Who is God?

[australopithecus]

Not really. While your ability to spell, or lack thereof, has no impact on the validity of your argument, the fact that you can't even be bothered to check what you are posting speaks volumes.

 

[Darkprophet232]

You apparently like ranting on and on about nothing.

calling some one a liar is fallacious.

Huh? By that reason calling Al-Qaeda a terrorist group is adversarial, calling Fred Phelps a hatemonger is abhorrent, calling Obama a president is presidential.... and on and on. When you try to deceive others into thinking you know more about a subject that you actually do, that is lying. When you misrepresent entire fields of science to fit into a straw-man argument, that is lying.

I did not realize this was the league of spelling! If your argument is a mispell (sic) words sometimes therefore I am always wrong, then you have a lot to learn.

How convenient that you failed to mention the other half of my claim. Here, I'll help out and post it for you:

...and have as of yet demonstrated no true understanding of even elementary physics reveals that this is a child's gambit.

Also, trying to misrepresent what I said is lying. Even if it's to completely deflect my argument so you don't have to deal with it. Doesn't your book say something about lying?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

[showmore=This thread]No matter how much you study, and no matter how good you are at Chess -
if you play it with a Pigeon, it'll knock over the pieces, shit on the board, strut around, and then fly back to it's flock claiming victory.

[/showmore]

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Now your telling me you never said-"you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude"?
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 reading comprehension is awful. If it wasn't you'd understand that I was asserting that the term 'magnitude' is a quantitative description of something. Your original assertion is that you can add to a magnitude of infinity. My refutation is that this is bullshit.

By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that the "magnitude" of Gods glory cannot be added to.


It kind of does. If the magnitude of God's glory is infinite then automatically includes everything, ever. It cannot be added to because it already includes everything, ever. This must be the 4th time I've explained this, how have you not got it?

Astronomically when referring to 'magnitude' it is the brightness of I have explained this. Actually I explained this in my previous reply.


...and your spurious cherry picking of whatever definition of 'magnitude' you best think suits your claim is laughable for the same reason. Even if you're referring to the astronomic definition, then if God's glory is infinite in magnitude it still cannot be added to, or made brighter.

Oddly enough it was basically the only thing I said in my previous reply that you did not quote and dismantle as you so eloquently do.


Oddly enough, I'm looking at your previous reply now I can't spot where you stated this. Care to point it out? I understand that not being able to retroactively edit your posts must be upsetting you, but try to bear in mind I can search all your posts for specific words.

(sarcasm) In my previous glory attempt to address our misunderstanding I stated: "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. This why I use the word 'infinite' when describing the nature of God.


Again, cherry picking definitions of words doesn't make your argument more sound.


"Glory" is an essential part of the DIVINE NATURE of God it does NOT represent any other meaning other than His divine nature.


...and unicorns have silver blood.

Therefore since "Glory" is an as not quantitative, by nature Glory is not quantitative in correlation with time. As God is timeless by his infinite nature. ential part of Gods nature it is infinite as God is infinite. Now that we have gotten that out of the way I shall define the infinite nature of God for along with his glory. What God is adding to is not His eternal spirit. It's to the magnitude of is the I really need to be on the same page here with you, figuratively speaking, in order to proceed.


Right, so if glory is not quantitative then your use of the word magnitude is useless. It is a quantitative term after all.

We're not on the same page. We're not even reading the same book. Define your terms, then you can continue making a fool of yourself.

exactly what is the "correct" infinity might I ask? I know what it is, but I am curious as to how you would define it. {Given that you have apparently had a lot of practice in word gymnastics I suspect that this will be good.} define the 'correct' definition for "infinity".


Well seeing as it was you who decided to use infinity quantify, the correct definition would be:
Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: "an infinite number of stars".

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.


...and Jedi communicate with the force through midi-chlorians.

I gladly do it for you my friend!


Yeah, we're not friends. Ever.

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


This is just a word salad of nonsense.

I get this notion that it is often times the person making an accusation that is the one who is guilty of the accusation by which they accuse. Oddly enough you seem to support my hypothesis. In the above quote you have misquoted me.


Sorry, but there was no misquote. All I did was add quote tags to what you posted.

If you are going to misquote me and accuse me of moving the goal post then you have added to proof of my hypothesis.
Perhaps I the reason I appear to peddle backwards to you is because your rebuttals have us on a track like an old record player that keeps playing the same part of the record over and over until we make a completion that sets us onto the next grove.


Again, all I did was add quote tags to your text. if it helps I can just post screen shots of your posts.

If you have to misquote me to in order to give a rebuttal then we remain stuck in this same grove. My original statement was " He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory"


...and I never said you didn't post this. What my objection, and subsequent quoting of, was your shoe horning nonsense about "eternal nature", which didn't appear anywhere near your original post.

You originally stated nothing about the nature of any glory


Incorrect. If misquoting me is how you are going to debate then I will ignore any more of your arguments addressed to me.


Swing and a miss. All you stated was: "Also God created us in order to have a relationship with us and add on to the magnitude of His infinite glory.". You didn't mention the nature of anything until I called you on your nonsense.



That's a screen shot of your actual post, just in case you decide I've misquoted you.

"Gods' glory is infinite." That is indeed saying that the nature of Gods' glory is infinite.


What a thing is, and the nature of what that this is are not always the same thing. Besides, earlier in you post you stated that:

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

I'm going to assume you can't even remember what point you're trying to make is. If the nature of God's glory is infinite then it cannot be added to. It's that simple.

We were created to 'magnify' it. God is infinite by nature. However this in no implies you get to change the word 'infinite' in reference to Gods nature to infinity. What you did was exactly what you accused me of: moving the goal post.


I've moved no goal posts, it's you who can't define your terms.

"He created us to add onto the magnitude of His infinite glory."
Look above my quote.

Now look at your misquote of what I said.

"you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude"- -nope.


That's not a misquote, that's your crappy reading comprehension. Let's use numeric terms, just to see if it sinks into your skull.

If you said ""He created us to add onto the magnitude of His 12 glory.", then to say you said his glory is 12 in magnitude is entirely accurate. Also, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you, it was my summation of your claim.

I stated that "He created us to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory". 'Infinite' is referring to the nature of Gods' glory. We were created to add to the 'magnitude' of it.
If you ever misquote me again I will cease to acknowledge any arguments you bring my way.


Ah, the Bob Enyart school of debate. If you can't beat them, ignore them. Again, it wasn't a misquote because I never claimed to be quoting you. Here's a tip for you, if I ever quote you there will be either quotation marks, or it will be in a quote tag.

Here we go round and round stuck in the same grove.
Now I have to explain it all over again. I noticed how you left this out of your quotes. It must've been a good refutation to your poor semantic argument because you failed to address it so I present it again. 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). God is eternal or 'infinite' in regards to His super-nature. He is outside of time.


You can repeat it all you like, it doesn't become a better argument the more you repeat it.

You extrapolate infinity from Gods' eternal nature and try to use that as a mathematical meaning in terms of "infinity". You are correct to say that you can't add to infinity. By I did not use the word infinite to mean mathematical infinity as you are trying to posit.

Also, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you, it was my summation of your claim.

Ah! A summation! So in your attempt to refute you misinterpreted it in a the only fashion that you could by choosing my definitions for me?

Since you like to let the personal attacks fly I will return them back to you. You either have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately playing the fool.


The irony.

You misquote me and turn meanings of words around by taking them out of context.


Nope, see above.

You have proved yourself to be dishonest and I for one find that repulsive. The most repulsive thing I find is for you to accuse me of doing what you have done continuously in this debate. You move the goal post by either misquoting me and by pretending like you don't understand basic English words.


Try again, Chuckles.

Your inability to create a coherent argument is solely your problem. I have never misquoted you, it is your inability to read and comprehend that is lacking here.

It seems that by removing your ability to retroactively edit your posts (something which you were doing, which is why I stopped it), your only course of action is to make your argument so convoluted it becomes almost impossible for people to reply to it, including you. Unfortunately for you I have a very long attention span, and the ability to use the search function. Not to mention my super awesome Mod powers.

So if you want to make excuses and point fingers then go ahead. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then fill your boots.

Your argument is still fucking inconsistent nonsense.


Can't you just feel the love? People are so courteous, aren't they?

Yeah, we're not friends. Ever.

Well not all people I guess. So much for human virtue.

Also, it wasn't a misquote because I wasn't quoting you, it was my summation of your claim.

Ah! A summation! So in your attempt to refute you misinterpreted I stated in the only fashion that you could by choosing my definitions for me? However you did refer to what I said in "quotations" in a rearranged fashion. So you did misquote.

It seems that by removing your ability to retroactively edit your posts (something which you were doing, which is why I stopped it) your only course of action is to make your argument so convoluted it becomes almost impossible for people to reply to it, including you

I find it amusing you continuously keep restating this as if you are using it to attempt to discredit me. You made an accusation that I would be dishonest if you did not lock out the 'edit' function. It seems like you just don't want me to be able to improve on my original post which you allow anyone else to do so long as they are atheist. It seems like you're the only one that should be accused of dishonesty. Just want to make this known to viewers that I have nothing to hide.

Your failiure to properly define your terms at the onset of a debate is not my problem, it's yours. You don't get to point fingers if you're the one who hasn't defined anything.

I sould have known better!

I shall give one last attempt to rescue my statement which you so adamantly are trying to tear down. Allow me give the definitions behind the words I choose. Unfortunately you don't get to tell me what definitions I can and cannot use. To bad your awesome moderator powers can't allow you to choose my definitions for me! I bet you wish they did though!

Defining "magnitude" - - I was using the astronomy definition of magnitude: brightness of astronomical object: a numerical measure of the apparent brightness of an astronomical object, on a scale in which a lower number represents greater brightness.

Defining "Infinite": not bound by anything. By definition God is not bound by anything. His existence is independent. This is the nature of God and His glory. Glory is also a part of His nature.

So when I stated:
"God created us in order to add to the magnitude of His infinite glory." You ran with whatever definitions you wanted to pick in order to refute what I said. You must not get to many opportunities to refute anything as most debates are epistemologically and academically, over your head!

Now to finish up explaining what I was trying to say about the purpose of our existence.

It's your argument that you cannot mathematically add to something infinite. This is false.
Though it is not possible to add to mathematical infinity. But I did not use the word infinity! You did in your refutation of my statement. You took the word I used -infinite- and changed it to 'infinity' when you attempted to dismantle my statement. Straw man!

Gods glory is infinite. Therefore, by the definition I gave for 'infinite' pertaining to 'glory', Gods' glory is not bound by anything. Gods' glory will exist no matter(independent) if no one makes it to heaven. So the magnitude of His infinite glory can be added onto(magnified)through the salvation He offers us through Christ should we accept it.

Gods' nature is infinite. Meaning God is not bound by anything. The nature of Gods' glory is also infinite. So therefore the infinite(boundless) nature of Gods' glory can be magnified as infinitely as He wishes.

Just to blow your mind think about this - -
Outer space is also referred as the heavens. Stars are also referred to as heavenly bodies.
God says when we get to heaven we will get a new body. Therefore a new heavenly body. Those who have been sanctified will be a star in the sky. A 'heavenly body' in heaven.

Your argument is still fucking inconsistent nonsense.

[/quote]

Argument from Personal Incredulity

Inconsistent nonsense? That is a good thing right? It seems like it would be better then your 'consistent nonsense.'

*next time I will be sure to define all words I use in a sentence so you can't build straw man anymore.J

 

[australopithecus]

I'm bored of your cherry picking and personal redefining of terms in order to try and salvage an argument that fell apart days ago. I'll politely decline in favour of letting some other masochist reply to your nonsense. It's like trying to talk to a wall who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

FYI, being inconsistent is not a good thing.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I'm bored of your cherry picking and personal redefining of terms in order to try and salvage an argument that fell apart days ago. I'll politely decline in favour of letting some other masochist reply to your nonsense. It's like trying to talk to a wall who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

I know exactly what you mean austra. BTW excellent rebuttle! :lol:

 

[australopithecus]

Quaint.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I'll politely decline in favour of letting some other masochist reply to your nonsense.

I'm plenty masochistic enough to try, but damn is that unreadable. Any way he could be allowed to attempt to salvage that post with proper use of the quote function?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Joseph - once again,

What is the difference between:

a) An immaterial object and
b) an abstract concept?

You come in here, playing philosopher and hopping around playing "hard to get" so I must politely ask you the question that is textbook Philosophical Inquiry 101 in matters of thought, theology, and everything that falls afterwards. They both have concrete definitions, so I'd like you to humor this discussion here. It's the subject that's at the very core of your argument, and I insist that you oblige me in this discussion.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Joseph - once again,

What is the difference between:

a) An immaterial object and
b) an abstract concept?

You come in here, playing philosopher and hopping around playing "hard to get" so I must politely ask you the question that is textbook Philosophical Inquiry 101 in matters of thought, theology, and everything that falls afterwards. They both have concrete definitions, so I'd like you to humor this discussion here. It's the subject that's at the very core of your argument, and I insist that you oblige me in this discussion.

I already addressed this question. In case you missed it: there is not any diff between immaterial n abstract

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

And you have even failed basic Philosophy -

An immaterial object is something that does exist, with recognizable effects and uses - though having immaterial standard.
An abstract concept is something that is the result of purely a process of thought used to describe the universe or to contemplate future events.

An abstract concept would be things along the lines of:
"I observed a rock sinking. If it is denser than water, then it will sink."
An immaterial object is an object of palpable, calculable, useful object such as:
"This magnet effects metals. There is an electromagnetic field that effects all fields around it, causing the effect on metal. Let's make one ourselves, and use this immaterial field."

Now, which one of these two segments does the God of the Bible, Yahweh, fill?
Why?

 

[Deleted member 619]

The reason I ask 'who is God' is because there are many different beliefs about God.

Indeed! 30,000+ versions of christianity alone!

There's mythology stemming from a Pagonis tic view. Then there is other beliefs in God like the Hindus, Zen Buddhism and New Age, belief. They believe in a pantheist God. this pantheist view believes God is nature. Mythology has it wrong as most all of mythological gods are deemed finite. They can die. Most have not been claimed to have created the universe. Logically gods in this view can be ruled out as plausible.

What, as opposed to gods who have been claimed to have created the universe? The problem there is that such a conception of deity is incoherent. It isn't possible for any entity to be the creator of the universe, because the universe is 'that which is' and encompasses everything that exists. A deity, being something that allegedly exists, can only be a subset of the universe at best, thus could not be the creator thereof. Also, on what basis do you assert that finite gods can be excluded merely on the basis of their finitude?

As for the belief in a pantheist god, this to can also be ruled out because god is cannot exist as material and also immaterial.

Why not?

God cannot create the universe as himself being the universe.

Already dealt with this above.

That is the equivalent to a painter creating himself into the painting.

What? Utterly incoherent.

The only logical view is that of a theist God. A personal God.

Why? What is the logical basis for this assertion? Show your working out.

This leaves the Christian view, Judaism and the Islamic view as the last of tangible views.

Are they the only theist gods? Not that that makes any difference, because Yahweh doesn't exist.

Now we have the task of deciphering which of these three are the correct view. This is not hard to do either. God allowed His prophets' to do miracles. No where in the Islamic bible did Mohammed do any miracles.

I suspect that flying up to heaven on a winged horse, an utterly impossible creature, qualifies as a miracle.

In fact there is no evidence Mohammed even existed.

There's a damn sight more secular evidence for the existence of Mohammed than there is for Jeebus.

As for Judaism this one can be discounted too. They believe that obeying the law is what God commanded of them.

Well, even supposing that this is true, the same can be said of christianity. Jeebus himself said so, according to your book of wibble:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There is so much infighting as to what Judaism entails that no one agrees on anything in this belief.

Which brings us neatly back to those 30,000+ iterations of christianity. Judaism is looking pretty good, by this 'logic'.

Christianity is the correct view of God because it is the most tangible as far as it's belief in Jesus as the son of God.

Well, there's a slight problem here, namely that the god described in your book doesn't exist. Of course, Judaism and Islam suffer from the same problem, because it's the same non-existent entity, but that's by-the-by.

The sacrificial lamb.

Goat. The term you're looking for is not 'sacrificial lamb' but 'scapegoat'. Not for nothing is this deemed among the most immoral of practices among right-thinking people.

The bible is the only holy book.

You misspelled 'holey'. And I agree. It's so full of holes, you could drive a fleet of aircraft carriers through it.

The bible has stood the test of time

Argumentum ad antiquetatem. You really are amassing quite a collection of logical fallacies, aren't you?

Do you know why it's stood the test of time? Nearly 2,000 years of enforced conformity to doctrine might have played a part. For most of the history of modern Europe, gainsaying the bible could net you a horrible, slow, painful death.

and many hammers have been broken over it as it's anvil still holds strong today.

And yet it can't stand up to the merest scrutiny of one who knows how to think properly.

In fact many have tried to disclaim the bible and all have failed.

Err, only in the fantasy-land in which you keep your imaginary friend. Your post reads like that of somebody who's never encountered any of the arguments against your position (RIP, Hitch). I've demolished the bible, and the characters portrayed within, countless times. It's bollocks.

It is the Word of God. God wrote the bible. Not man.

That would require that this entity exist. He doesn't. Moreover, the claim that it was written by an omniscient entity who could neither correctly count the number of legs on an insect, accurately state the correct value for pi and, furthermore, thought that you could change the genomes of organisms wholesale by having their parents shag alongside coloured sticks is, frankly, asinine.

God is defined as a great spirit who is infinite in power. Also omnipresent and omniscient.

Infinite in power and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Can your magic man do something that he didn't know he would do? No? Then I possess a power that your god does not. Indeed, I possess many powers that an omnipotent entity cannot possess. Omnipotence is self-refuting.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

You got your 'therefore' in a little early there. This particular fallacy is known as the non sequitur, which translates directly from the Latin as 'does not follow'. In short, your argument is invalid.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:

Prepare to be dazzled, then.

Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.

The universe doesn't follow natural laws. Natural laws are our expressions of how what we observe behaves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.

Fallacy of blind assertion combined with the question-begging fallacy. The question being begged, of course, is the existence of this entity, the entity contained in your conclusion. Yet another argument that could have been written with a pair of compasses.

Conclusion: God exist.

Again, circular in the extreme. You present an attribute of the entity you're trying to prove in one of your premises and then conclude that the entity exists. This is the very definition of the fallacy of circularity.

And circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

In order for something to be immaterial it must be self existent. It does not depend on anything else to exist. Therefore it is independent of time and material.

Slight problem there. The example you chose in your 'syllogism' (if such an appellation is actually warranted), namely the natural laws, is conceptual in nature, thus it is contingent on the mind, which itself resides on physical, material stratum. Moreover, because said laws describe behaviour of physical entities, they are contingent upon the existence of the physical, and indeed of time, because time is required in order for processes (the things those laws describe) to occur.

Well done, sir! You just refuted your own argument!

The natural laws which the physical universe follows are immaterial. Immaterial is defined as not having physical form as it is not made of material, thus, is not a concrete object. We can not see the natural laws the universe follows directly. We describe them by observing how the physical universe behaves. We cannot describe something that does not exist so we know that laws of the physical universe do exist even though we do not see them directly because we see how the physical universe runs according to laws they follow. This very same concept is how we can know God exist.

Already deal with this. See above.

Support for premises #2: God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.

Or non-existent.

We cannot see God but we know He is there because we can see throughout history all the way up to the present how God has effected peoples behavior and their various beliefs.

No, the idea of god has had this impact, not god. Note the subtle distinction. This does not provide evidence for god, only for the fact that people will believe whacky stuff.

Belief that God exist has been held by the majority of people throughout history.

Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquetatem in one! Well done you!

Although there are a divergence of beliefs in God, they all stem from the one true belief in God.

Except that, in order to point to one true[sup]TM[/sup] belief in god, you actually have to show that any such entity exists. Since this is your purpose, you are once again attempting an argument with pi in it.

We can find the pieces to the puzzle of God spread throughout many different beliefs from the Hindu religion all the way to Lawrence Kraus' theory of 'Something From Nothing.'

Krauss is an atheist, so how does that work?

The Hindus believe God exists as nature. The universe is God is what the believe. This belief is negated as a scientific explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe. The Hindus concept that God exist in nature is derived from one of the theistic aspects of Gods' omnipresence. God is everywhere. Hindus mistakenly take this aspect of the omnipresence of God and posit that God is in nature. That's why they believe in reincarnation. They believe when our souls pass on they inhabit physical forms of nature from a tree, to a butterfly, or a cow ect.
The reason the Hindus belief in God is not scientifically supported is because if God were confined to His creation, then He would need to have been created by something else. For example, a painter creates a painting therefore the painter is not the painting. That was a very oversimplified explanation but I feel it's sufficient.

Well, the paucity of your understanding of Hinduism aside, Hinduism actually knocks holes in your argumentum ad antiquetatem above, not least because it's a good deal older than christianity, or indeed any of the main monotheisms.

Laurence Kraus has a theory called 'Something Form nothing' where in his explanation he states that long ago all that existed where numbers.

Which tells me that you haven;t actually read the book or watched the lecture, because Krauss says no such thing. You should be aware that I know Lawrence Krauss, and we converse fairly regularly.

All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe.

Err, no. This isn't remotely representative of the theory, which is little surprise, given the abject ignorance with which you approach every topic thus far.

Therefore something came from nothing.

Actually, if you'd read the book or watched the lecture (which I know has been posted here specifically in an attempt to address your ignorance), you'd know that what Krauss posits is not that the universe came from nothing, but that 'nothing' is an impossible state. Apart from anything else, it massively violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

As you have already been advised, many of us here are highly conversant with physics and cosmology. You should bear that in mind before exposing the forum to such intellectual flatulence.

Although I don't see how Kraus' theory is supported by logic the basis of his theory that first numbers where all that existed is a piece of the puzzle that fits with God.

That's probably because your 'logic' is rooted in faulty premises, not the least of which is your abject failure to actually appreciate the details of the theory.

When God 'breathed' the universe into existence there were numbers comprising mathematic formulas that took nothing and created something from it. God pronounced the universe into existence. This is proposed in the bible where it states in Isaiah that God breathed the universe into existence. Our God is a star breathing God. He is still your God too, whether you accept it or reject it.

All of which, including my acceptance or rejection, would require that this entity actually exist, a conclusion not in evidence. In any event, even were this entity to actually exist, it wouldn't be mine. I have no want or need of a deity. What do you do with one anyway? Stand it in the corner, like that guitar you bought when you were thirteen and always promised yourself that you'd learn to play? Wheel it out at parties as a conversation starter?

No, this god, regardless of whether or not it exists, is not mine, and I'm not its.

As I have demonstrated, although superficially, God leads to the beliefs of even non believers and other religious beliefs.

Assertion =/= demonstration.

We live in a world where much of secular society rejects absolutes. This is the belief of people who don't want to find out the truth. I have debated with people who propose there can be an infinite number of possibilities as to how the universe came to be.

The problem there is that it is far from having been established that the universe ever came to be. Still assuming conclusions not in evidence.

This is completely false as it is self defeating. 'the ONLY possibility as to how the universe came into existence is that there are infinite possibilities'. This makes no sense. First problem"¦this means that there could only be multiple truths for the explanation of the universe when logically only one can be true.

On the contrary! There are several possibilities, including the very real possibility that the universe is simply a brute fact.

According to laws of logic something cannot be both true and a false at the same time in the same context.

No problem with that.

Therefore there can only be one true explanation for the cause of the universes existence.

Of course, but the problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe had, or indeed required, a cause.

Only one explanation is true for how the universe came to be. You can't say that it could have been either created by aliens or it created itself from numbers. Only one explanation can be true. They both cannot be true because we are talking about the universe in the same context. How it came to be.

Assumes it came to be.

And still the fallacies come thick and fast.

 

[Frenger]

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video

Laurence Kraus has a theory called 'Something Form nothing' where in his explanation he states that long ago all that existed where numbers. All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe

Therefore something came from nothing.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Laurens]

Now your telling me you never said-"you stated his glory is infinite in magnitude"?
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 reading comprehension is awful. If it wasn't you'd understand that I was asserting that the term 'magnitude' is a quantitative description of something. Your original assertion is that you can add to a magnitude of infinity. My refutation is that this is bullshit.

By stating that Gods glory is infinite does not mean that the "magnitude" of Gods glory cannot be added to.


It kind of does. If the magnitude of God's glory is infinite then automatically includes everything, ever. It cannot be added to because it already includes everything, ever. This must be the 4th time I've explained this, how have you not got it?

Wait, God's glory includes everything ever? So that includes cancer, disease, environmental catastrophes, famine, birth defects, psychopathic serial killers, genocidal maniacs, and so on? Oh what a glorious being, I can see him working through all of these things!

Therefore since "Glory" is an as not quantitative, by nature Glory is not quantitative in correlation with time. As God is timeless by his infinite nature. ential part of Gods nature it is infinite as God is infinite. Now that we have gotten that out of the way I shall define the infinite nature of God for along with his glory. What God is adding to is not His eternal spirit. It's to the magnitude of is the I really need to be on the same page here with you, figuratively speaking, in order to proceed.

How, pray tell does a timeless being operate? It makes no sense. I mean people often refer to God as being or having a mind, but how can a mind operate without time? How can a being create a universe without time, if there was a time before God created the universe and a time after then surely he is a temporal being? If there was a time before God sent his son down, and a time after he ascended into heaven, then there must be some aspect of time involved in his being. To say nonsensical things such as 'God is timeless' means nothing without some kind of explanation as to how a 'being' operates without time.

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.

As a separate issue, if God has already seen the end of time, and he has a plan for humanity which goes according to his will, and his plan is ultimately good. Then you cannot say we have free will and you cannot say that anything is evil.

Why because if all goes according to his will, it cannot go according to our own - i.e. we have no free will. And if that is the case then the massacre of innocent children at Sandy-Hook recently was not evil, because it was according to God's will and part of his divine plan - which is ultimately good.

 

[devilsadvocate]

The universe doesn't follow natural laws. Natural laws are our expressions of how what we observe behaves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I've just got to try to underline the full impact of this statement. If this is strictly believed to be true, then there's no distinction between accidental generalization and a "law of nature". For example "All copper conducts electricity" is equal to "All the candy in my drawer are M&M's". Both are generalizations supported by evidence and both statements hold the same logical structure, but in reality no one would hold the latter to be a law of nature. The difference is that the former statement is held to support counterfactuals. Strict empiricism as an epistemology doesn't have tools to make that distinction though, so it is a bit of a problem.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

And you have even failed basic Philosophy -

An immaterial object is something that does exist, with recognizable effects and uses - though having immaterial standard.
An abstract concept is something that is the result of purely a process of thought used to describe the universe or to contemplate future events.

An abstract concept would be things along the lines of:
"I observed a rock sinking. If it is denser than water, then it will sink."
An immaterial object is an object of palpable, calculable, useful object such as:
"This magnet effects metals. There is an electromagnetic field that effects all fields around it, causing the effect on metal. Let's make one ourselves, and use this immaterial field."

Now, which one of these two segments does the God of the Bible, Yahweh, fill?
Why?

sorry but immaterial does not exist as an object. There is no difference between immaterial and abstract. You can create all the sematic arguments you want but even using your above examples one can still show there is no difference between observing a rock sinking and using abstract thought in said observence and observing the cause effect relationship between an electromagnetic field and objects containing metals. However, the cause effect relationship between metals and the electomagnetic field is not immaterial or abstract. The electromagentic field is comprised of elements called photons.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

. The electromagentic field is comprised of elements called photons.

elements called photons

elements ... photons

Please, point out where on a Periodic Table of Elements that a photon can be found.

I'm dying to know what they're made out of.

Sarcasm aside, photons are packets of energy. There is no physical form of a photon, but we can detect them and use them.
Your understanding of Physics is even worse than your comprehension of basic elements of philosophy.

Have you even read a work of Philosophy?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Sarcasm aside, photons are packets of energy.

Not strictly true. They carry energy related to their momentum, but if they were energy, they would by definition have rest mass, meaning that they couldn't travel at c.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Not strictly true. They carry energy related to their momentum, but if they were energy, they would by definition have rest mass, meaning that they couldn't travel at c.

For laymen, they are packets of energy. It's the best description for them.

The nonsense you jumbled Joseph here doesn't believe in, strictly on his rejection of particle-wave duality and quantum mechanics.