Quote:There is extensive theodicy literature addressing each of your concerns,.

Quote:I already answered you here;

https://atheistforums.org/thread-60668-p...pid1965490

(April 1, 2020 at 5:26 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Back to descriptive laws, however you label them. They're still there, instead of no law at all. A lawless universe, that is, a universe where nothing follows any intelligible pattern,

law of thermodynamics states that the temperature of a glass of hot water and a glass of cold water placed in a perfectly insulated container (a closed system) will reach equilibrium. And this applies to every one of those galaxies you see in the Hubble deep field images, most of them billions of light years away.

Quote:Back to descriptive laws, however you label them. They're still there, instead of no law at all. A lawless universe, that is, a universe where nothing follows any intelligible pattern,

(April 2, 2020 at 2:14 am)Succubus#2 Wrote:

(April 1, 2020 at 5:26 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Back to descriptive laws, however you label them. They're still there, instead of no law at all. A lawless universe, that is, a universe where nothing follows any intelligible pattern,

If God gave us the laws of the universe then why did he formulate those laws the only way they could work? What choice did he have, the universe can't work any other way.
The term 'laws' as used to describe the function of the universe is a misnomer, a better term is properties, or constants. If those constants were anything other than what they are the universe would not exist.

Pi, 3.14159. How can that number be anything other than what it is? If a denizen of Andromeda were to divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter they will have 3.14159.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the temperature of a glass of hot water and a glass of cold water placed in a perfectly insulated container (a closed system) will reach equilibrium. And this applies to every one of those galaxies you see in the Hubble deep field images, most of them billions of light years away.



No god required.

Quote:(1) Something can't come from nothing;

Quote:(2) Something can't provide attributes it doesn't/can't have;

Quote:(3) Infinite causal regress is impossible

Quote:I am curious then. How do you think we can reach John? Knowing cooking recipes clearly doesn't help, nor is the mechanical process of chewing food, but we still know someone ate the food. We skipped through the minutious details and scientific processes of (cooking recipes) and (chewing food) and decided that swallowing a meal requires a conscious agent.. can't you do that for the whole universe? Is it that hard really ...?

(April 1, 2020 at 4:44 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 1, 2020 at 4:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: So what .. ?  
Did it ever come to your superior intellects than one can consider things very carefully.. and still get them wrong ?

Our intellects aren't superior. We have the same intellect that you do.....but imagining that an atheist can get things wrong..which they can, immediately invokes god-botherers getting things wrong - which...they...can.

Even you believe this, about all the other god botherers.

My point, in mere reality, is that you've offered nothing that anyone here has never heard before, and nothing that strikes them as a good reason to believe.  I know...I know...you think that we're all crazy and/or stupid.... and you're the sane  and/or smart one...but....

Quote:Don't worry about me. Nobody led me to believe anything. All I believe is, good points are made and you couldn't address them, or made a mistake when attempting to do so, or considered them not good enough .. because reasons.

Someone lead you to believe a bunch of hilariously untrue shit that you've already shared with us.  There's no clawing it back now.  Someone that you respect flat out lied to you.  What do you think about that?  Meanwhile, regardless of how effectively some asshole lied to you...you are clearly incapable of explaining why other people..other than yourself, should believe.

Quote:Enough talking about myself. Where is the special pleading you were talking about ?

Already explained.  I would refer you to my previous posts.  Thing about special pleading..is that it isn;t a problem if the case is special, which is what you believe.

You don't actually believe that something can't come from nothing - you absolutely do believe that god can come from nothing.  This is special pleading, plain and simple...and if god is a special case then special pleading isn't a problem..but to be logically coherent - you would first need to acknowledge what you're doing.

You do believe that god is a special case.  True or false?  You believe that nothing else can come from nothing - but you also believe that god came from nothing.  


I can summarize the entirety of the above with " you're a fucking idiot, why are you such an idiot, who made you an idiot..or was being an idiot a personal choice?"  Whatever dreams you had of joining this board and sharing enlightenment with we lowly kaffir...you were sorely mistaken.  Ultimately, the truth of any of these propositions is irrelevant, because the misunderstanding that you operate on has no bearing on them.  Asssume god is really real...and special.  Okay.  Still heard your reasons before.  They're still shit.

Now what?

(April 1, 2020 at 5:26 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Back to descriptive laws, however you label them. They're still there, instead of no law at all. A lawless universe, that is, a universe where nothing follows any intelligible pattern, is clearly a universe worse than the one we have we have. If it is theoretically possible for a universe to be worse than ours, how come we have better one.. in the absence of a lawgiver.. ?

Quote:The “victorious” modal ontological argument of Plantinga 1974 goes roughly as follows: Say that an entity possesses “maximal excellence” if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Say, further, that an entity possesses “maximal greatness” if and only if it possesses maximal excellence in every possible world—that is, if and only if it is necessarily existent and necessarily maximally excellent. Then consider the following argument:

There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
(Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p. Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.

And, of course, they do. Let’s just run the argument in reverse.

There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
(Hence) There is no possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
Plainly enough, if you do not already accept the claim that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, then you won’t agree that the first of these arguments is more acceptable than the second. So, as a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness, Plantinga’s argument seems to be a non-starter.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Plantinga himself agrees: the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it “victorious”? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974, 221).