which you assembled by creating a new definition of 'self existent' is not an argument. I had already correctly defined "self-existing." What you did was use the definition for "self-creating" and built a straw-man from it. God is "self-existing" which by definition means that He does not depend on anything to cause His existence. Maybe since your stuck in your 'circular logic' you cannot grasp the CONCEPT of something having always existed. You seem to think that everything needs a cause and at the same time believe nothing is causal or needs a cause. But how can something that never had a beginning have a cause? God is eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless, and nonspactial. I have clearly defined God. Clearly He had no cause as He had no beginning. Your fine with things having no beginning so you should be fine with my definition of the essential qualities of God.

I will explain you this for the last time. "The laws of physics are concepts, they do not physically exist.

Hey that's my argument! Get your own! LOL! Unless you are merely agreeing with me. But then why are you re explaining to me what I have just explained to you? We need an emotion icon with the guy scratching his head because a lot of arguments I have seen have me doing just that. Oh snap! I see now! (I guess we need an emotion icon for a realization too!) Boy! You are just really stuck on this 'concept' thing aren't you? It is your argument that arguments cannot explain something that exists. Am I understanding you correctly? Concepts don't exist? That's a self-defeating statement though! To say that a concept does not exist is self defeating because by that rule, that a concept does not exist, you would be saying that the concept that concepts don't exist, doesn't exist. That rule would be a concept! Saying that an argument that proves something to exist cannot be made because if something is conceived to be true then it exists. I think you have just stumbled upon proof that God exists as a conscious being. Think for a second! God is not an object. He has no physical form. He exists as a powerful conscious spirit.

Look here. The laws of the universe are concepts. That is true. But our abstract thoughts don't keep our universe operating. If we can observe physical objects in the universe behaving in such a way then there must a cause for why that is so. Concepts are immaterial so in order for objects to behave the way that they do they have to follow a rule that has been put in place. Therefore a conscious mind had to have put the rule in place to begin with. God! All God has to do is think it and it's done. We are finite and cannot achieve something that an infinite creator with a omniscient all powerful consciousness can. God is not a physical being. He is a conscious being. Since we were created in His image, we too, are a scaled down finite version of our creator who by definition: is a conscious immaterial self existent omniscient timeless spiritual being, that created us to magnify the infinite glory of His nature. We share that aspect of consciousness.

And they certainly are dependent of the material, as concepts they need a mind to be encoded in.

You are almost correct about this! Your really close! Our conscious ability to do science is certainly dependent on us having a brain. However the concept of the natural laws of the universe had to be prescribed before we could describe them!

If humans for some reason humans were to be wiped-out of the face of the planet there would be no more concepts of the laws of physics, there would just be the rest of the universe doing what it does.

Well sure, because no one would be conscious to observe the physical universe
following rules. What does the universe do? Does it merely just exists in a care free happy go lucky manner without any immaterial laws to obey? Or is it confined to a set of laws like the laws of motion, and laws that form matter? There are laws for what temp water boils and freezes at. You claim that these are just concepts based on our perception because we are equipped with consciousness? If they were only concepts then water would not freeze and boil at a precise temps. Our perceptions do not cause water to freeze at zero Celsius or boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Our perceptions do not keep the universe from collapsing! If gravity were to be altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist. Did our perception make that true or did we discover it by making observations?

The laws of physics are descriptions, they are not dictates. The only place where it makes sense passing a law prohibiting the tides not to rise or the sun not to rush in the sky is in the bible. But I guess that explains your mental state

The laws of the universe DO dictate the actions of our universe. If the laws of physics are merely descriptions then how did we make them? Did we just guess? Or do we give our descriptions based on observing how our physical universe interrelates?
You have to observe something before you can describe it. God spoke the universe into existence. I would imagine that to be a very powerful God!
You keep trying to refute immaterial and I will just continue debunking your rebuttals .

What do you think Glory is and why is it so important to you that God has an infinite amount of it. From all God's properties that christians attribute to god, being a gloater is quite strange.

Gods glory is pure light! His glory shines! A small fraction of His glory can cause someone to be blinded even if it were to be cast onto them from a far away distance. You called God a gloater? Gloating is not allowed by God? God is perfectly just so gloating could not be a bad thing! That's why God can kill an entire planet of people minus 8(noah and family) with a flood and still be called holy because his righteousness allows Him to make a judgment on sinful people and He can execute His judgment at any moment He chooses. God can also be allowed to act from His love, anger, hate and jealousy because He is God. It is a good thing He is a merciful God! It was hundreds of years after God told Noah to warn people of the coming global flood that He finally did it! He gave them more than enough time to repent and get on board the ark. Imagine going before a judge for committing a felony. The judge merely sentences you to probation! You continuously violate your probation by committing multiple felonies on top of the original one and the judge just keeps on extending your probation. Now that is a gracious and merciful Judge!

 

[australopithecus]