God debate comment

[MarcoPolo]

He isn’t negating his own argument, he is using yours.

…which he claims is stupid. In other words, according to himself, he says he makes his conclusions based on illogic. I happen to think his God-substitution is a compliment to deism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…which he claims is stupid. In other words, according to himself, he says he makes his conclusions based on illogic. I happen to think his God-substitution is a compliment to deism.

to me it smacks of a lack of knowledge concern G-d, physics, and Thomistic First Cause.

and the surety of our argument comes from 5,000 years of experience, and rational examination of the universe

in other words, we are sure of our arguments for a reason.

 

[Dameedna]

…which he claims is stupid. In other words, according to himself, he says he makes his conclusions based on illogic. I happen to think his God-substitution is a compliment to deism.

He uses a thiestic argument and show’s it is stupid. I’m not sure how else one could see this?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He uses a thiestic argument and show’s it is stupid. I’m not sure how else one could see this?

its stupid because he doesnt actually understand the argument he is making.

Thomistic proofs mean that nothing physical can cause itself.

we claim G-d to be non-physical, and always have.

that is how else one can see that.

further, thomistic proofs have never been overturned. there is still nothing physical that can cause itself.

in order to call it wrong, or ‘stupid’ one only has to present an object that is self creating.

 

[jimmy]

I’m not sure how you think this discredits him?

If it is possible for something to exist eternally(which you accept and call god) then it is possible for a physical realit to exist as well, eternally that we call the universe.

He isn’t negating his own argument, he is using yours.

The problem is that you assert that an inanimate material world creating itself is the same thing as an eternal God creating the world. With this argument you might as well say that matter just formed itself into a rolex watch and that is why we have rolexes. A man did not need to create the rolex because matter just formed itself into a rolex. Stuff doesn’t just happen for no reason. The argument is poor at best.

 

[crowonsnow]

Of course personal testimony is considered evidence. It is not necessarily considered as reliable as other sorts of evidence, but more than one person has been sent to jail for a long time because one or more people have gotten up on the stand and said that they saw the person commit the crime.​

Bill

A blind man cannot tell you what he saw. A deaf man cannot tell you what he heard. This is why personal testimony is not evidence.

As you point out, personal testimony can support evidence, and evidence can support personal testimony. But they are most definitely not the same thing. A conviction such as you describe is not a conviction based on evidence but on eyewitness testimony. You can’t send a man to jail on someone’s “personal testimony” that he stole fifty dollars unless there is “evidence” that fifty dollars is actually missing.

 

[crowonsnow]

The problem is that you assert that an inanimate material world creating itself is the same thing as an eternal God creating the world.

He’s saying the universe was already here, not that it created itself. This is the same thing you say about the god. The universe no more possesses an ability to create itself than does the god. A creation argument is just a non-starter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He’s saying the universe was already here, not that it created itself. This is the same thing you say about the god. The universe no more possesses an ability to create itself than does the god. A creation argument is just a non-starter.

an eternal universe voiolates basic physics, and ignores the big bang.

i would say that the non-starter is an eternal universe, unless you can repeal basic physics.

as such the universe requires a first cause.

 

[Dameedna]

The problem is that you assert that an inanimate material world creating itself is the same thing as an eternal God creating the world. With this argument you might as well say that matter just formed itself into a rolex watch and that is why we have rolexes. A man did not need to create the rolex because matter just formed itself into a rolex. Stuff doesn’t just happen for no reason. The argument is poor at best.

You are presuming the universe has been created. You are attempting, by default, to make a claim for a creator. The end result of the discussion is if the universe is created, there MUST be a creator, anything else is illogical.

Unless…the universe has never “been” created.

The Universe exists.

That is all we know.

 

[mchale]

A blind man cannot tell you what he saw. A deaf man cannot tell you what he heard. This is why personal testimony is not evidence.

But a blind man can tell you what he heard, and a deaf man what he saw. And such testimony is considered evidence in a court of law (at least in the United States). Whether you consider this personal or not, well that is your choice.

As you point out, personal testimony can support evidence, and evidence can support personal testimony. But they are most definitely not the same thing. A conviction such as you describe is not a conviction based on evidence but on eyewitness testimony. You can’t send a man to jail on someone’s “personal testimony” that he stole fifty dollars unless there is “evidence” that fifty dollars is actually missing.

I am not sure what country you are from, and therefore what legal tradition you follow, but in the U.S. testimony is considered evidence. You can have a trial where the only evidence is testimony by witnesses and the person who is accused can go to jail or even be executed (depending on the crime). As for the “evidence” of fifty dollars being stolen or missing, it is usually sufficient for the victim of the alleged crime to affirm that the money was taken from them.

Modern science shows that eye witness testimony can be flawed, and thus it is why anecdotal reports are rarely considered scientific evidence. That being said, it seems reasonable, on a matter of personal belief (i.e. the existence or non-existence of God) to use the eye witness testimony of those who have benefited from miracles, witnessed apparitions or who have had Near Death Experiences as potential evidence for the existence of God.

–
Bill

 

[jimmy]

You are presuming the universe has been created. You are attempting, by default, to make a claim for a creator. The end result of the discussion is if the universe is created, there MUST be a creator, anything else is illogical.

Unless…the universe has never “been” created.

The Universe exists.

That is all we know.

What I am presuming is that there was a beginning to the universe, which is established in the theory of the big bang. The argument above is simply that there was no time and no space and then universe simply unfolded to create time and space. It just happened because. It is not an argument at all.

On the other hand the Christian faith (all of the Judeo-Christian tradition for that matter) says that an intelligent being exists eternally and created the universe. And we claim that you can know God.

We are atleast offering something. The atheist doesn’t offer any argument but simply denies that God exists.

He’s saying the universe was already here, not that it created itself. This is the same thing you say about the god. The universe no more possesses an ability to create itself than does the god. A creation argument is just a non-starter.

So if there is no space, no time, and no matter what defines the universe?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are presuming the universe has been created. You are attempting, by default, to make a claim for a creator. The end result of the discussion is if the universe is created, there MUST be a creator, anything else is illogical.

Unless…the universe has never “been” created.

The Universe exists.

That is all we know.

are you saying the big bang never happened?

because we can certainly show an expanding universe.

 

[MarcoPolo]

He uses a thiestic argument and show’s it is stupid.

No, read him carefully or listen to the audio. He uses a theistic argument unwittingly to argue that the “universe” created space and time.

 

[MegaTherion]

The argument above is simply that there was no time and no space and then universe simply unfolded to create time and space. It just happened because. It is not an argument at all.

Nobody is making the claim that the universe “happened because.”

What we are saying is that nobody knows.

You, on the other hand, are making the claim that the universe happened in such and such a way (created by a supernatural being). A person making a claim needs to substantiate it with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nobody is making the claim that the universe “happened because.”

What we are saying is that nobody knows.

You, on the other hand, are making the claim that the universe happened in such and such a way (created by a supernatural being). A person making a claim needs to substantiate it with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

thomistic proofs, prove that the universe is a creation of the supernatural (non-physical)

'we dont know" is a cheap way to say ‘unwilling to investigate’

 

[jimmy]

Nobody is making the claim that the universe “happened because.”

What we are saying is that nobody knows.

You, on the other hand, are making the claim that the universe happened in such and such a way (created by a supernatural being). A person making a claim needs to substantiate it with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am making a claim of logic. I am claiming that things don’t simply happen for no reason and that every action has a cause. There must be a first cause and that first cause we say is God. You on the other hand simply say no without a logical argument to oppose it.

The thing is that you have limited the evidence to only the kind that you want to accept. You reject witnesses as evidence but then you will accept the witness testimony of an astronomer or some other scientist. The problem is that these men are subject to the same restrictions as any witness and you most likely can’t substantiate their claims yourself. Do you know the speed of light 186000miles/sec. because you have done the tests or simply because someone has told you? You will never be able to substantiate the claims of scientists (unless you are a scientist and even then you most likely won’t be able to substantiate them all) yet you expect us to reject eyewitness testimony for everything we profess.

 

[PJM]

I’m listening to the debate "Is God (and Religion) a Man-Made Invention? (MP3 here) between Dinesh D’Souza and Daniel Dennet from 2007. Dennett is the atheist. I think his argument collapsed at this point:Let’s talk about the Big Bang. For Dinesh this is proof of God’s existence. Remarkable how a creator comes into this picture. I don’t see that space and time in our universe started, what, 14 billion years ago? Yeah. That’s right. But not that God created space and time [but] that the universe by having the Big Bang created space and time. You’ll say, “Well, the universe can’t create itself.” Well, God can’t create himself either. I don’t know where you get the other principle that there has to be a creator. (starting at 1:00:13 mark)Regarding the bolded part: Dennett spent his entire monologue discrediting the logic and reason of the Christian, and then openly states that he uses the same reasoning when he simply substitutes what Christians call God with “the universe.”

Side note: Dinesh never said the Big Bang theory was “proof” of God’s existence. Throughout the debate Dinesh talks about reasons for believing things we cannot directly observe, for which the Big Bang theory is also indicative of a Creator.

Comments welcome!

Reply

I think therefore I am."

The fact that “I am” proves without doubt that the Great " I AM" also is a reality.

 

[crowonsnow]

I am making a claim of logic. I am claiming that things don’t simply happen for no reason and that every action has a cause. There must be a first cause and that first cause we say is God. You on the other hand simply say no without a logical argument to oppose it.

But by those standards the god idea is not logical because the action and the cause of the action are the same thing.

So why not just forget about any invisible cosmic magicians and conclude that the universe is not logical?

 

[jimmy]

But by those standards the god idea is not logical because the action and the cause of the action are the same thing.

So why not just forget about any invisible cosmic magicians and conclude that the universe is not logical?

It is your assumption that the action and the cause are the same thing. You assume that the universe is self-creating and so the cause and the caused are one and the same thing. This isn’t logical; it is the same as saying that there is no cause because you have assumed that it happened on its own. Nothing exploded for no reason and created everything.

 

[crowonsnow]

You assume that the universe is self-creating and so the cause and the caused are one and the same thing. This isn’t logical…

No. I’m not assuming that the universe is self creating or created at all. You’re the one assuming that. The universe just exists to me. It doesn’t need any magic or any cosmic magician to abracadabra it into existence. And that’s not even the issue. The issue is your inconsistent use of logic.

What you are saying is that it isn’t logical for something like a universe to not have a cause but that it is logical for something you call the god to not have a cause.

I’m just pointing out that your theological logic is logically inconsistent.