Arguments about Him

[skeptic griggsy]

To aver that God is omnipresent means that He cannot be a person, affirming ignosticism. He cannot be transcendent, because Existence is all [Lee Smolin]. As there is nothing to compare Existence with, one cannot aver a cause for it.
Aquinas begs the question of the First Cause in averring that if one takes it away, there are no intermediate ones. He begs the question in making the it must be of Necessary Being with his two categories of Contingent and Necessary Beings.
Time, event and cause bespeak previous tmes,event and causes.
He refutes the Kalam argument for the numerical First Cause [ His own is that of explanation.] by noting that everyday comes on time.William Lane Craig doth beg the question here in assuming a starting point.
So, cosmological arguments fail.
The atelic/ teleonomic argument claims that since the weight of evidence presents no cosmic teleology, to postulate Him would contradict that finding.
The argument from pareidolia is that theists discern divinity and design as one sees Yeshua on a tortilla when there are only natural causes and patterns [ the presumption of naturalism and Ockham's Razor at play].
Hume uses the argument from imperfections [ dysteological ] to illustrate that perhaps it was a committee of gods, a juvenile one or an incompetent one. It won't do aver trying to answer the problem of evil: one should try otherwise to respond to the argument. Two theists aver that a limited god would have to be exiguous- sparing in making matters whilst the omnipotent God can use flourishes assume what they need to establish that divinity had us in mind;and again that contradicts natural selection.
And all teleological arguments- from reason, to design, fine-tuning and probability- fail by assuming what they need to establhish - that divinity had us in mind; that contradicts natural selection rather than being compatible with science.
I have more arguments to address. And to readdres these. As one philosopher notes, it is fun to discuss these arguments!
Why do you believe or not in Him? Do you need Him? We naturalist. we can overcome. We ignostics find that He is as a square circle- nothing i[gnosticism].

[Wootah]

Everything that begins has a cause.

I'm afraid I still don't see the question begging. It seems a pretty solid premise from my experience.

He refutes the Kalam argument for the numerical First Cause [ His own is that of explanation.] by noting that everyday comes on time.William Lane Craig doth beg the question here in assuming a starting point.

With only your quote to work from are you saying that the premise "Everything that begins has a cause" is refuted by the fact that day becomes night becomes day? It seems to me that daytime is when the sun is shining on my side of the world and night is when it is shining on the other side of the world. You can't be meaning this.

Or is the argument to do with time and that time doesn't exist or does exist? I would love to know. I would also caution that time seems as non-existent as God. I don't think I've ever sensed time or God as I have a chair.

Hume uses the argument from imperfections

- Show me some imperfection. Time and time and time again we see reasons for things being the way they are. I strongly urge you to see the 'world isn't perfect' argument as being similar to 'god of the gaps' arguments. When a theist claims 'God did it' how is that different to your claim that 'because I can't see the perfection it isn't perfect?'

- When I run the 100 metres I note that no one runs it as perfectly as me. Indeed only I can run it just the way I do.

- Must a perfect being always be perfect? If you were the perfect chess player couldn't you decide to allow your opponent an advantage in order to show your perfection?

Don't my rejoinders on the issue of imperfection close the case on this?

It won't do aver trying to answer the problem of evil

What part of the problem of evil is not answered by Christian reasoning? It seems pretty solidly answered to me as to why God allows the world to be this way and yet still be a Good God. I would summarise my understanding of God's position as that He thinks allowing things to be the way they are because some of us choose to be with him is worth it, rather than none of us getting to be with him. From my very personal perspective I am grateful for the chance and grateful He chose option B(work his plan out) than option A(end everything). This does seem to me to be very good.

And all teleological arguments- from reason, to design, fine-tuning and probability- fail by assuming what they need to establhish - that divinity had us in mind; that contradicts natural selection rather than being compatible with science.

Why is it a big deal to contradict natural selection? When I take a piece of clay and make a pot I totally contradict the 'natural selection' of the clay.

I think emotionally we are getting close to what is at the heart of it for you (and definitely for me), "that divinity had us in mind". To believe that God would die for me blows my mind, humbles me and softens my heart when I think of how I have dealt and do still treat others. I only say this because whilst I'm fine with addressing the philosophy, I don't like ignoring the heart and the person. I have never met a person that claims that they don't believe in God and not had a broken heart.

Why do you believe or not in Him? Do you need Him? We naturalist. we can overcome. We ignostics find that He is as a square circle- nothing i[gnosticism].

What on Earth does a naturalist have to overcome? Some molecules in your way?

[Rortabend]

What part of the problem of evil is not answered by Christian reasoning? It seems pretty solidly answered to me as to why God allows the world to be this way and yet still be a Good God. I would summarise my understanding of God's position as that He thinks allowing things to be the way they are because some of us choose to be with him is worth it, rather than none of us getting to be with him. From my very personal perspective I am grateful for the chance and grateful He chose option B(work his plan out) than option A(end everything). This does seem to me to be very good.

What about all of the animals who have had to suffer needlessly throughout the history of life? What about those humans not 'fortunate enough' to have been born after the rise of Christianity. They didn't have the chance to accept the 'truth' because it wasn't around. What about early forms of man such as Homo Erectus and Homo Habilus? Was salvation an option for them?

[Wootah]

What about all of the animals who have had to suffer needlessly throughout the history of life? What about those humans not 'fortunate enough' to have been born after the rise of Christianity. They didn't have the chance to accept the 'truth' because it wasn't around. What about early forms of man such as Homo Erectus and Homo Habilus? Was salvation an option for them?

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution. If they are true they would solidly destroy the Christian religion, I won't pretend on that. Neanderthals are probably just another type of human. If they were alive today you wouldn't even notice any more than you would notice black, caucasian, asian etc.

If you are asking why does God allow suffering right now then I think it is answered. Either allow suffering and thereby some will enter heaven or stop suffering and thereby none go to heaven. All die or some die seems to be the state of things at the moment in the Christian logic and given the current state and the options God has available he is making a good choice for which I am grateful. If you are asking why don't animals have souls or why doesn't God value animals as highly as us then I think it's another topic. I think God regards all things he created as good but we were created special. Bad luck animals, good luck us? You might as well be asking why doesn't God show salvation for every molecule.

[Jester]

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution

Is this an argument?
this is just an opinion without arguments.

and you dare call this thing you post philosophy

[Wootah]

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution

Is this an argument?
this is just an opinion without arguments.

and you dare call this thing you post philosophy

Jester all I said was that I don't believe in God. That is sufficient for you from what I can gather.

[Rortabend]

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution.

So how old do you think the world is?

[Wootah]

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution.

So how old do you think the world is?

6-10K or so.

[Rortabend]

6-10K or so.

Wow. Same age for universe as well? If so, how do you make any sense of astronomy and astrophysics?

[Wootah]

6-10K or so.

Wow. Same age for universe as well? If so, how do you make any sense of astronomy and astrophysics?

You will have to point to what you are talking about but I would suggest that astronomy has functioned quite well regardless of the age of the universe and astrophysics, what part?

[Rortabend]

OK. To start with, do you accept the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe?

[Jester]

I don't accept the science of long ages or evolution.

So how old do you think the world is?

6-10K or so.

WOW NOW THIS IS PHILOSOPHY
are you shitting me?

Is philosophy for you two just personal opinions without arguments?
You dont accept science? great job nincampoop, but its not argument
its 6-10k years? well give me proof

OK. To start with, do you accept the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe?

what does it matter if he doesnt ACCEPT?

Christ! is this how philosophy is for you?

-so what do you think about this shit?
-yea well bla bla bla my religion says that
-ah ok bla bla bla...

[Rortabend]

Get lost Jester. I was just interested in what Wootah believes. This has probably never occurred to you but it's actually quite a good idea to clarify posisitions before arguing. This can eliminate a lot of confusion.

Also, it's interesting that in a post decrying the lack of arguments you didn't actually provide any yourself. Tu quoque.

[Jester]

Also, it's interesting that in a post decrying the lack of arguments you didn't actually provide any yourself. Tu quoque.

Because I didnt assert anything here, ITs HIS claims to prove. the burden of proof is on him, he makes allegations but never provides proof or arguments.

Get lost Jester. I was just interested in what Wootah believe

So you're not interested in truth, but in his pathetic opinions

[Wootah]

OK. To start with, do you accept the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe?

I don't believe it's a theory like gravity is a theory. It's a theory like evolution is a theory. A supposition on how things could be possible without God. Fine, really.

The first link has a problem with the big bang theory called the horizon theory. The second link is to a subscribe only article but the stub they offer contains enough. It's a science magazine questioning the science. I think I'm allowed too as well.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325931.400

Heck read point 3 in the first article. They are actually questioning whether particles travel more efficiently in different directions in space. I really don't think pointing to the science will help you.

The short answer is that there is specific evidence I can point to for a young Earth such that I think a fair and impartial observer would be happy to conclude that we do not know if the universe is young or old.