Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

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.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by 'verify'. You can't physically verify something that has no physical form.

 

[australopithecus]

You can't physically verify something that has no physical form.

Which makes it awfully convenient when somebody asks you to provide evidence for something.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

You can't physically verify something that has no physical form.

Which makes it awfully convenient when somebody asks you to provide evidence for something.

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Yellow and green pinstriped things exist.
Ostriches exist.
Therefore god is a yellow/green stripey ostrich.

I LOVE the smell of logical fallacies in the morning.

 

[australopithecus]

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

But an uncreated creator deity is philosophically bulletproof, right?

To say the universe "created itself from nothing" is a laughable. Partially because you're imparting cognisance of the universe that it doesn't have, but mostly because it displays massive ignorance on the subject you're trying to refute.

Now, you've already displayed your ignorance on the subject of physics, that's a given, we know you don't know what you're talking about on that score. With that in mind, it's no surprise that your invocation of ex nihilo creation as a stumbling block to naturalistic cosmogenesis is hilarious too. You're a fan of "immaterial" laws. Great. Well law of conservation of energy states energy cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes within a system, ergo, the nothing you refer to was demonstrably, something. Once you have that you just need time and quantum uncertainty.

Now, you've previously vomited up a non-refutation with regards to this specific hypothesis, so if you want to refute it I suggest you break out some actual mathematics and show me why it's wrong.

Marks for effort, must try harder with execution.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

But a non-existent, immaterial entity that is absent from any laws of causality is "good philosophy."

What's funny is that your entire argument is, basically, "There being no evidence for my specific deity is the evidence that my specific deity exists" and you ignore the fact that the same could be said of any other deity of any other cabal or faith.

Literally.

Once again, Joseph, I'd like to see this answer from you since it really is the source of the whole discussion here (you've done all but dance around actually providing any sort of relevance to see if you're even on footing with even elementary philosophy to have this discussion):

What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

Both of these things can be found in any fundamental Philosophy textbook.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The stupid is strong with this one

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

This is a genetic fallacy. A fallacious argument.

A genetic fallacy is when an argument is dismissed not because of what it states but because of where it originated.
You said the "Law of causality states..." and I said that "no such law exists". It is not a law in any scientific sense, it is an unfounded philosophical postulation made by christian apologists. Just because you call it "the law of something" it doesn't make it less of an unfounded gibberish without any bases in reality. And certainly does not exempt it from being dismissed as an unfounded gibberish without any bases in reality like any other unfounded gibberish without any bases in reality.
And the fallacy here is to dismiss falsely my point by calling it false without being addressed.

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.

Your implication that "clearly your 'ideas' have a beginning and certainly cause" or that "well I am someone, I didn't exist before and now I do, so clearly had a beginning" is nothing more than an impotent attempt to try and save your position by demonstrating yourself how much you are uneducated about the subject you are trying to talk about.
Well lets dissect this argument.

Well I am sitting on a chair, at one point this chair "didn't exist" but now it clearly does. Well not quite. What is a chair? Well a chair is a specific composition out of wood and nails. The wood and nails certainly existed before what you call "the chair" did. The chair is nothing but the manifestation of wood and nails in a specific geometric configuration. The chair hasn't technically begin to exist at any point, rather it was the materials that make up the chair that were assembled into the chair. The materials that makeup the chair have always existed, only the configuration is new. And as far as we have ever observed, this is the only way things "come into existence".
The conservation of energy precludes anything from ever beginning to exist in the way that christian apologists want to convince us that god made things to begin existing.
Yet are we to ignore this?

TBS has made quite an eloquent video regarding this issue, so:

I find the fist example quite on the spot.

And No "cause" need to be invoked for what has never happened.

So now it falls upon me to describe in what context does cause actually makes sense. Even tough nothing really begins to exist, the configuration in which energy appears changes over time. To a specific configuration of energy we call it a "state". And a "cause" is nothing more than to identify what subset of attributes of a certain state that explains another subset of other attributes of the proceeding states. Causality means that the states are not dependent of proceeding states, and if we are talking about physical states this means proceeding in time, that is it. If there is anything that the laws of causality do is to say that there is no time travel.

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

No. You made your own definition of self-existing unaware that the philosophy regarding the theme of self-existence is much older that the way you have employed it here, and that self-existent already had a defined meaning before your own. But I have addressed the argument in both the correct meaning and your meaning, and I have shown that they are incoherent forms of trying to define things into existence.

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?

See above.

"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.

No it doesn't, itself is not something else.

Something creating itself from nothing is not even logically feasible in the realm of reality.

No shit Sherlock!

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.

To witch I have responded accordingly:

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.

But you have chosen to ignore.

Maybe since your stuck in your 'circular logic' you cannot grasp the CONCEPT of something having always existed.

No you are the one stuck in your asshat logic trying to define things into existence, ignoring the fact that whatever you think-of has no bearing what so ever in reality, and that all your philosophical certainties about the existence of your made up concepts vanish simply due to the fact that what you think may simply just not exist.
Saying that X exist because it exists is circular logic, it is a meaningless absurdity that can not be saved by throwing a "self-existing" into the mix.
You are trying to do the impossible, to define things into existence. You can no more philosophically prove God than you can prove a square circle.

You seem to think that everything needs a cause and at the same time believe nothing is causal or needs a cause.

No, you are the one that doesn't understand half of the concepts being presented to you and try to simply exempt God from the logic you yourself present.

God is eternal,

Prove it!

self existent,

Meaningless

immaterial,

Does not exist.

timeless,

Never.

and nonspactial.

Nowhere.

I have clearly defined God. Clearly He had no cause as He had no beginning.

And does not exist!
And it is not even true that you think that the definition you gave is the definition of God, because your definition of God is indistinguishable from the definition of the Cosmic pie.
Cosmic pie is eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless, non-spacial and a pie.
And even if your argument were to be valid, even if it could really establish the existence of anything, you couldn't even tell the difference between your God and the Cosmic pie. But yet contend that your God is not the Cosmic pie, so what is it about your God that makes it not your cosmic pie? Or are you going to say that the Cosmic pie is 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!

No, it is not. Your argument is that they physically exist in the same sense that material things exist.

It is your argument that arguments cannot explain something that exists. Am I understanding you correctly?

No. Arguments can not prove that anything exists.

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.

Well that is technically correct and not self defeating. The problem is that you haven't understood one iota of what that means, because you are under a confusion that could have been corrected in any introductory class in philosophy:
1. That words can have more than 1 meaning. In this case that exists has 2 meanings.
2. And perhaps most important of all, the ideas of things are not the things themselves.

When you think of a chair, there are no physical chairs in your head, what you have in your head is the idea of a chair not the actual chair itself. This is a very important distinction because your failure to understand this is the root of all your problems with the concept of existence.
Let's take the idea of a unicorn, the idea of a unicorn certainly exists in your head but there are no unicorns in the real world. If you have an idea of X which has no referent in the real world we say that it does not exists. In this sense we can say that the unicorn does not exist. (more precisely to refer to this form of existence we can call it "physical existence"). However there is another form of existence in which we can say that the Unicorn exist. In this form it doesn't mean that the Unicorns physically exists, it means that there is the idea of a unicorn held by a mind. And there is even a third concept of exist, that only applies to concepts and means that the concept is valid.

So let's re read your statement:
"To say that a concept does not physically exist is self defeating because by that rule, that a concept does not physically exist, you would be saying that the concept that concepts don't physically exist, doesn't physically exist."
Which is valid. As opposed to what you try it to mean:
"To say that a concept does not physically exist is self defeating because by that rule, that a concept does not physically exist, you would be saying that the concept that concepts don't physically exist, doesn't exist as an idea."
Which is invalid.

Saying that an argument that proves something to exist cannot be made because if something is conceived to be true then it exists.

1. Being true is not the same as existing. 2+2=4 is true yet you can not give me a simple example where a physical 2+2=4 exists.
2. I have presented the reasons why trying to prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible. If you wan to rebut that argument, your personal incredulity is not going to cut it. The only way you can argue the opposite is finding a flaw in my reasoning. If the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion logically follows either you like it or not. And no screaming like a baby is going to make it otherwise.

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.

How is it, from your definition of God, and I quote "eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless and non-spacial", do you get it to be "powerful", "conscious" or a "spirit"? Who can mistake this for nothing more than unfounded bullshit? Who are you kidding, you want to try and prove God by defining it as a meaningless arbitrary set of characteristics, but when you talk about God you mean something else entirely different.
Not only you can not prove that an "eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless and non-spacial" thing exists, even if we were to grant you that as true, you haven't got one iota closer to proving that a "powerful, conscious God who gave his only begotten son (Jesus who is himself) as a sacrifice to himself to appease himself for being disappointed that humans couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong while at the same time not giving humans the knowledge of right and wrong and also everything that happened happened exactly the way he planed" exists.

Look here. The laws of the universe are concepts. That is true. But our abstract thoughts don't keep our universe operating.

Exactly.

If we can observe physical objects in the universe behaving in such a way then there must a cause for why that is so.

And the reason is, because things are what they are and they can not hope to be anything else.

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.

No! Rules are concepts. The Earth doesn't go: "Right! I am X meters from the sun, I'm going to square that, and the number I get I will use it to divide the mass of the sun multiplied by a generic unit coefficient and then I am going to move exactly by that amount".

Therefore a conscious mind had to have put the rule in place to begin with.

No! Things behave the way they do because they are what they are, there is no requirement to put anything in place. Even if we were to ignore that and say that rules do need to be put in place, why does it have to be a conscious mind? What does a conscious mind has anything to do with it? Do you even know what a conscious mind is? A conscious mind is nothing more than a complex manifestation of a system grounded in physics which can be described by rules. If the rules need a conscious mind, then there must exist super rules that governs that conscious mind.

God! All God has to do is think it and it's done.

And even ignoring the previous and granting you that it needs a mind, why God?
Your argument fails on every conceivable level.

God is not a physical being. He is a conscious being. Since we were created in His image,

God is infinite we are finite. God is immaterial we are material, God spaceless and timeless we have space and time, God has no form we have form, God is all powerfull we are not, God is omniscient we are not. So in what way are we made in God's image?

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?

You speak of obey as if things followed orders. As if asteroids could go "Ah theraAH theraAH, oh look there is a planet! ah theraAh theraAh, Oh almost forgot the follow the law of universal gravitation silly me, let me take out my pocket calculator and calculate the curve in which I have to spiral down into that planets surface and crash with the violence given by this formula (...) *crashes on planet* thump. Planet - Ah What? What was that? Commet - I hit you with X ammount of force? Planet - What? do you want to mount my porch? Commet - No, I HIT YOU WITH X AMMOUT OF FORCE! Oh sod it!... Just make a crater! Planet - Ok! BWAAAHHHH!!!! *makes crater*"

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.

No, things will just behave the way they have always behaved, and which fits the description of we used to call the "laws of motion", "thermodynamics".

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.

If the apple didn't fall on top Newtons head, would we be floating around?

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!

Precisely. So why do you keep saying that the universe follows laws instead of saying that the laws are concepts we use to describe what we observe?

If gravity were to be altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist.

First, it wrongly assumes that the physics could behave any differently than what it does.
Secondly, by what we know about the models of physics, even if you would alter the strength of gravity, stars like our sun would still exist.
The argument that if the universal constants would be a bit different by an infinitesimal amount, that our universe couldn't exist is another christian apologetic fabrication.

If the laws of physics are merely descriptions then how did we make them? Did we just guess?

No, We first observe an interesting phenomena, only then we guess a solution, we make a model, make prediction and take consequences, then we test those predictions with an experiment in order to validate the model. If the guess doesn't fit the experiment, it is wrong! If your guess fits the experiment, then don't pat yourself on the back because it doesn't mean that you are right, all that means is that you haven't yet found that you'r wrong.
Its a process we call science, you might have heard of it.

You keep trying to refute immaterial and I will just continue debunking your rebuttals .

What? I don't have to refute the immaterial. All I have to do is to demonstrate that you have no basis for thinking that it exists.

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.

So glory is a laser? Is it radioactive to? If it made someone blind then it must have a sufficient ionizing characteristics to be used in photoelectric cells. And God has infinite of it, So technically it could solve all our energy problems for ever?
So all you have to sense God, you need a photoelectric panel? Well that would be a start for a prof of God which I could accept.

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!

Only in christian logic could justify how can someone kill of every single creature on the face of the earth on a whim and still be called righteous and merciful.
There is christian logic for you, they wrap themselves in cryptic language, they do exactly the opposite of what those words mean and they still think it is all the best because they are to stupid to realize the difference.

 

[Frenger]

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

I think before you carry on, it would be important for you to watch the first 1 minute and 8 seconds of this clip.

 

[televator]

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by 'verify'. You can't physically verify something that has no physical form.

Which, coincidentally, makes it identical to things that don't exist. hmmm...

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

It's statements like these that I liken to a verbal lobotomy. BTW what you call "good philosophy" would most likely fall into the category of "sophistry" to actual academic philosophers whose business is in good philosophy.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

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.[/quote]
Your implication that "clearly your 'ideas' have a beginning and certainly cause" or that "well I am someone, I didn't exist before and now I do, so clearly had a beginning" is nothing more than an impotent attempt to try and save your position by demonstrating yourself how much you are uneducated about the subject you are trying to talk about.
Well lets dissect this argument.

Well I am sitting on a chair, at one point this chair "didn't exist" but now it clearly does. Well not quite. What is a chair? Well a chair is a specific composition out of wood and nails. The wood and nails certainly existed before what you call "the chair" did. The chair is nothing but the manifestation of wood and nails in a specific geometric configuration. The chair hasn't technically begin to exist at any point, rather it was the materials that make up the chair that were assembled into the chair. The materials that makeup the chair have always existed, only the configuration is new. And as far as we have ever observed, this is the only way things "come into existence".
The conservation of energy precludes anything from ever beginning to exist in the way that christian apologists want to convince us that god made things to begin existing.
Yet are we to ignore this?

TBS has made quite an eloquent video regarding this issue, so:

I find the fist example quite on the spot.

And No "cause" need to be invoked for what has never happened.

So now it falls upon me to describe in what context does cause actually makes sense. Even tough nothing really begins to exist, the configuration in which energy appears changes over time. To a specific configuration of energy we call it a "state". And a "cause" is nothing more than to identify what subset of attributes of a certain state that explains another subset of other attributes of the proceeding states. Causality means that the states are not dependent of proceeding states, and if we are talking about physical states this means proceeding in time, that is it. If there is anything that the laws of causality do is to say that there is no time travel.

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

No. You made your own definition of self-existing unaware that the philosophy regarding the theme of self-existence is much older that the way you have employed it here, and that self-existent already had a defined meaning before your own. But I have addressed the argument in both the correct meaning and your meaning, and I have shown that they are incoherent forms of trying to define things into existence.

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?[/quote]
See above.

"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.

No it doesn't, itself is not something else.

Something creating itself from nothing is not even logically feasible in the realm of reality.

No shit Sherlock!

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.

To witch I have responded accordingly:

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.

But you have chosen to ignore.

Maybe since your stuck in your 'circular logic' you cannot grasp the CONCEPT of something having always existed.

No you are the one stuck in your asshat logic trying to define things into existence, ignoring the fact that whatever you think-of has no bearing what so ever in reality, and that all your philosophical certainties about the existence of your made up concepts vanish simply due to the fact that what you think may simply just not exist.
Saying that X exist because it exists is circular logic, it is a meaningless absurdity that can not be saved by throwing a "self-existing" into the mix.
You are trying to do the impossible, to define things into existence. You can no more philosophically prove God than you can prove a square circle.

You seem to think that everything needs a cause and at the same time believe nothing is causal or needs a cause.

No, you are the one that doesn't understand half of the concepts being presented to you and try to simply exempt God from the logic you yourself present.

God is eternal,

Prove it!

self existent,

Meaningless

immaterial,

Does not exist.

timeless,

Never.

and nonspactial.

Nowhere.

I have clearly defined God. Clearly He had no cause as He had no beginning.

And does not exist!
And it is not even true that you think that the definition you gave is the definition of God, because your definition of God is indistinguishable from the definition of the Cosmic pie.
Cosmic pie is eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless, non-spacial and a pie.
And even if your argument were to be valid, even if it could really establish the existence of anything, you couldn't even tell the difference between your God and the Cosmic pie. But yet contend that your God is not the Cosmic pie, so what is it about your God that makes it not your cosmic pie? Or are you going to say that the Cosmic pie is 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!

No, it is not. Your argument is that they physically exist in the same sense that material things exist.

It is your argument that arguments cannot explain something that exists. Am I understanding you correctly?

No. Arguments can not prove that anything exists.

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.

Well that is technically correct and not self defeating. The problem is that you haven't understood one iota of what that means, because you are under a confusion that could have been corrected in any introductory class in philosophy:
1. That words can have more than 1 meaning. In this case that exists has 2 meanings.
2. And perhaps most important of all, the ideas of things are not the things themselves.

When you think of a chair, there are no physical chairs in your head, what you have in your head is the idea of a chair not the actual chair itself. This is a very important distinction because your failure to understand this is the root of all your problems with the concept of existence.
Let's take the idea of a unicorn, the idea of a unicorn certainly exists in your head but there are no unicorns in the real world. If you have an idea of X which has no referent in the real world we say that it does not exists. In this sense we can say that the unicorn does not exist. (more precisely to refer to this form of existence we can call it "physical existence"). However there is another form of existence in which we can say that the Unicorn exist. In this form it doesn't mean that the Unicorns physically exists, it means that there is the idea of a unicorn held by a mind. And there is even a third concept of exist, that only applies to concepts and means that the concept is valid.

So let's re read your statement:
"To say that a concept does not physically exist is self defeating because by that rule, that a concept does not physically exist, you would be saying that the concept that concepts don't physically exist, doesn't physically exist."
Which is valid. As opposed to what you try it to mean:
"To say that a concept does not physically exist is self defeating because by that rule, that a concept does not physically exist, you would be saying that the concept that concepts don't physically exist, doesn't exist as an idea."
Which is invalid.

Saying that an argument that proves something to exist cannot be made because if something is conceived to be true then it exists.

1. Being true is not the same as existing. 2+2=4 is true yet you can not give me a simple example where a physical 2+2=4 exists.
2. I have presented the reasons why trying to prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible. If you wan to rebut that argument, your personal incredulity is not going to cut it. The only way you can argue the opposite is finding a flaw in my reasoning. If the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion logically follows either you like it or not. And no screaming like a baby is going to make it otherwise.

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.

How is it, from your definition of God, and I quote "eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless and non-spacial", do you get it to be "powerful", "conscious" or a "spirit"? Who can mistake this for nothing more than unfounded bullshit? Who are you kidding, you want to try and prove God by defining it as a meaningless arbitrary set of characteristics, but when you talk about God you mean something else entirely different.
Not only you can not prove that an "eternal, self existent, immaterial, timeless and non-spacial" thing exists, even if we were to grant you that as true, you haven't got one iota closer to proving that a "powerful, conscious God who gave his only begotten son (Jesus who is himself) as a sacrifice to himself to appease himself for being disappointed that humans couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong while at the same time not giving humans the knowledge of right and wrong and also everything that happened happened exactly the way he planed" exists.

Look here. The laws of the universe are concepts. That is true. But our abstract thoughts don't keep our universe operating.

Exactly.

If we can observe physical objects in the universe behaving in such a way then there must a cause for why that is so.

And the reason is, because things are what they are and they can not hope to be anything else.

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.

No! Rules are concepts. The Earth doesn't go: "Right! I am X meters from the sun, I'm going to square that, and the number I get I will use it to divide the mass of the sun multiplied by a generic unit coefficient and then I am going to move exactly by that amount".

Therefore a conscious mind had to have put the rule in place to begin with.

No! Things behave the way they do because they are what they are, there is no requirement to put anything in place. Even if we were to ignore that and say that rules do need to be put in place, why does it have to be a conscious mind? What does a conscious mind has anything to do with it? Do you even know what a conscious mind is? A conscious mind is nothing more than a complex manifestation of a system grounded in physics which can be described by rules. If the rules need a conscious mind, then there must exist super rules that governs that conscious mind.

God! All God has to do is think it and it's done.

And even ignoring the previous and granting you that it needs a mind, why God?
Your argument fails on every conceivable level.

God is not a physical being. He is a conscious being. Since we were created in His image,

God is infinite we are finite. God is immaterial we are material, God spaceless and timeless we have space and time, God has no form we have form, God is all powerfull we are not, God is omniscient we are not. So in what way are we made in God's image?

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?

You speak of obey as if things followed orders. As if asteroids could go "Ah theraAH theraAH, oh look there is a planet! ah theraAh theraAh, Oh almost forgot the follow the law of universal gravitation silly me, let me take out my pocket calculator and calculate the curve in which I have to spiral down into that planets surface and crash with the violence given by this formula (...) *crashes on planet* thump. Planet - Ah What? What was that? Commet - I hit you with X ammount of force? Planet - What? do you want to mount my porch? Commet - No, I HIT YOU WITH X AMMOUT OF FORCE! Oh sod it!... Just make a crater! Planet - Ok! BWAAAHHHH!!!! *makes crater*"

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.

No, things will just behave the way they have always behaved, and which fits the description of we used to call the "laws of motion", "thermodynamics".

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.

If the apple didn't fall on top Newtons head, would we be floating around?

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!

Precisely. So why do you keep saying that the universe follows laws instead of saying that the laws are concepts we use to describe what we observe?

If gravity were to be altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist.

First, it wrongly assumes that the physics could behave any differently than what it does.
Secondly, by what we know about the models of physics, even if you would alter the strength of gravity, stars like our sun would still exist.
The argument that if the universal constants would be a bit different by an infinitesimal amount, that our universe couldn't exist is another christian apologetic fabrication.

If the laws of physics are merely descriptions then how did we make them? Did we just guess?

No, We first observe an interesting phenomena, only then we guess a solution, we make a model, make prediction and take consequences, then we test those predictions with an experiment in order to validate the model. If the guess doesn't fit the experiment, it is wrong! If your guess fits the experiment, then don't pat yourself on the back because it doesn't mean that you are right, all that means is that you haven't yet found that you'r wrong.
Its a process we call science, you might have heard of it.

You keep trying to refute immaterial and I will just continue debunking your rebuttals .

What? I don't have to refute the immaterial. All I have to do is to demonstrate that you have no basis for thinking that it exists.

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.

So glory is a laser? Is it radioactive to? If it made someone blind then it must have a sufficient ionizing characteristics to be used in photoelectric cells. And God has infinite of it, So technically it could solve all our energy problems for ever?
So all you have to sense God, you need a photoelectric panel? Well that would be a start for a prof of God which I could accept.

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!

Only in christian logic could justify how can someone kill of every single creature on the face of the earth on a whim and still be called righteous and merciful.
There is christian logic for you, they wrap themselves in cryptic language, they do exactly the opposite of what those words mean and they still think it is all the best because they are to stupid to realize the difference.[/quote]

The chair hasn't technically begin to exist at any point, rather it was the materials that make up the chair that were assembled into the chair. The materials that makeup the chair have always existed, only the configuration is new. And as far as we have ever observed, this is the only way things "come into existence".[/

Really? So the chair was not created by someone? The chair never had a beginning because the atoms that make up the chair have always existed in one form or another? LOL Nice semantics! The chair never had a beginning or a cause because the material in it has always existed! LOL!!
If there was ever held an Olympic event for 'word gymnastics' I am sure you'd at least get the silver. Congrats!
What you are failing to understand is that a chair has a creator. It didn't magically change its' form. You would understand that the chair had a cause that formed it. The chair would obviously need to have had a maker, or creator and therefore a CAUSE. Would you consider that cause to be the wind magically blowing the pieces that comprise the chair into place? The nails and wood used to build the chair also had a cause. A person! What? Yeah! A person MADE the chair! Not out of atoms! You did not know that? Oh yeah! A chair requires a mind to construct it. You also can bet that the universe needed a cause. Even Scott(who wins the gold medal in Word Olympics) admits that the universe had a beginning. He states that the big bang was the beginning for material. I understand that energy always existed. The question remains. What caused the universe to come from nothing? Nothing did? That is where you are without excuse to not believe, God did it! I know your held prisoner by your presuppositions and all. But can't we just be rational for a minute? God was the source of the energy as God is eternal. Wow! A piece to the puzzle that actually fits! Ever heard of the event horizon? Gods mouth! I know! Crazy right?! God just spoke and the universe came to order. But wait, you say? That's just to simple. We need an illogical an super complex explanation. You prefer to say that everything came from nothing by way of magic? Say you have a magic hat. You would believe the universe came from the hat uncaused. My belief has the hat and the magician. Looking at things from a logical retrospective stand point, and left with the only two options above, you'd be a fool to think the universe happened uncaused out of the hat. With God I at least have the magician. The one who invokes magic would indeed be the one's that believe the universe was uncaused. Hand over Ockham's razor and let me cut your magic beliefs away. God is the magician who appears to magically create the universe out of nothing to us finite humans is doing what comes easy for Him.

And No "cause" need to be invoked for what has never happened.

Right no one has ever caused the chair to exist because the atoms that form the chair have always existed in one form or another. The chair does not exist. It is just an illusion! LoL! Hey! If close my hand and make a fist my hand has only changed form! No wait! I caused my hand to make a fist! Look I just caused my hand to change form! No. I just think I caused my hand to change form! LOL I am not really causing my hand to make a fist, my hand merely changed to a fist uncaused. Is that right? No! I CAUSED my hand to make a fist. I should love to make a video in reply to Scott that puts his video in the museum of refuted nonsense.

But for those of us who are rational:
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! Scientists are tasked with the job of learning what causes what. Without the law of causality science would not be able to be done.

Semantics is your only argument against causation. Therefore your argument has no basis other than word games.

Even tough nothing really begins to exist

Woah? Technically the universe had a beginning. Even Scott from his little hilarious video admits that the universe gave the beginning to matter. Albeit, through his word gymnastics, he concluded there was no cause. However in no way can he assert the universe was causeless. At 6:31 Scott says "as for what happened before the big bang". Let me stop you right there Scott! Before the big bang? Before? Before time? You can't say "before" the universe! There was no such thing as time until the big bang! So Scott stepped in it pretty good when he starting inferring that time existed before time existed. OUCH! Scott you are equipped with a brain. You're somewhat a smart guy. Use your brain for something other than word gymnastics. It was fun entertaining watching you open and close your hand while claiming it was changing form. It was changing form but not uncaused. I believe Scott made his hand open and close. Unless Scott did not mean to cause his hand to open and close. Maybe he was twitching? That could be your next sematical attept to defend this horendous refutation of causaluity. It would be fun to make a video that puts Scott false sense of pride to shame. Maybe if I find myself with a little more time I should put Scotts' video in the museum of failed arguments against Causality. Moving on.

So now it falls upon me to describe in what context does cause actually makes sense.

Oh this should be good!

Even tough nothing really begins to exist, the configuration in which energy appears changes over time. To a specific configuration of energy we call it a "state". And a "cause" is nothing more than to identify what subset of attributes of a certain state that explains another subset of other attributes of the proceeding states. Causality means that the states are not dependent of proceeding states, and if we are talking about physical states this means proceeding in time, that is it. If there is anything that the laws of causality do is to say that there is no time travel.

Time travel?? I was hoping you had something coherent to say. Moving on

No. You made your own definition of self-existing unaware that the philosophy regarding the theme of self-existence is much older that the way you have employed it here, and that self-existent already had a defined meaning before your own. But I have addressed the argument in both the correct meaning and your meaning, and I have shown that they are incoherent forms of trying to define things into existence.

You never did anything of the sort! Theme? What are you talking about? You claimed that self-existing means it had to have created itself. I stated that you were using the definition of 'self-created'. Like when you 'self-created' your own definition of 'self-existing'. 'Self-explanatory=easy to understand by itself: clear and easy to understand with no need for explanation.
Self-existent=exist independently without any need for anything else existing to cause it to exist.
God does not need time, or material, or anything of any kind to exist.

Josephhasfun01 wrote:"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 it does depend on something else to exist.

No it doesn't, itself is not something else.

You really need to work on your reading skills.



Josephhasfun01 wrote: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.

To witch I have responded accordingly:
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote: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.

What kind of pie? I am a fan of cherry! So altering the main character and laughing at the altered narrative is what passes as an argument for atheists/agnostics today?

A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place.

You got that right! God did exist in the first place. Ever heard of eternal?
What you have yet not understood about God is that he is timeless. God exists outside of time. That's how come God has always existed. If God had a beginning then God would need a cause. But God exists' outside of time. There was no time until the big bang happened. When time began God still remained outside of it. That is how God can know what we do before we do it. Here are some bible verses speaking about God being eternal because I am often accused of making up things pertaining to God being eternal. Genesis 21:33, Psalms 90:1-4, and my favorite: Exodus 3:13-14, Psalms 100:5, Ephesians 3:10-11, revelation 1:8.

No you are the one stuck in your asshat logic trying to define things into existence, ignoring the fact that whatever you think-of has no bearing what so ever in reality, and that all your philosophical certainties about the existence of your made up concepts vanish simply due to the fact that what you think may simply just not exist.
Saying that X exist because it exists is circular logic, it is a meaningless absurdity that can not be saved by throwing a "self-existing" into the mix.
You are trying to do the impossible, to define things into existence. You can no more philosophically prove God than you can prove a square circle.

You are trying to do the impossible, to define things into existence. You can no more philosophically prove God than you can prove a square circle.

I don't think you understand. God is not a physical object. He has no physical form. I agree that 'things' cannot be proven philosophically. But God is not a 'thing'. God is an all powerful consciousness.

Josephhasfun01 wrote:You keep trying to refute immaterial and I will just continue debunking your rebuttals .

What? I don't have to refute the immaterial. All I have to do is to demonstrate that you have no basis for thinking that it exists.

Good luck in that endeavor. The fact that we are sentient conscious beings is proof of Gods' existence. The fact is I can demonstrate immaterial exists outside of our abstract thoughts is also proof that God exists. Here is the independent empirical proof: Laws of the universe, laws of mathematics, and laws of logic are all immaterial. They exist but not just in our thoughts. Our thoughts do not put the universe to task.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

That is what good philosophy is for. The universe created itself from nothing is in no way, good philosophy.

I think before you carry on, it would be important for you to watch the first 1 minute and 8 seconds of this clip.

I got 12 seconds into the video and found SAGAN asking what happened before the big bang. He has already failed. Time was non-existent so Carl, you can't say, "before the big bang"!

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sorry Carl! There is no way that the universe always existed. The universe had a beginning! I got as far as 57 secs that time.

 

[Frenger]

Sorry Carl! There is no way that the universe always existed. The universe had a beginning! I got as far as 57 secs that time.

R U SERIUS???

 

[australopithecus]

Sorry Carl! There is no way that the universe always existed. The universe had a beginning! I got as far as 57 secs that time.

Argument from ignorance. Try again.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sorry Carl! There is no way that the universe always existed. The universe had a beginning! I got as far as 57 secs that time.

R U SERIUS???

Very much so! How did the universe always exist? The was a beginning to matter right? The big bang? Ever heard of it?! Or is that now a reputed theory?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sorry Carl! There is no way that the universe always existed. The universe had a beginning! I got as far as 57 secs that time.

Argument from ignorance. Try again.

Argument from omniscience. Try again. Look I can do it too!

 

[Frenger]

Very much so! How did the universe always exist? The was a beginning to matter right? The big bang? Ever heard of it?! Or is that now a reputed theory?

Remember there are other threads where your complete lack of knowledge about physics and cosmology have been highlighted, in this instance though, it's your general comprehension that is utterly useless.

What Carl Sagan is saying, is that you don't answer questions about our Universe by posing a god. To do so does not answer the question, it merely defers it.

So, if I say "where did the universe come from" and you say "god", I then have to ask "where did god come from". Do see how the question moves on a step? It doesn't just go away does it?

I can't believe I've just had to explain that.

I once showed that clip to a class of 16 year olds I was teaching and they understood it perfectly. But then at least they had had some education eh Joseph?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Very much so! How did the universe always exist? The was a beginning to matter right? The big bang? Ever heard of it?! Or is that now a reputed theory?

Remember there are other threads where your complete lack of knowledge about physics and cosmology have been highlighted, in this instance though, it's your general comprehension that is utterly useless.

What Carl Sagan is saying, is that you don't answer questions about our Universe by posing a god. To do so does not answer the question, it merely defers it.

So, if I say "where did the universe come from" and you say "god", I then have to ask "where did god come from". Do see how the question moves on a step? It doesn't just go away does it?

I can't believe I've just had to explain that.

I once showed that clip to a class of 16 year olds I was teaching and they understood it perfectly. But then at least they had had some education eh Joseph?

Your filling 16 year olds heads with nonsense? They're in your class and you claim to be a teacher, yet you cannot give the grade but you know all of their birthdays? Highly suspect!

What Carl Sagan is saying, is that you don't answer questions about our Universe by posing a god. To do so does not answer the question, it merely defers it.

Right! because we all have to do as Carl says. He is God!

So, if I say "where did the universe come from" and you say "god", I then have to ask "where did god come from". Do see how the question moves on a step? It doesn't just go away does it?

I find people with a lack of education about God pose the question: "Where did God come from". The answer to those who lack knowledge in theology, is that God always existed as a conscious spirit. But Sagan then says, "why not save a step and say that the universe has always existed?"
But There is a reason that we can't say the universwe has always existed. It hasn't! The big bang was the beginning of the universe.

 

[Frenger]

Your filling 6th graders heads with this nonsense? Shame on you!

The nonsense of asking questions? This answers a lot of questions I had about you.

Right! because we all have to do as Carl says. He is God!

BRB, just need to go and replace my monitor. I had to beat my head against it following that question.

I find people with a lack of education about God

I don't know how you dare comment on anybodies "lack of education". There are still two threads on this forum where you have been shown to be completely full of shit on seemingly every topic you comment on.

pose the question: "Where did God come from".

Is that not a reasonable question then?

The answer to those who lack knowledge in theology, is that God always existed as a conscious spirit.

Oh how convenient. It's strange that you allow god to always exist, but not the universe, especially when we know for a fact the Universe is real.

But Sagan then says, "why not save a step and say that the universe has always existed?"
But There is a reason that we can't say the universwe has always existed. It hasn't! The big bang was the beginning of the universe.

The beginning of our Universe, yes.

Although it is unlikely, the Universe could be in a constant state of expansion and contraction (although the shape of universe suggests this isn't the case).

The multi verse theory could be accurate and there is some support for this stemming from the work of Richard Feynman (which I'm sure you're familiar with).

There could have been a quantum tunnelling event followed by inflation.

The point is, we don't know. We know that the big bang happened, but what happened before that (if there was a before that) is unknown, maybe even un-knowable. But you do nothing AT ALL, to answer these questions with "it was my god, he told me so".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

God is the magician who appears to magically create the universe out of nothing to us finite humans is doing what comes easy for Him.

:lol:

Does anything more need to be said?