(April 16, 2016 at 12:43 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I posted this (along with a bit more stuff) a few days back in the apologetics area of Christian forums and have gotten no intelligent rebuttals yet.  Thought I'd see what you all think.  Maybe pretend you're Christian for a minute and try to tear it down.



1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.



http://www.christianforums.com/threads/t...d.7941675/

It's one big problem. Properties are observed/discovered - not assigned. Some properties are essential to a thing (de re) and the thing could no longer be that thing without those properties. God is a good example of having a set of essential properties. Timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Without these, then you would be talking about something other than God.

(April 22, 2016 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 12:43 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I posted this (along with a bit more stuff) a few days back in the apologetics area of Christian forums and have gotten no intelligent rebuttals yet.  Thought I'd see what you all think.  Maybe pretend you're Christian for a minute and try to tear it down.



1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.



http://www.christianforums.com/threads/t...d.7941675/

It's one big problem. Properties are observed/discovered - not assigned. Some properties are essential to a thing (de re) and the thing could no longer be that thing without those properties. God is a good example of having a set of essential properties. Timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Without these, then you would be talking about something other than God.

If I create a computer, am I not rearranging its prior constituent material into something new with properties that the material didn't have before? Aren't I intelligently assigning the computer with properties?

(April 22, 2016 at 1:36 am)Godschild Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 12:43 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I posted this (along with a bit more stuff) a few days back in the apologetics area of Christian forums and have gotten no intelligent rebuttals yet.  Thought I'd see what you all think.  Maybe pretend you're Christian for a minute and try to tear it down.



1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.



http://www.christianforums.com/threads/t...d.7941675/

 In your assumptions about God (assumptions lead to randomness or point thought to one's own opinion) you haven't reasonably included God's eternal existence. There has never been a time without Him and this in it's self leaves the human understanding of God in the realm of mystery, those mysteries that God hasn't revealed and want in this age. I suggest you deal with the eternal part of God first.

GC

Is it even reasonable to include God's eternal existence? Is it fair to grant you that massive, unwieldy assumption when you don't allow atheists to assume that the matter and energy from which the universe arose is in some sense eternal?

The point is that you are unable to defend your description of God without first helping yourself to assumptions that you do not allow the other side to make.

(April 22, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote: It's one big problem. Properties are observed/discovered - not assigned. Some properties are essential to a thing (de re) and the thing could no longer be that thing without those properties. God is a good example of having a set of essential properties. Timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Without these, then you would be talking about something other than God.

If I create a computer, am I not rearranging its prior constituent material into something new with properties that the material didn't have before?  Aren't I intelligently assigning the computer with properties?

You are not assigning anything. If the device turns on and performs, then you have a computer. If it does not turn on, you have a pile of pieces --each with their own properties. Perhaps you are confusing assigning a word to describe a property. There are hundreds of word in other languages that all mean computer. The property of being a computer transcends all of those.

(April 23, 2016 at 7:49 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 11:51 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: If I create a computer, am I not rearranging its prior constituent material into something new with properties that the material didn't have before?  Aren't I intelligently assigning the computer with properties?

You are not assigning anything. If the device turns on and performs, then you have a computer. If it does not turn on, you have a pile of pieces --each with their own properties. Perhaps you are confusing assigning a word to describe a property. There are hundreds of word in other languages that all mean computer. The property of being a computer transcends all of those.

The constituent parts of the material were unable to perform mathematical processes until I assembled them. The constituent parts did not have the property of being able to perform mathematical operations. Now they do. Are you saying the constituent parts always had this property? If yes, can you explain how that makes sense?

(April 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 1:36 am)Godschild Wrote:  In your assumptions about God (assumptions lead to randomness or point thought to one's own opinion) you haven't reasonably included God's eternal existence. There has never been a time without Him and this in it's self leaves the human understanding of God in the realm of mystery, those mysteries that God hasn't revealed and want in this age. I suggest you deal with the eternal part of God first.

GC

Is it even reasonable to include God's eternal existence?  Is it fair to grant you that massive, unwieldy assumption when you don't allow atheists to assume that the matter and energy from which the universe arose is in some sense eternal?

The point is that you are unable to defend your description of God without first helping yourself to assumptions that you do not allow the other side to make.

 I do not assume things, like I said this leads to randomness or is used to guide others to your opinion, shouldn't people be able to make up their own minds without your assumptions. 
If you're referring to the Bible as assumption your wrong, and to use anything but the Bibles description of God is to make assumptions.

GC

(April 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Is it even reasonable to include God's eternal existence?  Is it fair to grant you that massive, unwieldy assumption when you don't allow atheists to assume that the matter and energy from which the universe arose is in some sense eternal?

The point is that you are unable to defend your description of God without first helping yourself to assumptions that you do not allow the other side to make.

 I do not assume things, like I said this leads to randomness or is used to guide others to your opinion, shouldn't people be able to make up their own minds without your assumptions. 
If you're referring to the Bible as assumption your wrong, and to use anything but the Bibles description of God is to make assumptions.

GC

1. If a document contradicts itself, you cannot accept it as a whole and can only scrutinize it line by line to determine which claims are true, false, or undecidable.
2. The Bible contradicts itself.
3. The Bible makes claims about a God and his properties, and such claims are undecidable.
4. You are making assumptions that these claims are true.

(April 25, 2016 at 12:25 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(April 24, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Godschild Wrote:  I do not assume things, like I said this leads to randomness or is used to guide others to your opinion, shouldn't people be able to make up their own minds without your assumptions. 
If you're referring to the Bible as assumption your wrong, and to use anything but the Bibles description of God is to make assumptions.

GC

1. If a document contradicts itself, you cannot accept it as a whole and can only scrutinize it line by line to determine which claims are true, false, or undecidable.
2. The Bible contradicts itself.
3. The Bible makes claims about a God and his properties, and such claims are undecidable.
4. You are making assumptions that these claims are true.

 I know God so I know the Bible is correct in it's description of Him, the Bible is God's word and it says God can't lie (one of His attributes), So the Bile being God's word can tell anything but the truth about God. God can't contradict another attribute, meaning there are no contradictions in the Bible. The reason you can't decide on who God is leads to a question, when will you allow God to remove the blinders from your eyes and find the truth.

GC

(April 23, 2016 at 9:47 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 7:49 am)SteveII Wrote: You are not assigning anything. If the device turns on and performs, then you have a computer. If it does not turn on, you have a pile of pieces --each with their own properties. Perhaps you are confusing assigning a word to describe a property. There are hundreds of word in other languages that all mean computer. The property of being a computer transcends all of those.

The constituent parts of the material were unable to perform mathematical processes until I assembled them.  The constituent parts did not have the property of being able to perform mathematical operations.  Now they do.  Are you saying the constituent parts always had this property?  If yes, can you explain how that makes sense?

You are confusing creating something with assigning it properties. They are not the same thing. For example, if you very carefully carved a cubes out of block of wood -- you created a cube. You did not assign the properties (wooden, cube, x volume, brown, etc.). Additionally, that block of wood used to (but no more) have the property of being a tree.

(April 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 9:47 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: The constituent parts of the material were unable to perform mathematical processes until I assembled them.  The constituent parts did not have the property of being able to perform mathematical operations.  Now they do.  Are you saying the constituent parts always had this property?  If yes, can you explain how that makes sense?

You are confusing creating something with assigning it properties. They are not the same thing. For example, if you very carefully carved a cubes out of block of wood -- you created a cube. You did not assign the properties (wooden, cube, x volume, brown, etc.). Additionally, that block of wood used to (but no more) have the property of being a tree.

I agree that in your example the cube was not assigned the property of being wood by my actions, but it clearly wasn't a cube before, and yet now it is, and so those are new properties that came about because of my actions. How is that not assigning properties?