God's God

[median]

I don't know for certain. It seems true to me, so I can base an argument on that. It will then seem to me an eternal maintainer to the universe and himself, needs to exist. It would not prove it to someone who disagrees with the premise, but it can be evidence to me, when the premise seems true.

Again, if everything needs a "constant cause" (separate from what "it" is) for existing, then the point stands. Your deity needs its own "constant cause" (separate from itself). What "seems to you" is exactly what is in question.

It's defined already. A thing includes everything that exists.

Huh? No sir. It is not "defined already". You haven't even come close to defining what "constant cause" means, neither have you demonstrated it's necessity.

No it's not on a universal argument. All atoms can't think, it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think. But do you believe if atoms can't cause themselves to exist, some how the sum of atoms are possibly causing themselves to exist?

That doesn't appear rational. In this case, since each thing in the universe cannot be constantly causing itself to exist, it would follow the universe is not constantly causing it either.

Is English your second language? You keep typing incoherent sentences, "it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think". HUH? Please type more carefully in English.

I just told you, earlier, that the idea of "causing themselves to exist" is incoherent. Do you not understand? What part of this is so difficult for you? Second, your last argument (regarding atoms and the universe) is, again, the fallacy of composition. Even if it were true (and it's not) that the atoms in the universe cannot be causing themselves to exist (whatever that means) it doesn't follow to the entire universe. You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

Do you think Allah 'caused himself' to come into being?

Nope.

Then we don't have to think the global universe caused itself to come into being either. It just is. DONE>

Third, in quantum physics there are effects that appear to have no apparent causes (i.e. - vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, etc). Thus any experience of "uncaused causes" cannot act as evidence for your case.

Says you. To me they would be evidence of supernatural cause, just not concrete definitive evidence.

HA! The God of the gaps argument again. LOL. So any place science cannot determine something with certainty, you somehow feel justified in inserting "Allah did it" there?? Weak! This is the same argument attempted by your predecessors with lightening (Zeus did it!) or tsunamis (Poseidon did it!). WOW. Still in the broze age I see. So then you truly don't care whether your beliefs are actually true. You just want to lower your standard of evidence for what you already assumed to be true from the beginning (what your parents/elders told you) and keep believing b/c it made you feel comfortable.

And no deity deduction can be made from them. At best, we could say that some causes of particles seem to come from unknown origins.

And it can seem like that origin is a supernatural creator. That can possibly seem more plausible that a 10th dimension or something like that.

This is where your absolute credulity rears its ugly head so clearly. A supernatural creator is "more plausible"?? Tell us, just exactly how did you come to determine this probability (as if that matters)? What data points have you collected? What statistical mathematics have you done to come to your conclusion that it is more plausible (or to warrant belief!) that your alleged deity is "more plausible" than particles arising from an undetermined place - when you have exactly one universe to examine?? WOW.

I don't believe in a deity...so why don't you ask me what I believe before assuming so much.

HA! Really? Those who don't believe in deities are called atheists dude. Get with the program. Are you an atheist? If so, why are you arguing for "supernatural causes"? Deity and "supernatural cause" are being used synonymously here. Get with it.

If you don't, but rely on faith, why? Faith is not a reliable avenue for separating fact from fiction. It is gullibility dressed up.

I guess you don't believe in morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc....

Red-herring, WRONG, and quite presumptuous of you. WOW. It does NOT follow that if one rejects the idea of faith that they also reject "morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc" (as you claim). Could you get any more irrational?

The global universe could always be somewhat different, hence can never be ontologically necessary. Even if was ontologically necessary, it would not prove ontological necessary living being is not necessary.

Huh? Different equals not ontologically necessary? How so? This is more burden shifting. The burden is on you to demonstrate some "necessary living being" is required for our existence. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
Well no, the point was, people have faith, and you haven't disproven that what they believe is special pleading at all. You simple re-assert it over and over again.

NOPE. If someone makes the argument that their God's existence does not need an explanation (as was my point), then we can also make the argument that our existence does not require an explanation. We can obfuscate the same as you do upon questioning. If one makes the argument that all things need an explanation for their existence (as the video displays), then it follows that God (a thing) also needs an explanation for it's existence.

You haven't proven they can't know by faith. So the burden is on you because you are stating their faith is illogical.

Wow, now you're just a liar. Where?? Where did I say "their faith is illogical?? NOWHERE.

Second, you can't "know by faith". Faith is believing when you do not have good reason to. And it is not a pathway to truth. It is not reliable for deciphering what's true from what's false.

I haven't coming out saying their faith is justified as an argument that you must accept.
I'm saying you haven't shown it's not true, therefore you haven't shown how they are committing special pleading.

This is more burden shifting. I don't have to "show their faith is not true". That's not my job. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming a God (Allah) exists. So the burden is on you. Now, if you make the argument that all existent things need an explanation of their existence, then your God also needs an explanation of it's existence.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
If they know ultimate existence exists via faith (I don't claim to know), you haven't shown they don't. Just as they can't go up to you and tell you, their faith is proof to you, your faith that they don't know is not proof either that they are special pleading.

More burden shifting and faulty thinking. I do not have, nor do I need, faith "that they don't know". I reject faith. So your assertion fails. The burden of proof rests with he (you) who makes the claim regarding a God (Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, etc). The special pleading comes later, when you try to assert that all things need an explanation for their existence except your Allah.


[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
Creator constantly maintaining itself would not mean he had to ontological precede causing itself. He can constantly cause himself to exist and this maybe the very reason why we might know "everything needs to be constantly caused" (because it's the nature of existence and we can possibly be given knowledge of that by the Creator).

WOW. This is total magic hocus pocus. Assuming your "creator" doesn't make it true - just saying it is so doesn't make it so. And you haven't demonstrated any "Creator constantly maintaining itself". How gullible are you? Can you not just admit when you don't know things, instead of believing crap your parents told you?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Our modern understanding of physics (space-time not being separate from each other) annihilated the argument for it's own sake, demonstrating that it was both unsound and invalid.

1) Zeno's paradox is metaphor. You must have missed that because you tend to be too preoccupied with being clever. 2)My argument directly references modern physics, 3) I also presented Hume's contribution to the problem. Apparently, he took it seriously. 4) and please try refuting the argument in your own words rather than appealing to authority.

[Mystic]

Again, if everything needs a "constant cause" (separate from what "it" is) for existing, then the point stands. Your deity needs its own "constant cause" (separate from itself). What "seems to you" is exactly what is in question.

Why does it need from separate from itself? If I believe I can't be causing myself to exist, nothing can be causing itself to exist?

If it was eternal, immensely powerful, it seems to me the case that it can cause itself.

However it seems to me quarks, and atoms cannot.

Huh? No sir. It is not "defined already". You haven't even come close to defining what "constant cause" means, neither have you demonstrated it's necessity.

Which word are you confused about. Constant as in perpetual. Cause as in what results in a effect.

The Creator's existence is a constant effect, and he is the constant cause of that existence.

I see it possible for 1) what is eternal 2) what is immensely powerful and supernatural, but don't see it possible for things like quarks.

Therefore the conclusion will follow. I don't claim certainty. I don't go around trying to prove to Atheists a Creator exists by this proof because I understand they might and probably will disagree on that everything needs a cause, and nothing is not an effect.

Is English your second language? You keep typing incoherent sentences, "it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think". HUH? Please type more carefully in English.

I just told you, earlier, that the idea of "causing themselves to exist" is incoherent. Do you not understand? What part of this is so difficult for you? Second, your last argument (regarding atoms and the universe) is, again, the fallacy of composition. Even if it were true (and it's not) that the atoms in the universe cannot be causing themselves to exist (whatever that means) it doesn't follow to the entire universe. You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

I wasn't make an argument based on a universal regarding that. The universe being formed of lifeless parts or biological parts, it doesn't seem possible to me, that it is constantly causing itself. That means everything in the universe would be combining somehow to cause everything in the universe or somethings in the universe would be causing everything else in the universe. It doesn't seem rational.

However a supernatural creator constantly maintaining his own existence, and that of the universe, seems plausible.

And since it seems to me everything needs a cause, it seems to me such a being exists.

HA! The God of the gaps argument again. LOL. So any place science cannot determine something with certainty, you somehow feel justified in inserting "Allah did it" there?? Weak! This is the same argument attempted by your predecessors with lightening (Zeus did it!) or tsunamis (Poseidon did it!). WOW. Still in the broze age I see. So then you truly don't care whether your beliefs are actually true. You just want to lower your standard of evidence for what you already assumed to be true from the beginning (what your parents/elders told you) and keep believing b/c it made you feel comfortable.

I do care about what is true, but I don't dismiss evidence that points to something, simply because I am uncertain of it. Arguments from ignorance like argument from authority are not sound, but make a strong case regardless often. Often they don't, often they do.

This is where your absolute credulity rears its ugly head so clearly. A supernatural creator is "more plausible"?? Tell us, just exactly how did you come to determine this probability (as if that matters)? What data points have you collected? What statistical mathematics have you done to come to your conclusion that it is more plausible (or to warrant belief!) that your alleged deity is "more plausible" than particles arising from an undetermined place - when you have exactly one universe to examine?? WOW.

Well now you want it all defined by empiricism. Again, this what seems plausible to me. I don't say it has to mean plausible to you. I don't know how you think.

I can only act what seems more plausible as an explanation to me.

HA! Really? Those who don't believe in deities are called atheists dude. Get with the program. Are you an atheist? If so, why are you arguing for "supernatural causes"? Deity and "supernatural cause" are being used synonymously here. Get with it.

Weren't saying before if there was a supernatural cause, it would not mean it's a deity. Weren't you saying if such a being exists, it would not mean it's "Allah"?

It does NOT follow that if one rejects the idea of faith that they also reject "morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc" (as you claim). Could you get any more irrational?

It does follow, because these are based on faith. Morals, praise, frree-will, human rights, are all things humans have faith in. There is no empirical evidence they are true. Neither does humanity base them on a inference from a logical argument if there was one that proves them to be true.

So how are you defining faith? If you define faith as something that must be believed in for no good reason or no basis or is not justified, you are being quite circular in dismissing faith.

Huh? Different equals not ontologically necessary? How so? This is more burden shifting. The burden is on you to demonstrate some "necessary living being" is required for our existence. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

I don't think you understand Plantinga's ontological argument. Or what "possibly neccessarily" mean. To be possibly necessarily, it must be that case, that it's possibly the case, that x is so, in all possible worlds.

I can't be a necessary being because I could always be different. Just give me a different hair cut right now, shows I can't be ontologically necessary.

NOPE. If someone makes the argument that their God's existence does not need an explanation (as was my point), then we can also make the argument that our existence does not require an explanation.

Not really. Re-assert. By explanation, I take it to mean outside itself. Well, I am here because of my parents. Their parents are here, because of their parents. Humans are here I believe because of evolution with divine intervention. Whatever the case is, we know we need an explanation outside ourselves, while the same is not known of the Creator.

Second, you can't "know by faith". Faith is believing when you do not have good reason to. And it is not a pathway to truth. It is not reliable for deciphering what true from what's false.

What's your proof of that. The way I see it, all the most fundemental beleifs of humanity will have no path way except via faith.

For example our beliefs in human rights. Our beliefs in a perpetual identity. Our belief in a identity. Our belief in praiseworthiness.

WOW. This is total magic hocus pocus. Assuming your "creator" doesn't make it true - just saying it is so doesn't make it so. And you haven't demonstrated any "Creator constantly maintaining itself". How gullible are you? Can you not just admit when you don't know things, instead of believing crap your parents told you?

You just repeat your argument over and over again. Calm down. You don't know what I believe in.

Just because I took away the praise you wanted to get for posting this video, doesn't mean you should take me as an enemy.

Get to know me better. We can possibly become friends.

I know assuming a Creator will not make it true.

I see much of what I'm saying is going over your head.

Suppose morality was a total delusion. And for some reason a person was hell bent on proving that.

I don't see how you can say "your faith in morality cannot give you knowledge of it being true" and expect everyone to bow down and accept your assertion.

From their perspective, their belief in morals is strong, and it does give them a justifiable knowledge of it being true.

You can say "You are special pleading with your belief in morality, you require proof for this and that, but you don't require proof for morality".

From their perspective, they have knowledge.

Now if someone has knowledge of ultimate existence existing, they could also explain why that existence if it were to exist, doesn't need outside cause, doesn't need a maintainer outside itself.

Also, if it explains everything that requires an explanation, including itself, then I don't see what's the problem you have?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see much of what I am saying is going over your head.

They cannot understand the difference between contingency (ontological cause) and temporal cause.

[Mystic]

The notorious argument from evil, is an example of an argument from ignorance. It is in my opinion, by far, the best argument against a benevolent creator existing. Yet it's an argument from ignorance. That means it cannot be relied on by certainty. And I believe my defense against it, is logical. Hence, I don't believe in it myself, but I can sympathize with a person who disbelieves in that due to it. We can't always sit on the fence. Unfortunately, when I look at the fact things are coming into existence with no predictable location and are completely random, I can't help but get an impression. Some universe encompassing ours, some dimension where this is streaming from, I really can't believe is fairly plausible. Of course I don't claim I am certain. And recognize it can be like the argument of evil, seems to indicate something, but then possibility of an explanation exists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...for the purpose of this OP, are you attempting to claim that your deity Yahweh did not have a beginning... If that can be said, then so can be said about the global universe (the totality of existence).

It's true! A blind squirrel does stumble on a nut every so often. I suppose you define the 'global universe' as the physical universe. But why do you assume the physical universe is the whole of reality? MysticKnight have both identified properties not properly attributed to the physical universe. More is needed to make a complete reality.

[Mystic]

I believe there was never "a moment" where the Creator wasn't creating the universe. The reason is because time starts at point zero. This is true from the point of view, that time is finite. If we know time is finite, then necessarily, going backwards, you can ask, if all "now now" is preceded by cause, why is time zero an exception? This makes it seem more plausible to me, that time was created by a timeless being. Ofcourse, this is far from definitive proof.

Of course, when people say universe is eternal, they don't mean timeless, they mean going back with infinite time. But I believe both science and philosophy has disproven that as possible.

Unfortunately, all these arguments combined with my faith, has not made me certain. I am agnostic. And as much as I want to worship the Creator, I can't help but think "if he didn't earn his praise, then earned praised of humanity is greater".

Although my whole being tends to worship the Creator regardless of this stance. Hence intellectually I am agnostic non-naturalistic atheist, but instinctively agnostic worshiper (much like how a nihilist yet has pride).

Confusing times I am going through.

[Godscreated]

A lot of words which disproves nothing. The only reason you ever challenge Christians to prove God is because you believe God who is Spirit can not be proven.

Only if he doesn't exist.

What you can't understand about those who seek God, we know Him through His revelation to us of who He is. Because you have not sought Him, how is it you believe you're qualified to dismiss Him?

There are atheists on AF that sought god for decades. And...

You want something to disprove, try my relationship with God,

Or my relationship with FSM.

disprove I have not experienced the God of the Bible.

Why would I want to disprove that?

I do not believe I posed those questions to you.

[Ryantology]

A lot of words which disproves nothing. The only reason you ever challenge Christians to prove God is because you believe God who is Spirit can not be proven.

The only reason we challenge you to prove God is because you assert he exists but there's not a scrap of objective evidence that he does. Your claim sounds like bullshit and you are 100% incapable of demonstrating that it is not.

What you can't understand about those who seek God, we know Him through His revelation to us of who He is.

What you can't understand is that subjective experience is not knowledge until it is verified outside of your own head.

Because you have not sought Him, how is it you believe you're qualified to dismiss Him?

Christians made up that requirement, and the truth of that requirement hinges on the existence of your God. Which you can't prove. So, your requirement is meaningless, as well as full of shit, as there are many, many atheists who made the attempt and found nothing.

You want something to disprove, try my relationship with God, disprove I have not experienced the God of the Bible.

Until you can prove that God exists, your assertion of a relationship with him means nothing.

I did not try to bring God into existence through omni- anything, God has always existed and because of this He is omni, whether you want to accept it or not, what you will never be able to do is wish the God of creation out of existence.

One cannot wish out of existence what never existed in the first place. Which is why not a single atheist ever does that.

You're preaching to us that God exists and that we should take your word for it because that's all we have. How stupid must one be to do this day after day, month after month, knowing there is zero chance of success. If your God shows up with his angels and announces himself in person, maybe some of us will pay attention. Until then, one cannot, in good conscience, even assume that you are not entirely full of shit.

[Godscreated]

A lot of words which disproves nothing. The only reason you ever challenge Christians to prove God is because you believe God who is Spirit can not be proven. What you can't understand about those who seek God, we know Him through His revelation to us of who He is. Because you have not sought Him, how is it you believe you're qualified to dismiss Him? You want something to disprove, try my relationship with God, disprove I have not experienced the God of the Bible. I did not try to bring God into existence through omni- anything, God has always existed and because of this He is omni, whether you want to accept it or not, what you will never be able to do is wish the God of creation out of existence. Try as you may, He's not going away.

1. HA! The "proving" is your job there, not mine.

I do not need to prove my experiences with God to myself, I know there real. It is you who has to disprove I have experienced the God of the Bible, It's impossible for me to deny what I know. So get to it.

2. The reason why I challenge Christians (as I used to be one of you and used your same arguments) is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your case. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you know your specific deity is actually real.

I told you experiencing Him, if you want to see it demonstrated come walk with me. I think you're mad because you never experienced God and now take it out on Christians.

3. Huh? What is a "spirit"? This term is just as incoherent as the term "God" or "Yahweh" or "Allah". Anyone can makeup any fictitious character they want. It doesn't make it true or actually real. You need definite primary characteristics, not just hear-say or secondary anecdotes. It seems you don't actually care whether or not your beliefs are actually true. You just want to believe your assumption.

To want to believe an assumption and live your life by it would be crazy, this must be what you did and it made you mad. I've experienced God over and over and as far as primary characteristics, how about love, kindness, peace, patience, promises kept, caring, provision and ect... I've experienced these from God.

4. As is so typical with you Christian apologists, when you have no better come back, you commit the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof (as well as the "b/c I said so" fallacy). NOPE! I won't fall for it. It's not my job to disprove your claim to "experience God". I used to say the same thing. But all religions in the world ultimately fall back to some non-demonstrable, internal, invisible, subjective (gay sounding), subjective "personal experience" they think they had with the one specific deity they grew up with in their culture (Yahweh in America, Allah in the Middle East, Krishna in Southeast Asia, etc). So what! Just because you think you had some "experience" doesn't mean your interpretation of that experience is true. It just shows that you don't care whether your beliefs are actually true and that you are willing to practice credulity, gullibility, and irrational argumentation to keep believing what you assumed from the start.

I assume nothing about God, He has proven himself to me, I know with no doubt He exist, your just mad because you did not and could not have or you would not have rejected Him. I've never said I can prove to anyone God exists, I did not prove this to myself, God proved to me He is real. I laid out a challenge to you, don't make excuses, accept it or refuse it.

5. HA! Your last bit is comedy. First you say you "didn't try to bring God into existence" (by attempting to define this alleged being into being), and then you proceed to do just that! How do you know this deity exists? Can you demonstrate it? Again, if all you have is some subjective personal experience, and an ultimate fall-back onto "faith" then you really have nothing b/c faith is just gullibility dressed up. It isn't a reliable pathway to separating fact from fiction. Anyone can just have faith in anything. That doesn't prove a damn-thing.

My experience is objective, I do not try and delude myself, that would be stupid. Faith leads to belief, belief to knowledge, knowledge to revelation, at what point did you miss out on a path of experiencing God.
I guess that means you're gullible every time you go to sit down, I suspect you do not test out every chair you put your rear in, people would call you crazy if you did not demonstrate faith in the chairs to hold your weight. Having faith in the chair may prove your sanity.

---

A lot of words which disproves nothing. The only reason you ever challenge Christians to prove God is because you believe God who is Spirit can not be proven.

The only reason we challenge you to prove God is because you assert he exists but there's not a scrap of objective evidence that he does. Your claim sounds like bullshit and you are 100% incapable of demonstrating that it is not.

I've never stated I could prove God to you, as I've said before that is God's work. My knowledge of Him comes through a relational experience and I've never said otherwise.

What you can't understand about those who seek God, we know Him through His revelation to us of who He is.

What you can't understand is that subjective experience is not knowledge until it is verified outside of your own head.

My experience is not subjective, it's an objective relevant experience and for Christians it's proven outside of our heads, just because you do not want to accept our real experiences does not nullify them in the least.

Because you have not sought Him, how is it you believe you're qualified to dismiss Him?

Christians made up that requirement, and the truth of that requirement hinges on the existence of your God. Which you can't prove. So, your requirement is meaningless, as well as full of shit, as there are many, many atheists who made the attempt and found nothing.

Why they found nothing I do not know, maybe they did not like what they saw, could be the were scared of what they saw, that's if they went far enough to see God. What could be the real problem is they put faith in a book and not the Author of life that brought the Bible into existence.
By the way what requirement did Christians make up, Christianity is a relationship between God and man, God made this relationship possible, so the requirements would be His not man's.

You want something to disprove, try my relationship with God, disprove I have not experienced the God of the Bible.

Until you can prove that God exists, your assertion of a relationship with him means nothing.

Proving God exist to you is not a requirement for me to have a relationship with Him. It is you allowing God to prove Himself to you that is required for you to have a relationship with Him.

I did not try to bring God into existence through omni- anything, God has always existed and because of this He is omni, whether you want to accept it or not, what you will never be able to do is wish the God of creation out of existence.

One cannot wish out of existence what never existed in the first place. Which is why not a single atheist ever does that.

You're preaching to us that God exists and that we should take your word for it because that's all we have. How stupid must one be to do this day after day, month after month, knowing there is zero chance of success. If your God shows up with his angels and announces himself in person, maybe some of us will pay attention. Until then, one cannot, in good conscience, even assume that you are not entirely full of shit.

First off I'm not preaching, whether you believe me or not is not relevant to God's existence. I do not know what kind of chance there is for a nonbeliever to come to Christ, only God knows that. God says that there is always a chance as long as He strives with a person, and Christ said to go, so I do because I've chosen this as my life and it's not stupid. When God shows up with His angels it will be to late for those who have rejected Him. If He does show up with His angels in your life time it will be your pants that will be full of .... and that my friend is not meant to be funny.