(October 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm)dave4shmups Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm)theVOID Wrote: Explain your take on the doctrine

Well I got it from the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul, who argues that God needs nothing to sustain him, because he has within himself the power of being. He therefore was not created.

If he needs nothing to sustain him why is he so desperate for our worship and adulteration?

(October 18, 2010 at 7:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm)dave4shmups Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm)theVOID Wrote: Explain your take on the doctrine

Well I got it from the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul, who argues that God needs nothing to sustain him, because he has within himself the power of being. He therefore was not created.

If he needs nothing to sustain him why is he so desperate for our worship and adulteration?

Ah, now that's a good question and objection!

ok i'll try an actual answer

Two parts: one, the uselessness of this argument, even if it makes sense, pretty much what Min already said but with more detail. Two, which i am less sure about, the failure of this argument.

1. If you attribute these qualities to God, then yes he may exist. However, you first have to prove that there is a presence before explaining how this presence works.
This argument is presupposing God exists and then explains how he created itself. But it's a deus ex machina, for example you can say that in Harry Potter their wands can cast spells because they have magical elements in them. So in a world where wands have magical properties, casting spells seems plausible. However you first have prove these wands have magical properties. In the same way, you have to prove God exists and his different properties before explaining how they work. In short, this argument is useless before you prove God exists.

2. This argument is nonsense. See, to have the power of being, he must be. To be, he must have the power of being. This idea of God being eternal and not created is so abstract by nature that people stop looking into it after two or three layers of reasoning, but when you get down to it, you always have one aspect of their reasoning that is assuming an unexplainable ability.

He'll never get it.


He's too desperate to believe.


But I can keep pounding. It comes naturally.[/quote]

(October 18, 2010 at 10:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He'll never get it.


He's too desperate to believe.


But I can keep pounding. It comes naturally.

[/quote]

I'm not desperate to believe, I believe because I choose to and am very comfortable with my belief. I'm not affraid that someone is going to disprove what I know is real. So keep up your pounding if you like against me it is a futile effort, just pound away and wear out that arm.

---

(October 18, 2010 at 7:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm)dave4shmups Wrote:

(October 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm)theVOID Wrote: Explain your take on the doctrine

Well I got it from the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul, who argues that God needs nothing to sustain him, because he has within himself the power of being. He therefore was not created.

If he needs nothing to sustain him why is he so desperate for our worship and adulteration?

What makes you think God is desperate for our worship, His existance is eternal and mans life on this planet is temporal. God did not need us in eternity before He created us and He would get along just fine after the human race is long gone. An eternal being has no need for temporal beings, they are no more than a flash of time, wisp of windblown smoke. God wants to give us His love and care forever and that is why He gives us an opportunity for eternal life.

(October 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm)Godschild Wrote: I'm not desperate to believe, I believe because I choose to and am very comfortable with my belief. I'm not affraid that someone is going to disprove what I know is real.

So being comfortable in your belief to the point where no one can disprove it is somehow a good thing? The fact that people are giving you direct refutations to arguments you present, and you casually look the other way, dismiss the argument, or shift goalposts - is a good thing?

Please help me understand how your understanding of reality has any bearing on what is actually real. I posted this up a while ago, and no theist has given me an actual response worth mentioning:

How do you determine what is real and what is not?

(October 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm)Godschild Wrote: What makes you think God is desperate for our worship

First Commandment pretty much sums it up.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

This seems less like an omnicient supernatural deity and more like a teen with her first period.

Seriously, he will get his feelings hurt? The entity that has literally no regard for human life for most of the OT is supposed to be seen as a sensitive entity? That's bullshit, and more to the point, it's fantastically ridiculous bullshit.

(October 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm)Godschild Wrote: , His existance is eternal and mans life on this planet is temporal. God did not need us in eternity before He created us and He would get along just fine after the human race is long gone.

So why the cocktease? If this divine entity has a perfect plan, then it was absolutely necessary that we come into existence - that everything go according to that plan. Your ability to rationalize a non demonstrable entity's intentions is quite laughable.

(October 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm)Godschild Wrote: An eternal being has no need for temporal beings, they are no more than a flash of time, wisp of windblown smoke.

"I just pulled this out of my ass."

Let's throw you a bone here.

1. Demonstrate the existence of an eternal being.
2. Demonstrate those being's necessary intentions.
3. Demonstrate how those intentions necessarily don't include the need for "temporal beings".

(October 18, 2010 at 11:05 pm)Godschild Wrote: God wants to give us His love and care forever and that is why He gives us an opportunity for eternal life.

That's why we must all believe in the great Juju up the mountain. He gives us life, and takes it away when we are done using it.

It works exactly the same with any other mythological being that you can't back up with tangible evidence.

Quote:You can give a fictional character any properties you like, can't you?

Superman could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Unfortunately, those sought of answers dont help people who read more than the God Dellusion.

Quote:Well I got it from the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul, who argues that God needs nothing to sustain him, because he has within himself the power of being. He therefore was not created.

This is indeed a problem, if God is the ultimate being does He need to be created?

---

Quote:If he needs nothing to sustain him why is he so desperate for our worship and adulteration?

Some theists think God is some emotional chick who says, 'Love me! Please love me!'
I see God as being a gentle king for some reason does want to have a relationship with us. The idea that God needs our worship is pagan and silly.

Quote:1. If you attribute these qualities to God, then yes he may exist. However, you first have to prove that there is a presence before explaining how this presence works.
This argument is presupposing God exists and then explains how he created itself. But it's a deus ex machina, for example you can say that in Harry Potter their wands can cast spells because they have magical elements in them. So in a world where wands have magical properties, casting spells seems plausible. However you first have prove these wands have magical properties. In the same way, you have to prove God exists and his different properties before explaining how they work. In short, this argument is useless before you prove God exists.

No one can say that God exists or doesnt, it all speculation. However, what was the cause for the universe? I also find the ontological argument is rather convincing, that God is the greatest thought or idea that can be imagined.

Quote:2. This argument is nonsense. See, to have the power of being, he must be. To be, he must have the power of being. This idea of God being eternal and not created is so abstract by nature that people stop looking into it after two or three layers of reasoning, but when you get down to it, you always have one aspect of their reasoning that is assuming an unexplainable ability.

So your second refutation is, 'I dont understand it, therefore God doesnt exist.'?

Quote:No one can say that God exists or doesnt, it all speculation. However, what was the cause for the universe? I also find the ontological argument is rather convincing, that God is the greatest thought or idea that can be imagined.

"The greatest thought that can be imagined": i think that the word you used, "imagine", pretty much sums it up. You can imagine the greatest thing possible, this has no impact or implication in the real world.
I do not know the cause of the Universe, but there can be hundreds of explanation for it, God only being one of them. As such, you are using the "God of the Gaps" argument here: i do not know how it happened, so God did it.

Quote:So your second refutation is, 'I dont understand it, therefore God doesnt exist.'?

Of course not, i'm saying that you may create a logical reasoning for God's existence, but at some point in it there is an unprovable assumption in the reasoning, even if the rest of the reasoning is valid. To have the power to be he must already be, so this argument can explain how God can continue to exist, but now how he came to be, making it useless.

(October 19, 2010 at 4:31 am)solja247 Wrote: Some theists think God is some emotional chick who says, 'Love me! Please love me!'
I see God as being a gentle king for some reason does want to have a relationship with us. The idea that God needs our worship is pagan and silly.

Yep, I think you'll find anyone that has read the old testament is very well grounded in saying that God is an emotional being. To cap it all the only time God authored the bible, according to tradition, the first things God says is don't call me names, worhsip me and no-one else. This is all at pains of you upsetting him; emotional yes!

Quote:No one can say that God exists or doesnt, it all speculation. However, what was the cause for the universe? I also find the ontological argument is rather convincing, that God is the greatest thought or idea that can be imagined.

Yes they can. God/s does/do not exist. Both the ontological arguments and the cosmological arguments are shot full of holes and lead their proponents nowhere. No-one takes those arguments seriously anymore apart from those who are desparate to believe of course.

Quote:So your second refutation is, 'I dont understand it, therefore God doesnt exist.'?

That is a bad caricature of the point being made. God/s is/are abstract, abstract things only exist within conceptual frameworks (religion in this case). Remove that framework and a God/s no longer exist. No-one understands what a God/s is so it really hard to believe in it, and everyone who believes has a different perception apparently yours is a gentle king; which brings me back to the first point: have you read the OT?

Quote:No one can say that God exists or doesnt, it all speculation. However, what was the cause for the universe? I also find the ontological argument is rather convincing, that God is the greatest thought or idea that can be imagined.

Exactly. Any claims made about god and/or his nature are baseless assertions.

But even if we were to allow the bullshit claim that god created himself/ didn't need to be created/ always existed, then you admit that this is possible - and not just for god. If it's possible for things to cause themselves to exist, or to have always existed then there's no reason to invoke god for anything.