(May 30, 2020 at 11:56 pm)no one Wrote: How do you know?

Through reason and contemporary science.

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

And Muslims make the same statement about their mythology.

(May 30, 2020 at 11:40 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations:

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

The second explanation gets rid of the problem of nonbeing producing being and there doesn't seem to be any glaring issue with it. Issues arise only if you're an atheist. Put simply, atheists do not believe that God exists. There are many flavors of atheism and ways that people spin the word, but this is what it really comes down to. If an atheist chooses to accept the second explanation, then they're forced to believe that something eternal exists, but it's not God. Typically, atheists who choose this second explanation will believe that the universe or multiverse is eternal. But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

Mend your reflector first, you might reflect better.   For your god’s sake you need to.

---

(May 30, 2020 at 11:59 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 30, 2020 at 11:56 pm)no one Wrote: How do you know?

Through reason and contemporary science.

And I am rich because I am heir to the throne of England.

Contemporary science doesn’t know you, And reason Would disavow you.

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

Hello!

Uhm.. I'd disagree with both those ides/statements/comments.

So, first of all you can not 'Reason' things into existence.

You can use your ability to reason to work through all the infromaton/data/evidence you have access to and even extrapolate onwares from there. But 'Just' reasoning things? Pretty much the same as trying to push clouds with your mind.

Contemporary science isn't really into 'Non physical' things.

Cheers!

Not at work.

What science, of any sort, concludes that the magic sky fairy is masculine?

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

And referring to WLC as a "philosopher" is on par with calling Trump a good president.

Of course WLC is a philosopher. He has a PhD in philosopher and has peer-reviewed published work in philosophy journals. And he has written numerous scholarly books on the subject.

You just don't like calling him a philosopher because he's an influential Christian who has successfully defeated many atheists in debate.

Even the liberal and ant-religious Wikipedia editors have come to the consensus that Dr. Craig is a philosopher.

"William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, historian, apologist, and author."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

And even famous atheist philosophers like Quentin Smith refer to him as a philosopher.

What do you have besides emotions?

(May 30, 2020 at 11:53 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: The God that I'm describing in this argument would possess an amount of knowledge that is sufficient for producing all things: the universe, multiverse, etc. Also, this God is non-physical. Therefore, there wouldn't be a "thinking" or "thought" process prior to any of His actions.

How can an incorporeal entity interact with a real universe?

My emphasis.

---

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: You forgot to add "according to my mythology"

This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

Contemporary science? I take it you can back this up.

Magic, Succubus, magic.

(May 31, 2020 at 12:03 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(May 30, 2020 at 11:57 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: This argument is purely based on reason and contemporary science.

Hello!

Uhm.. I'd disagree with both those ides/statements/comments.

So, first of all you can not 'Reason' things into existence.

You can use your ability to reason to work through all the infromaton/data/evidence you have access to and even extrapolate onwares from there. But 'Just' reasoning things? Pretty much the same as trying to push clouds with your mind.

Contemporary science isn't really into 'Non physical' things.

Cheers!

Not at work.

First, where did I claim "things can be reasoned into existence"? Surely, I never wrote that. Are you purposely being dishonest? I was asked how I know. Reasoning and science is how we come to know lots of things. Do you disagree?

I'm beginning to think many of you didn't completely read or understand my first post. Contemporary science doesn't deal with the non-physical, true, but I never claimed that it did. It does however point to a past-finite universe and that's important for the "inference to the best explanation" argument that I've outlined for the existence of God.

I recommend that you go back and re-read my first post.

Is this contemporary science anything like fairy tale science?