Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Esquilax]

Okay, I'll bite.

First, I never said God is in the category of "things that come from nothing." This is what you said:

To be clear, before we continue: the content of the category doesn't matter, nor whether there is one thing or multiple things contained within it. What matters is the existence of the category, your belief that it exists, and what that implies for the rest of your argument. You can stop splitting hairs about what I call it, or whether I characterize it as a category capable of containing one thing or many, as those are profoundly irrelevant points.

I never said a set of things, I said one being, that is, God.

Yes, that is your assertion. But I'm not required to be bound to your assertion merely because you present it; you're going to have to do more than shout "god's the only thing that can be this other thing!" if you want me to play along. Until then, it's a category like any other, capable of containing multiple things.

Neither did I say He came from anything else - you are putting words in my mouth.

You need to read closer: I said your claim is that god is in a category of things that don't come from other things.

What I DID say is that God is the only possible thing that could exist in things that don't need to come from anything else, due to His very nature as God.

Which is the thing you need to demonstrate, and haven't yet. You've got a long road to hoe before we get to the point where any of us need to take that claim seriously. Right now you're effectively arguing the minutia of fan fiction as though it were real; you're missing step one, of talking about concepts in reality.

As God, He is not bound by the rules of His creation, that is, the universe and all that is in it, because it stands to reason that if God created the universe, then He was outside of it to begin with. Therefore, how could He be subject to its laws?

I'm not particularly interested in discussing the abilities of a being you've yet to demonstrate exists; I'm not a fan of the franchise, see. What I care about is the premise grounding all these assertions that you don't seem to want to discuss, namely that the set of things that don't need to come from anything contains exactly one thing. How did you determine that?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to tell me that the law of the conservation of energy has been disproved? Is that not the essence of my argument? I am not referring to fringe theories or physics models that theorize fantastical scenarios that try to explain something coming from nothing.

Here's what I'm saying: our current models of physics stop at the point of the big bang. If you actually go out and read the modern scientific discussions of this topic, the commonality is that at the point that universal expansion stops, so too does out ability to predict how physics works. Essentially, modern physicists generally think that beyond that point we'd need an entirely new vocabulary to describe what goes on. Conservation of energy, and any other laws of physics, may not apply, which is something you already believe, so don't scoff.

More broadly, I'm telling you that physics are a condition of the universe, and when we're discussing how the universe began... we are no longer in the place where physics is.

Tell me, do you truly think it is possible that something can come from nothing?

Why not? You do.

If not, then what exactly is your argument, or are you simply trying to discredit me on the basis that I'm not as scientifically savvy as you or your cohorts on this forum? That, I assure you, is certainly the case, and I freely admit it.

My position is that I don't know. But that doesn't blind me to bad argumentation when I see it.

Because, quite obviously, there is no way to conduct a test that will prove or disprove the existence of God (unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking here), and because I believe the existence of God to be self-evident, and completely logical to the point where that logic should be accepted as evidence.

Two things: One, "it's just self evident" is a cheat, a demand that everyone take you seriously without having to provide an argument. Not gonna work.

Secondly, for logic to be valid it must be based on observations, and observations can be tested for consistency and accuracy. If you say we can't devise a test, you don't have a valid logical syllogism, and if we can devise a test, then god keeps failing it and you don't have a valid logical syllogism. Pick one.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation to the contrary, except to say that it hasn't been proven in a lab or something, which is a foolish expectation given the nature of the question and the obvious truths of God's existence.

Do you always believe in things until they've been proven false? Or is it just things you want to believe, that get the privilege of seeing you shift the burden of proof?

You propose to judge/measure God by the same standards you might judge/measure a hypothesis concerning the malleability of iron. It makes no sense to do so.

You can't just define your god outside the bounds of testing, while simultaneously defining him into existence. It can be one or the other, but not both; if it exists in any way that affects the real world, it can be tested.

So you say (that I must justify two separate claims). I say I do not, because they are completely related and, in fact, inseparable. Who thinks God isn't omnipotent? I've never even heard someone try to argue that He isn't.

Never heard of the Greek gods, then? Or did you just think yours was the only one?

Besides, it doesn't matter how often the two claims are paired together, they are still two claims.

They might question His existence, but I've never heard anyone try saying that if He does exist, He isn't omnipotent. Just take a look at the universe...if God created it, wouldn't you have to lean towards Him probably being omnipotent? If He can create something from nothing, what the hell kinds of limits would He have?

Any limits I can imagine. Power is not some tower, where each trait of it is predicated on all the others being present. Creation ex nihilo is a single ability, it doesn't entail, merely by its presence, that the being who can do it can also, as a random example, play a bass guitar. Why would you think it would?

What you are saying is such an odd argument that I'm not even sure how to properly respond, and TBH it's quite the straw man and ignores the answer I initially gave.

The problem is that you're assuming a lot of things about god to be true, without even attempting to think about how someone who doesn't do that would see the issue. Like I said, Greek gods: step outside of what you already believe, stop taking it for granted, and look at it step by step. A god exists? Well, okay, but I know of god claims that don't entail omniscience, therefore they don't automatically entail that claim, therefore saying "he's god!" doesn't mean I should leap immediately to "he's omniscient!"

You call it a straw man but the truth is I'm making less assumptions about the god you believe in than you do.

Supposing God is omnipotent, or even that He merely created existence, then He should be the exception to the special pleading rule.

You still have to go from "supposing" to "is."

Please, let me hear some. "You're wrong" isn't good enough.

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't violate causality. His powers involve creating universes, but don't include time travel.

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't create complex life from scratch. Never got the hang of nervous systems, so he was forced to arrange for abiogenesis and evolution to happen.

God exists, he created the universe, but he couldn't create it from nothing. He had to lop off an arm and use that as raw materials.

I'm just making these up off the top of my head, here. None of them are less evidenced than your claim, either.

This is essentially related to what I've written above. I've provided more substance now, though in the end I am still repeating myself. Your problem is that you cast aspersions on my argument yet you don't actually give me any substantive arguments yourself. You say I lack substance, yet where is yours? Please note as well that what I'm saying is that my argument IS the substance.

You're not making an argument, is the problem. You're making a heap of assertions without justification. I can do that too, but both of us shouting "because I said so," isn't much of an argument. Where's your actual evidence? And don't just say "it's logical!" because logic, as I've said, is based on observations, or else it's not necessarily true. "All presidents are dogs, Bush was a president, therefore Bush is a dog," is a logically valid statement. It just isn't true, because one of the premises is wrong.

I've read plenty of insane theories that are obviously fringe and not at all accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

So, if you disagree with it, it's a fringe theory?

I may have forgotten them all, but why should I bother recalling nonsense? Something can't from nothing.

Yes it can. Oh, what's that, you're not going to accept that as true just because I said it? Then why are you expecting us to do so?

Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

Argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

What exactly is the reverse of the spontaneous creation of matter? The spontaneous destruction? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You're asserting that the two options are spontaneous creation from nothing, and creation from something. There is at least one more option, that I described in my post.

I do understand that you just said it's possible [the scientific community] are waiting for more evidence before explaining the origin of matter. They would have to, since there is an extraordinary lack thereof. How can anyone ever explain something coming from nothing? I'd love to hear anything that even begins to resemble a sensible argument!

So why privilege god?

You have failed to even put a dent in my logic, sir. Evidence, evidence! you all cry. Give me reason and a sensible hypothesis, and I will give you evidence. How 'bout that? You want to apply the scientific method, give me a feasible theory that is testable.

We don't need a competing theory in order to show that yours isn't good. If you claim that space cats pooped out the universe, I don't need an alternative to space cats in order to say that's stupid.

But you can't give me reason OR a sensible hypothesis, so you will never receive evidence. (Not that I could actually provide it, at least beyond the logic I credit as evidence. I am simply making a point)

So you're being deliberately evasive, or grandstanding. Neither bodes well, and if you want to continue not having a discussion, I'd point you to look at the rules. Specifically, the early ones.

See above. There is no hypothesis for the origin of matter that you or anyone will ever accept as plausible because nothing makes sense except God. God makes perfect sense, and is as real an explanation to anyone who isn't deliberately shutting their ears to reason.

That's right, keep shifting the burden of proof. That'll work.

Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

Before we continue, how can you possibly know any of the options below? Can you read minds? Or does it just make you feel more comfortable?

A) Insincere in their unbelief

Ah, the old "you secretly believe in god!" bit. Well, you secretly believe in Vishnu.

Oh, what's that? I don't get to dictate that to you, and I have no way of knowing that? Hmm...

B) In denial

You're in denial about the existence of Vishnu. It's self evident.

C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite

You're just angry at Vishnu.

or D) Demon-possessed

Or maybe you're just crazy.

See, none of what I just said is any less evidenced than your initial assertions. Why would you reject what I say, while accepting what you say, when both are identically justified?

To elaborate...
A) Many atheists, I believe, are simply afraid of what they don't know or understand. Everyone is afraid of death, and the vast majority of religious folks seem fake or worship a monstrous God. Atheism is a warm blanket, a kind of shelter from fear.

I don't care what you believe, I care what you can demonstrate. Reality is reality, regardless of what we want to be true. Where's the evidence?

B) All people love their sins, and all people find it preferable to excuse their sins rather than face up to them. Thus, pretending there is no God becomes a viable alternative, even if the arguments against His existence are fallacious/non-sensical.

Do you understand at all how profoundly disrespectful you're being, when you see fit to dictate to other people what they think? Where does that get us, in conversation?

C) When confronted with the kind of logic I've presented in this thread, some will cling to false notions because of pride, preferring to save face instead of admitting they were wrong. It is usually the last thing to fall, pride.

Ah, so we move on from presumptuousness to outright arrogance, because the only way someone could disagree with you is because of emotional reasons, right? Nothing to do with the complete lack of justification you present, they're just too prideful to admit the obvious truth of your fiat assertions.

Well, space cats pooped out the universe. Oh, what's that? Are you too prideful to accept that self evident logical truth?

D) I won't bother explaining this one, since I am sure to be ridiculed for it regardless.

How about you demonstrate it, instead of explaining it?

There, no ridicule, just a request for more. Doesn't it bother you, that what I'm asking for is more information about what you're saying, and instead of providing it, you assign nefarious motivations to me? You are literally being asked for more of the things you're saying, and somehow you're taking this as me attempting to flee from what you're saying?

What's up with that?