01 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou say:
Yep, it is a special atheists dictionary. How did you know?
What do you not understand about the logic here?
P1: God exists.
P2: God created all things that exist.
As far as I can tell, the conjunction of P1 & P2 entails P3:
P3: God created God.
Do you have some other take on it?
Your earlier objection seemed to be that P3 does not f ...[text shortened]... was hoping "LimeJello" would take the time to clarify what he meant, but he has not thus far.
P1: God exists.
P2: God created all things that exist.
This should read:
P1: God exists.
P2: God created all that exists.
Then you could correctly say:
P3: God created God
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt is known that the universe has not always existed and that it had a
I'm still waiting for LimeJello to clarify.
[b]Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not to simply have the universe (in some form or another) exist forever,
Yep, you have correctly pointed ou ...[text shortened]... s simply thereby contradicted himself. So this argument, as is, is just incoherent nonsense.[/b]
beginning. That knowledge is the reason for the "Big Bang Theory".
God on the other hand is eternal and has always existed and thus
needs no cause. How does man know that God is eternal and uncreated?
Answer: God told man.
HalleluYah !!!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou claim to believe in young earth creationism. (circa 6000yrs)
It is known that the universe has not always existed and that it had a
beginning. That knowledge is the reason for the "Big Bang Theory".
God on the other hand is eternal and has always existed and thus
needs no cause. How does man know that God is eternal and uncreated?
Answer: God told man.
HalleluYah !!!
The big bang happened appx 13.2 Billion yrs ago.
You don't get to be a YEC and then claim the science of the big bang as support.
Also, the big bang was the beginning of our visible universe.
It might well not be the beginning of the universe in it's entirety.
And science is in general leaning towards it not being so.
The question is, at least, not settled.
So you can't claim science as supporting your position, it doesn't, it refutes it.
You can't throw science out the window and then lean on it for support.
And even if 'god told man' were true (it isn't), it doesn't meet the standards of evidence
needed for proof, needed for knowledge.
So even if god came and told you personally, this doesn't prove that it's true even
from your perspective, let alone anyone else's.
You believe, blindly, on faith.... You don't, and can't, know.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis is my belief as already stated:
Well, those are some substantial claims that, in order to get by, would require some considered argument on your part.
At any rate, I do not think this addresses my questions. I'm just curious. Do you think it is logically possible that God could not exist? Are you committed to the idea that God created Himself?
"Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise and fall by reason of obedience to and/or disregard of His precepts. He's a gentleman and does not coerce or interfer with human free will. His Integrity (Justice and Righteousness) is exceedingly patient and fair. This is why children who die before reaching the age of accountability are also the beneficiaries of his Grace Gift of Eternal Salvation. Their names are also written in the Lamb's Book of Life. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are supernatural spirit being real persons. Until that #101 is concept is grasped there is no frame of reference whatever for further breakthrough in understanding."
gb (aka, LimeJello)
.................................................................
You believe differently.
I'm fine with that but have no interest in replicating pseudo-scholars of centuries past debating the precise number of angels able to dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. I'm opposed to knowingly participating in fruitless conversations that typically produce more heat than light and actually hinder unbelievers from having a fair shake at examining, pondering and apprehending truth.
gb
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyJust for clarity,
[b]This is my belief as already stated:
"Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise a ...[text shortened]... unbelievers from having a fair shake at examining, pondering and apprehending truth.
gb[/b]
Are you saying that unless someone swallows your 'as stated' belief hook line and sinker,
You are not prepared to discuss anything further with them?
If this is not what you are saying then please clarify as this is how it reads (to me).
Further, I would note that your statement is an end result, it reads as what you aim to find out.
It isn't a starting point.
Given you have no proof of this (or if you do please present it) why should anyone accept this,
without question, simply because you and some ancient book say so?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYeah. 😏
Just for clarity,
Are you saying that unless someone swallows your 'as stated' belief hook line and sinker,
You are not prepared to discuss anything further with them?
If this is not what you are saying then please clarify as this is how it reads (to me).
Further, I would note that your statement is an end result, it reads as what you aim to ...[text shortened]... hould anyone accept this,
without question, simply because you and some ancient book say so?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeGooglefudge, I've told both you and LemonJellow what I believe as plainly as I could, i.e., have placed my trust and confidence in for the safekeeping of the eternal destiny of my mortal soul. At this point, the two of you have articulately told me about many things you reject and have long since discarded as utter nonsense. What I don't know is what either of you believe.
Just for clarity,
Are you saying that unless someone swallows your 'as stated' belief hook line and sinker,
You are not prepared to discuss anything further with them?
If this is not what you are saying then please clarify as this is how it reads (to me).
Further, I would note that your statement is an end result, it reads as what you aim to ...[text shortened]... hould anyone accept this,
without question, simply because you and some ancient book say so?
gb
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd I am asking for you to clarify a particular point.
Googlefudge, I've told both you and LemonJellow what I believe as plainly as I could, i.e., have placed my trust and confidence in for the safekeeping of the eternal destiny of my mortal soul. At this point, the two of you have articulately told me about many things you reject and have long since discarded as utter nonsense. What I don't know is what either of you believe.
gb
Meaning that I am not sure what you currently mean.
Meaning that repeating what you have already said wont help.
All I want to know is...
"Are you saying that you are not prepared to debate with someone
who doesn't already believe in your version of god?"
If yes, then you can just say so.
If no, then please clarify what you actually meant, because I have evidently
misunderstood you.
I don't recall grampy saying that he wanted to debate anything. His beliefs are undebatable. They are his and you can't take them away. Your beliefs, as is already clear as a bell, will not be swayed by grampy's beliefs #101. I think what he is saying is very concise. If you can't entertain his unmutable, core beliefs, then there is nothing to discuss.
And yet, evidently you want to force a discussion. It's simple; if you are not willing to commit--even just for argument's sake--his precepts, then accept that there is nothing further to discuss and most certainly nothing of substance to debate.
What's so difficult to understand about that? He repeated it because... there's just no simpler way to put it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by sumydidGo read the op,
I don't recall grampy saying that he wanted to debate anything. His beliefs are undebatable. They are his and you can't take them away. Your beliefs, as is already clear as a bell, will not be swayed by grampy's beliefs #101. I think what he is saying is very concise. If you can't entertain his unmutable, core beliefs, then there is nothing to discuss. ...[text shortened]... understand about that? He repeated it because... there's just no simpler way to put it.
see the word 'discuss'
look up what it means
then try again.
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou believe differently.
And I am asking for you to clarify a particular point.
Meaning that I am not sure what you currently mean.
Meaning that repeating what you have already said wont help.
All I want to know is...
"Are you saying that you are not prepared to debate with someone
who doesn't already believe in your version of god?"
If yes, then you can j ...[text shortened]... If no, then please clarify what you actually meant, because I have evidently
misunderstood you.
"I'm fine with that but have no interest in replicating pseudo-scholars of centuries past debating the precise number of angels able to dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. I'm opposed to knowingly participating in fruitless conversations that typically produce more heat than light and actually hinder unbelievers from having a fair shake at examining, pondering and apprehending truth."
............................................................
Discussion takes two, google. I'm still patiently waiting for you and LemonJello
to reciprocate with a few brief remarks in summary of what you believe.
gb
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYes, my point I raised has really nothing to do with theism vs atheism. One could simply replace 'God' in my P1/2/3 with 'X' (or whatever, it does not matter). I would simply like clarification from GB on his take on it. He obvioulsy will not deny P1, but he may say that he did not intend to mean P2; or that he is just fine with being committed to P3; or, who knows.... But it seems that getting clarification on this from GB is like pulling teeth or something.
Logically, of course, I agree with you and googlefudge (as I indicated; and you are both better logicians than I). But, ironically, this is not even really an atheist-versus-theist debate.
The Spanish philosopher Unamuno conceded that there is no sustainable argument for a logically necessary God; and yet he was a Christian theist, who, so far as I re xaggerating, but the point was well-taken. I tend toward the Eastern view…no surprise there.
I think GB should just deny that he intended P2, which is also what googlefudge suggested. But, I do not really understand the relevance of the rest of googlefudge's post, since if GB were to do so, it would not commit him to the blatantly contradictory and horrible line of reasoning that "everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is X, and that X doesn't need a cause...."
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHinds🙄
You say:
P1: God exists.
P2: God created all things that exist.
This should read:
P1: God exists.
P2: God created all that exists.
Then you could correctly say:
P3: God created God
So, according to you, when GB claimed that God created all things, he was leaving out quite a bit of creation, right? After all, according to you, "all things" does not include a lot of stuff, like persons and places. What else does it not include?
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsHow shocking that you cozy up to science when you think it delivers something that supports a premise of a theistic argument, like the Kalam cosmological argument. Then you crawl back into the Dark Ages and swear off science the rest of the time. Hilarious. This from the guy who implied that scientists and researchers today just throw out wild speculations about the world's evolutionary past because none of them were actually there to observe it. How many scientists do you reckon were there to observe the Big Bang?
It is known that the universe has not always existed and that it had a
beginning. That knowledge is the reason for the "Big Bang Theory".
God on the other hand is eternal and has always existed and thus
needs no cause. How does man know that God is eternal and uncreated?
Answer: God told man.
HalleluYah !!!
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI'm confused. How does any of this address my questions?
[b]This is my belief as already stated:
"Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise a ...[text shortened]... unbelievers from having a fair shake at examining, pondering and apprehending truth.
gb[/b]