Why Did God Create......

[Tiribulus]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic. >>>[/quote]I would never do such a thing. I also don’t call anything into question. I proclaim the utter impossibility of every position conceivable except mine.[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this. [/quote]The Christian method assumes the triune God of the holy bible as the absolutely first fact that defines absolutely ALL others. There are other methods that present themselves as Christian, but quickly degenerate into all the same conundrums as agnosticism only are even less consistent than agnosticism.

Clarify for me please how you know that 2+2=4? Unless you wanna surrender into uncertainty right outta the gate. If that’s the case then I won’t waste either of our time as I’ve been though this now I don’t know how many times with I don’t know how many people.

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic.

It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? [/quote]

I ask you how you know your God exists, you (well, technically Tirib, but you jumped in) say “how can you know or prove anything?”

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this.

it’s not about making everything more unlikely.
It’s about finding one (absolute, infinite, single) thing that would be immune to uncertainty in order to make all other (finite, relative, diverse) things simply “knowable”.

in other words :
either you choose (or accept) to believe in one thing (God), then, you can (believe you) KNOW all other things in the world.
or you refuse (or are unable) to believe in it, and then you will (know you) only BELIEVE in all other things in the world.

in a way, there is MORE (practical, daily) belief in the agnostic/sceptic epistemology than there is in the religious epistemology.[/quote]

And if you REALLY think about it, circles are squares!

Seriously though, I’m asking for the “certainty” for you God, but the Tirib method seems to be making other things less likely instead.

[TigerTime]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I would never do such a thing. I also don’t call anything into question. I proclaim the utter impossibility of every position conceivable except mine.[quote]

Well, at least you’re honest.

[/quote]The Christian method assumes the triune God of the holy bible as the absolutely first fact that defines absolutely ALL others. There are other methods that present themselves as Christian, but quickly degenerate into all the same conundrums as agnosticism only are even less consistent than agnosticism.[/quote]

Wow what a coincidence, that’s the exact same argument given by… EVERY. RELIGION. EVER.
Do you have anything else to go on whatsoever?

Clarify for me please how you know that 2+2=4? Unless you wanna surrender into uncertainty right outta the gate. If that’s the case then I won’t waste either of our time as I’ve been though this now I don’t know how many times with I don’t know how many people.

As I’ve already said, numbers not rooted in reality are simply concepts. The concept of 2 doubled must equal 4 by definition. It’s tautologically true.

[kamui]

ok, i will do it again.

what Tirib (and many others) are trying to show you is this :

if you don’t acknowledge a “first principle” (which believers equate with a First Cause, ie a Creator God) then nothing is certain, at all.
because an epistemology need a solid starting point, and this “solid starting point” can’t be found in our reason alone. because our reason alone is finite.

for a believer 2+2=4 is a universal and absolute fact, designed by God in His Ominiscience and Omnibenevolence.
For a non-believer it’s, at best, a convention of language and/or the tautological conclusion that appears in the contingent and fragile brain of an homo sapiens when some cells connects.

The price you pay for disbelieving in God is that you can no more know the world. You can only believe in it, without any true certainty, because your sceptical epistemology is now relativist and probabilist.

It’s not a problem per se, if, like forlife, you fully accept to live your life in a relative and uncertain world. but that means you can no more use the “ololol, you believe without proof, idiot” against believers. Because we ALL believe without proof, and we atheist perhaps more often (but with less intensity) than them.

simply put :
the sword of scepticism is a double-edged one

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok, i will do it again.

what Tirib (and many others) are trying to show you is this :

if you don’t acknowledge a “first principle” (which believers equate with a First Cause, ie a Creator God) then nothing is certain, at all.
because an epistemology need a solid starting point, and this “solid starting point” can’t be found in our reason alone. because our reason alone is finite.

for a believer 2+2=4 is a universal and absolute fact, designed by God in His Ominiscience and Omnibenevolence.
For a non-believer it’s, at best, a convention of language and/or the tautological conclusion that appears in the contingent and fragile brain of an homo sapiens when some cells connects.

The price you pay for disbelieving in God is that you can no more know the world. You can only believe in it, without any true certainty, because your sceptical epistemology is now relativist and probabilist.

It’s not a problem per se, if, like forlife, you fully accept to live your life in a relative and uncertain world. but that means you can no more use the “ololol, you believe without proof, idiot” against believers. Because we ALL believe without proof, and we atheist perhaps more often (but with less intensity) than them.

simply put :
the sword of scepticism is a double-edged one

[/quote]

At best a tautological conclusion? It IS a tautological conclusion whether it was set down by God or the result of our emergent ability to conceptualize.

The whole “first cause” issue doesn’t help anybody because, whether you believe in God you not you require a “causeless cause” for there to be anything. You say it’s God, I say hyper-dimensional activity as per M-theory.

The biggest problem with this argument, however, is that I’m asking you for proof of YOUR God. It’s entirely possible that there is a hyper-dimension being that consciously created our universe, but do you have any evidence? Furthermore, have you any evidence it’s specifically YOUR God and not anyone else’s?

This universe appears rather random and emergent, I just don’t see any reason to assume this was planned, let alone planned by your God as opposed to any other God told about in history.

[kamui]

[quote]The biggest problem with this argument, however, is that I’m asking you for proof of YOUR God. It’s entirely possible that there is a hyper-dimension being that consciously created our universe, but do you have any evidence? Furthermore, have you any evidence it’s specifically YOUR God and not anyone else’s?

This universe appears rather random and emergent, I just don’t see any reason to assume this was planned, let alone planned by your God as opposed to any other God told about in history[/quote]

-i don’t have a God. (I just happen to dislike bad arguments).

-Believers doesn’t have a proof of the existence of their God(s), but at least, their religion give them an solid epistemology to work with. Relativists doesn’t have one. They keep asking for proof and evidence while they have made themselves unable to know what an evidence and a proof IS.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic.

It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? [/quote]

I ask you how you know your God exists, you (well, technically Tirib, but you jumped in) say “how can you know or prove anything?”[/quote]

Oh, you confused me with the ‘Christian method’ horse pucky, because it’s not related necessarily to religion. This is related to logic, reason and epistemology. It’s a philosophical skeptical stance.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]The biggest problem with this argument, however, is that I’m asking you for proof of YOUR God. It’s entirely possible that there is a hyper-dimension being that consciously created our universe, but do you have any evidence? Furthermore, have you any evidence it’s specifically YOUR God and not anyone else’s?

This universe appears rather random and emergent, I just don’t see any reason to assume this was planned, let alone planned by your God as opposed to any other God told about in history[/quote]

-i don’t have a God. (I just happen to dislike bad arguments).

-Believers doesn’t have a proof of the existence of their God(s), but at least, their religion give them an solid epistemology to work with. Relativists doesn’t have one. They keep asking for proof and evidence while they have made themselves unable to know what an evidence and a proof IS. [/quote]

Every argument you’ve made has been a bad argument =_=
I’m not even trying to hurt you by saying that, Pat makes a much more formidable opponent than you do here.

Second, the lack of a counter theory does not lend credence to another theory. If your God was the only God believed in right now, the lack of other believed in Gods does not affect the actuality of your God. Likewise, The lack of another “first cause” doesn’t mean you can make up any old bullshit to explain it and claim it’s true.

There might be a cow in my backyard right now. I have no reason to think this, but it’s possible. However, the lack of counter-evidence does not justify my belief that there is, in fact, a cow in my backyard.

Now, if you want MY theory on human cognition, I believe that hyper-dimensional activity resulted in our universe, then billions of years later life started to evolve and as a means of survival we evolved the memory and the ability to perform abstract thought. You don’t need God to define what “two” is. I can hold two objects in my hand and conclude that I am holding more than one “thing”, but less than three “things”.

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Interesting that to argue for the Christian God you actually have to call into question the validity of logic.

It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? [/quote]

I ask you how you know your God exists, you (well, technically Tirib, but you jumped in) say “how can you know or prove anything?”[/quote]

Oh, you confused me with the ‘Christian method’ horse pucky, because it’s not related necessarily to religion. This is related to logic, reason and epistemology. It’s a philosophical skeptical stance.[/quote]

Well, that’s a relief.

I believe we can know things simply because we have brains capable of abstract thought. I can form the conception “two” and impose it on the objective world when I see “two” objects. Yes, there will be mistakes made because these concepts don’t actually “exist” in the objective world, but if the imposition of concepts wasn’t a beneficial way to interact with the universe then we wouldn’t have this ability, whether you believe in God or not (unless you believe God intentionally gave us a poor way to interact with the universe to fuck with us).

As long as we understand these concepts are subjective impositions and not objective truths, there is no problem. Though, it should also be understood that the line between the objective and subjective is not a line at all, more like the opposite side of a coin.

[kamui]

Every argument you’ve made has been a bad argument =_=

that’s probably why you never answer these arguments.

this

[quote]
Second, the lack of a counter theory does not lend credence to another theory. If your God was the only God believed in right now, the lack of other believed in Gods does not affect the actuality of your God. Likewise, The lack of another “first cause” doesn’t mean you can make up any old bullshit to explain it and claim it’s true.

There might be a cow in my backyard right now. I have no reason to think this, but it’s possible. However, the lack of counter-evidence does not justify my belief that there is, in fact, a cow in my backyard. [/quote]

has nothing to do with anything i said.

i’m not saying that their belief is true.
I’m saying that their belief, by its very nature, allow them to develop an absolutist epistemology, whereas your lack of belief let you without an absolute criterium of truth.

And that should inspire you more humility, not the kind of intellectual arrogance you repeatedly demonstrated in your posts.

as long as we understand these concepts are subjective impositions and not objective truths

indeed.
and that’s exactly why you can’t use the subjective nature of belief against believers.

[kamui]

Now, if you want MY theory on human cognition, I believe that hyper-dimensional activity resulted in our universe, then billions of years later life started to evolve and as a means of survival we evolved the memory and the ability to perform abstract thought. You don’t need God to define what “two” is. I can hold two objects in my hand and conclude that I am holding more than one “thing”, but less than three “things”.

you’re are trying to derive an epistemology from a cosmology.
and you can’t.

it’s a circular reasoning.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Every argument you’ve made has been a bad argument =_=

that’s probably why you never answer these arguments.

this

Second, the lack of a counter theory does not lend credence to another theory. If your God was the only God believed in right now, the lack of other believed in Gods does not affect the actuality of your God. Likewise, The lack of another “first cause” doesn’t mean you can make up any old bullshit to explain it and claim it’s true.

There might be a cow in my backyard right now. I have no reason to think this, but it’s possible. However, the lack of counter-evidence does not justify my belief that there is, in fact, a cow in my backyard. [/quote]

has nothing to do with anything i said.

i’m not saying that their belief is true.
I’m saying that their belief, by its very nature, allow them to develop an absolutist epistemology, whereas your lack of belief let you without an absolute criterium of truth.

And that should inspire you more humility, not the kind of intellectual arrogance you repeatedly demonstrated in your posts.

as long as we understand these concepts are subjective impositions and not objective truths

indeed.
and that’s exactly why you can’t use the subjective nature of belief against believers.

Understand, it’s me vs. about 5 of you and all of you are in the habit of jumping in on my messages to other people. Unless I want to spend hours responding to everyone about everything I have to write my arguments while considering the counter arguments other people are going to come up with while reading it.

I don’t care if they can develop an absolute epistemology. That means nothing to me.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Now, if you want MY theory on human cognition, I believe that hyper-dimensional activity resulted in our universe, then billions of years later life started to evolve and as a means of survival we evolved the memory and the ability to perform abstract thought. You don’t need God to define what “two” is. I can hold two objects in my hand and conclude that I am holding more than one “thing”, but less than three “things”.

you’re are trying to derive an epistemology from a cosmology.
and you can’t.

it’s a circular reasoning.
[/quote]

How so? At least there’s evidence that these greater (than time) dimensions exist. It isn’t a lot to go on, but it’s better than “cuz a book told me so”.

[Gumpshmee]

“Proof” exists inside logical or linguistic domains that are created with fully known parameters because they are set. “All bachelors are unmarried” a priori type stuff.

As far as I can recall I have not demanded “proof” because I don’t really believe in such a thing. The content of our subjective experience is the closest thing that we have to empirical data which is only mere evidense (perhaps even less than that).

I propose that there is no practical advantage to claim absolute certain knowledge, because in practice, ignorance does not appear to alter probability.

When arguments for a prime mover are used as corollary for the existence of a specific deity then we are departing fully from the realm of justifiable claims.

I will also note that I have never argued against the possible existence of a prime mover and I have not discussed my views on that heretofore.

My view on a prime mover does not depend on the claim that infinite regression must be impossible. My view concerns the matter of infinite reduction.

If matter, energy, space, and time are infinitely reducible, then cause and effect is also infinitely reducible. If this is true then within any set of boundaries in time there are infinite causes and effects occurring simultaneously breaking down into arbitrariness. 

However, the dominant view in physics at the moment is that these properties are in fact quantized and reduce finitely. In this case the question becomes, what makes the littlest particle or quanta "go"? The answer again is fundamental arbitrariness.

So I suppose you could say that I believe in a non-supernatural prime arbitrator, the only intention of which clearly being that things do exist and happen rather than not.

[kamui]

here you affirm something about physics, biology, cosmology

hyper-dimensional activity resulted in our universe, then billions of years later life started to evolve

and you do it to explain and justify “human cognition” :

and as a means of survival we evolved the memory and the ability to perform abstract thought.

but you can’t affirm anything about physics, biology, cosmology, our brain, your hands, etc, if you don’t already have a valid and solid definition of truth.

because if you don’t already have a valid and solid definition of truth (an epistemology) you are absolutely unable to make the difference between a good theory and a bad one.
Without an epistemology (and an ontology), you can not even know you have an hand and a brain, or that the universe exists.

it doesn’t mean that you have to believe in God. But it definitely means that epistemology must be developed first, without any reference to the actual content of actual sciences. Because no amount of physics will ever give you the smallest understanding of metaphysic. And without an understanding of metaphysics, your physics will never be more than a sand castle.

i’m not saying that you’re wrong, i’m just saying that you will need more than scientism to fight against believers.
a phenomenology, maybe.

[Gumpshmee]

As always my humble guess is that unknowing has greater value than knowing. It would seem much time, intelligence, hatred, and bloodshed have been devoted to the oppositions of “certainties”.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

It seems the Christian method isn’t to make their proposition more believable, but rather to make everything else in reality equally as unlikely. I’m looking forward to see exactly how you guys go about doing this.

it’s not about making everything more unlikely.
It’s about finding one (absolute, infinite, single) thing that would be immune to uncertainty in order to make all other (finite, relative, diverse) things simply “knowable”.

in other words :
either you choose (or accept) to believe in one thing (God), then, you can (believe you) KNOW all other things in the world.
or you refuse (or are unable) to believe in it, and then you will (know you) only BELIEVE in all other things in the world.

in a way, there is MORE (practical, daily) belief in the agnostic/sceptic epistemology than there is in the religious epistemology.[/quote]

And if you REALLY think about it, circles are squares!

Seriously though, I’m asking for the “certainty” for you God, but the Tirib method seems to be making other things less likely instead. [/quote]

That’s tends to be the effect he gives off. I have found pulpit banging a quite useless way to get your point across.