Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

I suppose you'd prefer God made things differently. But here's the thing...you're not God!

Your correct I'm not god, if I had the power to stop a child molester from molesting a child, I would.

But you are still skirting the argument, and begging the question at the same time. Your claiming we don't like the way god created the universe, when you haven't even convinced anyone that said god exists.

Secondly the conclusion that you are drawing does not follow from the premises, even if we were to grant you every single premise that you made, it does nothing to describe any of the properties that you are attributing to your god aside from immaterial.

If you spent less time trying to define your god into existence, and more time actually explaining why you believe what you believe you would probably gain more ground and people would take you more seriously.

We'll i'd love to explain why I believe God exists. Do I get to use philosophy and science or am I only allowed to speak from personal experience?

I will take science and philosophy for ten thousand Alex!

Rational thinking requires putting together thoughts(the causes) with conclusions(the effects). The Law of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. Without it science is impossible! Think of one thing that had a beginning but did not have a cause? You can't! Thats what scientists do. They figure out what caused what. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. The universe had a beginning. The universe had a cause.
Science is the STUDY of every thing around us(which God created). Here is where theism trumps evolution., U never get a living creature or even a single living cell without a parent. Can U give me an example where a living cell, plant, or animal doesn't come from a parent? It can't happen now and before life existed on earth it couldn't happen then. So if there's no life on earth & you cant get life without another life then an ETERNAL GOD is the explanation.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

 

[australopithecus]

If you want to posit God as a cause for the universe then firstly you must rule out every naturalist cause. I await your refutation of quantum state changes in virtual particles in a quatum vacuum state, amongst others.

Also, from your "reason" as to why God created mankind; all I can infer is that God is an egotistical ballsack. Plus, you can't add to something that is infinite, genius.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

1) All things that exist need to be created
2) God exists
Conclusion) God was created

You can't posit that God is a self-creating deity. If he was, then what's wrong with anyone saying that the Universe (which we know exist - we live in it) is a self-creating existence on the same merit with equal reasoning and evidence?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

If you want to posit God as a cause for the universe then firstly you must rule out every naturalist cause. I await your refutation of quantum state changes in virtual particles in a quatum vacuum state, amongst others.

Also, from your "reason" as to why God created mankind; all I can infer is that God is an egotistical ballsack. Plus, you can't add to something that is infinite, genius.

If you want to posit God as a cause for the universe then firstly you must rule out every naturalist cause. I await your refutation of quantum state changes in virtual particles in a quatum vacuum state, amongst others.

Are you talking about quarks? "Bumps" in emissions? I would not rule them out They should never be ruled in as a possibility as being causal to begin with! Please don't concede probabilities as being causal! It is about as scientifically inaccurate as one can get pertaining to causation! Quantum physics has done nothing objective in the realm of absolutes. Quantum theories have no possibility of being absolutely objective as they only reside in the realm of probability. Unless your speaking of atomic clocks or computers. But atomic clocks and super fast computers don't have anything to do with causality in the physical universe and neither do virtual particles. Yet a minority of physicists still try to attribute them as plausible. In order to do so they posit that philosophy is dead and that we must now accept quantum logic. Quantum logic is a new subset of rules of logic. I guess a few are willing to stick their necks out and repudiate logic in order to come to a conclusion they find attractive. I, for one, prefer to use common sense along with philosophy, and actual scientific data that is objective to reach an actual objective conclusion. Not based on any presuppositions that I find attractive. I don't find it the least bit 'attractive' that I am a sinner headed for a sinners hell without the remission of sin. I merely have accepted this as fact and have learned through an in depth study of Gods' word how avoid such a fate. I suggest that everybody do the same.

Also, from your "reason" as to why God created mankind; all I can infer is that God is an egotistical ballsack. Plus, you can't add to something that is infinite, genius.

In order to maintain some manner of professionalism I won't give my personal opinion on your personal opinions about God. I should queue you in on one thing though. When you present an attack on Gods character you negate you position that God does not exist. Just thought I should give a 'heads-up'. The genius comment was appreciated though, albeit it was modest. lol If you read the text again carefully you will see that I wasn't speaking of adding anything to the infinite nature of God. I specifically spoke of adding to the magnitude of his glory. Were the magnitude of Gods glory infinite He would have had no reason to create the universe and us.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

And yet you've still failed to provide any evidence that your specific God exists. That abstract concepts are immaterial, in this instance the laws that govern how physic processes of reality work, doesn't prove God, immaterial or otherwise.

Oh, and just so you know, I'll be making sure you can't retroactively edit post days after you make them. Don't want to make people think you're being dishonest now, do we?

Could I be allowed to update my post if I present what I update and when I updated it?

No intent to be dishonest. I have nothing to hide.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

So by definition "atheism" does not exist

Wut? Oh, you're probably referring to my signature in a manner that you sadly felt was clever. Actually, all you did was demonstrate your own selective reading problem. Keep trying.

How can I refute your nonexistent beliefs? :lol:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

1) All things that exist need to be created
2) God exists
Conclusion) God was created

You can't posit that God is a self-creating deity. If he was, then what's wrong with anyone saying that the Universe (which we know exist - we live in it) is a self-creating existence on the same merit with equal reasoning and evidence?

Not all things need a creator. If it had a beginning it needed a cause.
If the "beginner" of this universe is eternal than it s/he had no beginning and that does not violate the rule of Causality. When you assert that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE you rule out, the possibility for an infinite creator. That leaves us with only infinite causes. Is that more logical? To have infinite regressions? This would beg the question. U have only one possibility for the creation of the finite universe. Whatever it was had to have these qualities. It had to be: Self existent, non spatial, timeless, and immaterial.

 

[televator]

How can I refute your nonexistent beliefs? :lol:

Trolling wouldn't be the way to do it... Just a hint. Let me know if you need more help.

 

[australopithecus]

Are you talking about quarks?

No.

Please don't concede probabilities as being causal! It is about as scientifically inaccurate as one can get pertaining to causation! Quantum physics has done nothing objective in the realm of absolutes. Quantum theories have no possibility of being absolutely objective as they only reside in the realm of probability. Unless your speaking of atomic clocks or computers. But atomic clocks and super fast computers don't have anything to do with causality in the physical universe and neither do virtual particles. Yet a minority of physicists still try to attribute them as plausible. In order to do so they posit that philosophy is dead and that we must now accept quantum logic. Quantum logic is a new subset of rules of logic. I guess a few are willing to stick their necks out and repudiate logic in order to come to a conclusion they find attractive. I, for one, prefer to use common sense along with philosophy, and actual scientific data that is objective to reach an actual objective conclusion. Not based on any presuppositions that I find attractive. I don't find it the least bit 'attractive' that I am a sinner headed for a sinners hell without the remission of sin. I merely have accepted this as fact and have learned through an in depth study of Gods' word how avoid such a fate. I suggest that everybody do the same.

Your 5 minute gleaning of the word 'quantum' on Google is cute and all, but you didn't answer my question. I asked for a refutation, not an argument from ignorance.

In order to maintain some manner of professionalism I won't give my personal opinion on your personal opinions about God.

Because you are the model of a professional, aren't you? Excessive use of smileys notwithstanding.

I should queue you in on one thing though. When you present an attack on Gods character you negate you position that God does not exist.

Which isn't a position I hold, so your straw man just makes you look silly. I have never stated that God does not exist, I am, however, unconvinced by claims that it does. Regardless, I was making an inference based on qualities of God you gave, so even if I did hold the position that God does not exist, it would be a negation. I can make judgmental inferences based on any character in fiction without having to believe they exist.

Shinji Ikari from the popular anime/mange 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' is a whiny little child and would benefit from a severe beating. Yet still, I don't believe the douche exists outside of fiction. It's easy, see.

Just thought I should give a 'heads-up'.

No, what you did was give a nonsense straw man, but whatevs.

If you read the text again carefully you will see that I wasn't speaking of adding anything to the infinite nature of God. I specifically spoke of adding to the magnitude of his glory. Were the magnitude of Gods glory infinite He would have had no reason to create the universe and us.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

Guess he had no reason to create the universe and us. So which is it? Is the glory infinite in magnitude as you originally stated, or is it finite and needs adding to? Make your mind up.

Your mental and semantic gymnastic routine in order to worm your way of of the most insignificant of oversights is telling. However the above makes no sense whatsoever. It makes no sense logically, linguistically or mathematically.

 

[forgotten observer]

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.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

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.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

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.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Yes...... What is the OP calling immaterial? A particle, a wave perhaps? Is a wave immaterial? the electromagnetic force? Is he trying to state that the electromagnetic force is immaterial? If he does..... As Laurens states..... It still does not support or verify that a god exists.

Electromagnetic force would not be immaterial. Electromagnetic force behaves in the way that it does due to natural immaterial laws of the universe.

What is an OP?

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.

 

[australopithecus]

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.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Yes...... What is the OP calling immaterial? A particle, a wave perhaps? Is a wave immaterial? the electromagnetic force? Is he trying to state that the electromagnetic force is immaterial? If he does..... As Laurens states..... It still does not support or verify that a god exists.

Electromagnetic force would not be immaterial. Electromagnetic force behaves in the way that it does due to natural immaterial laws of the universe.

What is an OP?

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.

Hi. Let's just ignore the fact that your argument sucks.

What is the relation between your proposed "immaterial" laws of the universe, and an "immaterial" God?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Are you talking about quarks?

No.

Please don't concede probabilities as being causal! It is about as scientifically inaccurate as one can get pertaining to causation! Quantum physics has done nothing objective in the realm of absolutes. Quantum theories have no possibility of being absolutely objective as they only reside in the realm of probability. Unless your speaking of atomic clocks or computers. But atomic clocks and super fast computers don't have anything to do with causality in the physical universe and neither do virtual particles. Yet a minority of physicists still try to attribute them as plausible. In order to do so they posit that philosophy is dead and that we must now accept quantum logic. Quantum logic is a new subset of rules of logic. I guess a few are willing to stick their necks out and repudiate logic in order to come to a conclusion they find attractive. I, for one, prefer to use common sense along with philosophy, and actual scientific data that is objective to reach an actual objective conclusion. Not based on any presuppositions that I find attractive. I don't find it the least bit 'attractive' that I am a sinner headed for a sinners hell without the remission of sin. I merely have accepted this as fact and have learned through an in depth study of Gods' word how avoid such a fate. I suggest that everybody do the same.

Your 5 minute gleaning of the word 'quantum' on Google is cute and all, but you didn't answer my question. I asked for a refutation, not an argument from ignorance.

In order to maintain some manner of professionalism I won't give my personal opinion on your personal opinions about God.

Because you are the model of a professional, aren't you? Excessive use of smileys notwithstanding.

I should queue you in on one thing though. When you present an attack on Gods character you negate you position that God does not exist.

Which isn't a position I hold, so your straw man just makes you look silly. I have never stated that God does not exist, I am, however, unconvinced by claims that it does. Regardless, I was making an inference based on qualities of God you gave, so even if I did hold the position that God does not exist, it would be a negation. I can make judgmental inferences based on any character in fiction without having to believe they exist.

Shinji Ikari from the popular anime/mange 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' is a whiny little child and would benefit from a severe beating. Yet still, I don't believe the douche exists outside of fiction. It's easy, see.

Just thought I should give a 'heads-up'.

No, what you did was give a nonsense straw man, but whatevs.

If you read the text again carefully you will see that I wasn't speaking of adding anything to the infinite nature of God. I specifically spoke of adding to the magnitude of his glory. Were the magnitude of Gods glory infinite He would have had no reason to create the universe and us.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

Guess he had no reason to create the universe and us. So which is it? Is the glory infinite in magnitude as you originally stated, or is it finite and needs adding to? Make your mind up.

Your mental and semantic gymnastic routine in order to worm your way of of the most insignificant of oversights is telling. However the above makes no sense whatsoever. It makes no sense logically, linguistically or mathematically.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

I quote myself as I originally stated. " Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

Gods glory cannot be added onto if it's infinite. You are right about that. But that is not what I stated originally.

I did not state that the creation of the universe and us added to Gods' infinite glory. I stated that it added to the MAGNITUDE of Gods infinite glory. "Magnitude" is not infinite. Infinite magnitude would be self defeated. I can say that Gods' glory is of infinite worth. Gods' glory could very well be infinite. But if the 'magnitude' of His glory were to be infinite then it of course cannot be added onto. However we are here in the universe so I will venture to posit that God sought to add onto the "magnitude" of his infinite glory by creating us. I in no way make the claim that our purpose is to add onto His infinite glory. Maybe it was just an oversight on your part. If so I would say an aplogy would be in order. But I don't expect to get one. I can just give you an explanation and apolgize myself for the confusion. I had explained this the same way before. You aparently missed it. Whether it was on pupose or an oversight, only you know the answer to that. I am not going to make an accusation. It's easy to misinterperite a sentence especially when one is contentiously hopeful to refute everything I say.

As for my refutation of virtual particles causing the existence of the universe....no refutation is needed as it is not even a probable theory that virtual particles can be a plausible explanation for the cause of the universe. Stating that virtual particles is a plausible theory is by all means laughable. I tried to explain why such a theory should not even be considered plausible. If you want a refutation of a theory assumed fact. I cannot give it. You might as well ask me why reindeer cant land of rooftops? Or where the tooth fairy gets money?
Your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.

I can make judgmental inferences based on any character in fiction without having to believe they exist.

Yes you can make judgemental inferences on fictional characters but however, in order to do so, you still must infer they exist in order to make a judgmental inferece of any kind upon them.

 

[australopithecus]

I did not state that the creation of the universe and us added to Gods' infinite glory. I stated that it added to the MAGNITUDE of Gods infinite glory. "Magnitude" is not infinite. Infinite magnitude would be self defeated. I can say that Gods' glory is of infinite worth. Gods' glory could very well be infinite. But if the 'magnitude' of His glory were to be infinite then it of course cannot be added onto. However we are here in the universe so I will venture to posit that God sought to add onto the "magnitude" of his infinite glory by creating us.

What you seems to be blissfully ignoring is the fact that "magnitude" is not quantitative unless qualified with an amount. Your semantic goalpost moving is actually pretty hilarious, but it in no way salvages your initial point, and your point is redundant. Infinity, by definition, encompasses everything, ever. You cannot add to a magnitude of infinity as infinity, by definition, already includes anything you could ever want to add.

Your horse is dead. Stop flogging it.

I in no way make the claim that our purpose is to add onto His infinite glory.

Yes, you did.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

According to you, we were created to have a relationship with the guy and to somehow add something to something that is infinite.

It must really suck for you, not being able to retroactively edit your posts anymore.

Maybe it was just an oversight on your part. If so I would say an aplogy would be in order. But I don't expect to get one.

At least you got something right for once.

I can just give you an explanation and apolgize myself for the confusion. I had explained this the same way before. You aparently missed it. Whether it was on pupose or an oversight, only you know the answer to that. I am not going to make an accusation. It's easy to misinterperite a sentence especially when one is contentiously hopeful to refute everything I say.

Nothing was misinterpreted on my part. If there is an issue it's with your comprehension of the English language and it's use. I wont hold that against you though.

As for my refutation of virtual particles causing the existence of the universe....no refutation is needed as it is not even a probable theory that virtual particles can be a plausible explanation for the cause of the universe.

Argument from ignorance and dismissed as such.

Stating that virtual particles is a plausible theory is by all means laughable.

Argument from ignorance and ridicule. Dismissed.

I tried to explain why such a theory should not even be considered plausible.

No, what you did is invoke a meaningless word salad that didn't address the issue. You want to show me why it's implausible, then do so with evidence. I'm a smart cookie, show me your workings out.

If you want a refutation of a theory assumed fact. I cannot give it. You might as well ask me why reindeer cant land of rooftops? Or where the tooth fairy gets money?

Read: I cannot refute the hypothesis as I know nothing about the subject, so I will make stuff up.

Your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.

I don't recall making any, care to point them out?

Yes you can make judgemental inferences on fictional characters but however, in order to do so, you still must infer they exist in order to make a judgmental inferece of any kind upon them.

And this nonsense means what exactly? Yes, I can make judgements of fictional characters by inference.

Your claim was to do so means I must negate a position I don't even hold (that being God does not exist), implying to do so means one must believe said thing exists in order to "attack [it's] character", which is demonstrably bollocks. I can attack the character of any non-existent character I want, it doesn't follow that I then believe in them.

The 6th Doctor was an absolute arsehole. Now, the fact I hold that opinion of that character does not means I believe Time Lords actually exist in reality.

Understand? Good.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Electromagnetic force would not be immaterial. Electromagnetic force behaves in the way that it does due to natural immaterial laws of the universe.

No, the electromagnetic force behaves the way it does because it is what it is. The Electromagnetic laws are nothing but concepts we develop to describe what we see about them.

What is an OP?

"Original Poster"

The only point of the immaterial argument is to prove that things exists that have no mass or form.

What, like a photon?
We can observe photons.

I will grant you that it does not 'verify' God. What it does though, is prove that God is plausible.

No what it does it to show there are no lengths to which you will not go in order to save a bronze age belief that an absurd disembodied, human like being is responsible for pretty much everything you are ignorant about and that you have absolutely no imagination. You might just as well just say that it was a cosmic Jello that created the Universe, it has about as much evidence for it and it makes less contradictions. There is absolutely no reason to believe there is such a thing, there is simply no room for it in this universe.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I did not state that the creation of the universe and us added to Gods' infinite glory. I stated that it added to the MAGNITUDE of Gods infinite glory. "Magnitude" is not infinite. Infinite magnitude would be self defeated. I can say that Gods' glory is of infinite worth. Gods' glory could very well be infinite. But if the 'magnitude' of His glory were to be infinite then it of course cannot be added onto. However we are here in the universe so I will venture to posit that God sought to add onto the "magnitude" of his infinite glory by creating us.

What you seems to be blissfully ignoring is the fact that "magnitude" is not quantitative unless qualified with an amount. Your semantic goalpost moving is actually pretty hilarious, but it in no way salvages your initial point, and your point is redundant. Infinity, by definition, encompasses everything, ever. You cannot add to a magnitude of infinity as infinity, by definition, already includes anything you could ever want to add.

Your horse is dead. Stop flogging it.

I in no way make the claim that our purpose is to add onto His infinite glory.

Yes, you did.

Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.

According to you, we were created to have a relationship with the guy and to somehow add something to something that is infinite.

It must really suck for you, not being able to retroactively edit your posts anymore.

Maybe it was just an oversight on your part. If so I would say an aplogy would be in order. But I don't expect to get one.

At least you got something right for once.

I can just give you an explanation and apolgize myself for the confusion. I had explained this the same way before. You aparently missed it. Whether it was on pupose or an oversight, only you know the answer to that. I am not going to make an accusation. It's easy to misinterperite a sentence especially when one is contentiously hopeful to refute everything I say.

Nothing was misinterpreted on my part. If there is an issue it's with your comprehension of the English language and it's use. I wont hold that against you though.

As for my refutation of virtual particles causing the existence of the universe....no refutation is needed as it is not even a probable theory that virtual particles can be a plausible explanation for the cause of the universe.

Argument from ignorance and dismissed as such.

Stating that virtual particles is a plausible theory is by all means laughable.

Argument from ignorance and ridicule. Dismissed.

I tried to explain why such a theory should not even be considered plausible.

No, what you did is invoke a meaningless word salad that didn't address the issue. You want to show me why it's implausible, then do so with evidence. I'm a smart cookie, show me your workings out.

If you want a refutation of a theory assumed fact. I cannot give it. You might as well ask me why reindeer cant land of rooftops? Or where the tooth fairy gets money?

Read: I cannot refute the hypothesis as I know nothing about the subject, so I will make stuff up.

Your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.

I don't recall making any, care to point them out?

Yes you can make judgemental inferences on fictional characters but however, in order to do so, you still must infer they exist in order to make a judgmental inferece of any kind upon them.

And this nonsense means what exactly? Yes, I can make judgements of fictional characters by inference.

Your claim was to do so means I must negate a position I don't even hold (that being God does not exist), implying to do so means one must believe said thing exists in order to "attack [it's] character", which is demonstrably bollocks. I can attack the character of any non-existent character I want, it doesn't follow that I then believe in them.

The 6th Doctor was an absolute arsehole. Now, the fact I hold that opinion of that character does not means I believe Time Lords actually exist in reality.

Understand? Good.

What you seems to be blissfully ignoring is the fact that "magnitude" is not quantitative unless qualified with an amount. Your semantic goalpost moving is actually pretty hilarious, but it in no way salvages your initial point, and your point is redundant. Infinity, by definition, encompasses everything, ever. You cannot add to a magnitude of infinity as infinity, by definition, already includes anything you could ever want to add.

Adds to the magnitude of Gods infinite glory.

Gods glory is infinite because God Himself is infinite by his super-nature.
That in no way means that 'magnitude' is synonymous with 'infinite'!
By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that it cannot be added to. When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God. God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. That is why God has already seen the end of time as He is outside time and therefore is all-knowing. He knows He will have the final say in the morality of humans. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory. Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified). Before the fall of Lucifer, God had assigned him the job of magnifying the glory radiating from God by having Lucifer reflect back onto God the glory shinning for him. The result was a magnification of Gods eternal glory. Also note that just because the glory of God is infinite does not mean that it cannot be intensified. Just because Gods' glory by nature is infinite does not mean it cannot be intensified. Maybe I should have said intensified instead of magnified. They have similar meanings but whatev. I am learning.

Maybe the goal post seems to be moving to you because your understanding is growing as well as my understanding of how to explain something of this magnitude! Pun intended. That would mean I am accomplishing my own goal! I get excited every time some one tells me I am moving the goal post. I hope to hear that said again. So I am hopeful that you will not choosing to be willfully ignorant. It's not about winning an argument for me. It's about helping people like yourself get an understanding of things you have not yet comprehended. I am sorry for the rigorousness of my explanations. Bare in mind that I have to hear rebuttals in order to have an understanding of how to explain something of this 'magnitude' Again pun intended. I love these discussions with you all as it develops my understanding of how to explain things which I understand to those who have a limited understanding of things pertaining to the supernatural. And vice versa I have been learning much from you and the fellow members from this great site called "the league of reason". I wish you all the best and hope that you will bare with me as I strive to gain a common understanding with you and gain knowledge through our discussions.

 

[australopithecus]

Gods glory is infinite because God Himself is infinite by his super-nature.
That in no way means that 'magnitude' is synonymous with 'infinite'!

Which is not something I've suggested is the case.

By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that it cannot be added to.

It kind of does if you use the correct definition of infinity.

When speaking from a finite standpoint, (as we humans are finite), we attribute the word infinite as pertaining to the timeless or eternal nature of God. God is timeless as He is outside of time. He is not affected by time. That is why God has already seen the end of time as He is outside time and therefore is all-knowing. He knows He will have the final say in the morality of humans. When I said "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory" I was merely signifying the super-nature of Gods glory.

You sure can peddle backwards, can't you?

Just because God is infinite does not mean that the eternal nature of His glory cannot be added to or made greater(magnified).

Moving the goalposts yet again. You originally stated nothing about the nature of any glory, you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude. If it is infinite then it cannot be added to as it already consists of anything and everything that could ever be added to it by default.

Before the fall of Lucifer, God had assigned him the job of magnifying the glory radiating from God by having Lucifer reflect back onto God the glory shinning for him. The result was a magnification of Gods eternal glory. Also note that just because the glory of God is infinite does not mean that it cannot be intensified. Just because Gods' glory by nature is infinite does not mean it cannot be intensified. Maybe I should have said intensified instead of magnified. They have similar meanings but whatev. I am learning.

Right so we're magnifying infinity now? At what focal length?

You can use all the synonyms you like, it doesn't make your nonsense magically coherent.

Maybe the goal post seems to be moving to you because your understanding is growing as well as my understanding of how to explain something of this magnitude! Pun intended.

At least you used magnitude it the correct context this time. The goalpost is moving because, rather than admit an error that is extremely unimportant, you've decided to mangle the English language and logic into exciting new shapes in order to justify your nonsense. Again, that is a problem with your language comprehension, not my reading comprehension.

I get excited every time some one tells me I am moving the goal post. I hope to hear that said again.

You realise it's a bad thing, right? It means your ability to conduct a reasoned debate is lacking

So I am hopeful that you will not choosing to be willfully ignorant.

I am willful about many things, my ignorance is not one of them.

It's not about winning an argument for me. It's about helping people like yourself get an understanding of things you have not yet comprehended.

So basically proselytising then?

I am sorry for the rigorousness of my explanations.

:lol:

Nothing about your explanations has been rigorous.

Bare in mind that I have to hear rebuttals in order to have an understanding of how to explain something of this 'magnitude' Again pun intended.

Rebuttals you have ignored thus far, just because.

I love these discussions with you all as it develops my understanding of how to explain things which I understand to those who have a limited understanding of things pertaining to the supernatural.

Not buying unsubstantiated bullshit and requiring objective and testable evidence is not the same as having "a limited understanding". it's called intellectual honesty.

And vice versa I have been learning much from you and the fellow members from this great site called "the league of reason". I wish you all the best and hope that you will bare with me as I strive to gain a common understanding with you and gain knowledge through our discussions.

Part of that process is admitting you're wrong. Seeing as you've been called out on your cod-philosophy and faulty logic by numerous people on the forum, and yet all you've done is ignore it by spouting nonsense again, only in larger paragraphs.

But hey, you're here to help right?

:roll: