(April 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Tex Wrote: In a non-deistic universe, yes, and ad infinitum. This is not the argument I am making.

That's good, because it's a weak one.

Quote:Existence itself is a being.

Not an entirely irrational theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Quote:Answer is above.

No, a theory is above.

Quote:Religion is the organization of a belief. You're correct, no existence of an organization proves a god. Reasoning from effects to the cause (logic) or the experience of the direct cause itself (God literally shows up and says hi) are the only ways to have complete certainty. If one has divine revelation, that is probably a very bad way to convince people. Logic should be the only route of teaching there is a God.

Man has been around for around 200 thousand years, and he's invented thousands upon thousands of gods and religions during that span of time. The vast majority of those gods are basically dead now.

Some gods last longer than others, but all gods eventually die. Your god, the Christian god, is fairly new to the scene, but he will eventually die as well, and will probably be replaced by a more socially acceptable and modern god. Scientology is a strong candidate to pick up where he left off.

In short, logic cannot be used to teach the existence of any particular god, because history has basically proven that god is merely an invention of man. As man evolves, so does god. As man learns about science and reality, so does god. God comes and goes as man sees fit.

Quote:This is baseless. Perhaps there are reasons for not interfering often, even if heavily concerned. For analogy, the government does not force business deals, even if it is beneficial to everyone.

Bad analogy. The government is available for comment, even if it is often unsatisfactory.

The reason god isn't interactive is because he doesn't exist anywhere outside of the delusional minds of human beings.

Quote:The universe is not infinitely large. The last estimate I heard is that there are 10^80 atoms.

I don't mind admitting, I'm not familiar with advanced equations, assuming that was one. LOL. What is evident, however, is that the universe stretches well beyond any of our present or future conceivable capabilities.

For all practical purposes, the universe is infinite. We have no reliable knowledge to challenge such a notion. And it's almost certain that we wouldn't understand the information if we did have it.

But my point was simply that there are many things the human mind is not currently capable of understanding. Evolution, science, and technology may change that some day in the extremely distant future. But right now we are very small, and so is our understanding.

Quote:Dogma. You sound like a catholic.

Saying we should have enough sense to reject fairy tales being passed off as reality is your idea of dogma?

I also think people should breathe. I should run for Pope!

Quote:But you accept philosophical and theological that presuppose your theories!

Examples?

Quote:What scientific data says that gaining more scientific data is better? What science experiment says that the survival of our species is good?

I'm going to field both of these questions simultaneously. In order for the human species to survive, science must play a critical role. As for the importance of the survival of the human race, I'll ask you one simple question:

Assuming you have a child or children, would you want them to die? How about your children's children?

The goal to preserve the human race is an obvious one for me.

But I get that Christianity teaches that "the flesh" is despicable, disgusting, and wretched, and not worth preserving.

Quote:Some questions are not answered with physics and chemistry.

Religion answers no questions. What's your point?

[/quote]

(April 24, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Tex Wrote: Finally, some reason! You're correct, no proof I've submitted or anyone has submitted (that I've seen) on this site proves their own specific God. I can get close to the Christian God with logic (I've yet to post any such thing), but it is impossible to get everything that incorporates the Christian God. The thing I'm nearly certain that can never be proven is the Christian concept of Grace. Grace is "the unmerited favor of God". Because it is unmerited, there isn't really a cause-effect relationship. I doubt that "God sent a Messiah to redeem us" will ever be proven logically.

The reason I fall towards Christianity is because it is closest to what I can prove (the next closest is Taoism, fyi). Also, the teachings I cannot prove do not contradict each other and mesh quite nicely with what can be proven. Truly, I have no complaints with Christianity (the only complaint I have with Taoism is the lack of an efficient cause).

I think the problem, here, is that your initial logic is somewhat faulty. It's very easy to reason yourself into a wrong conclusion, especially if you start with an incorrect premise, and "existence is present, therefore it must have a creator" has a terrible latter half. The first part of that statement is absolutely true (unless you're a solipsist, but seriously, fuck solipsists) but it quickly becomes a non sequitur. There may or may not be a creator, but that fact does not follow simply from the idea that there is something that might have been created.

Now, in any other circumstance I would use this as a grave insult to your intelligence, so forgive me, but this feels like Ray Comfort logic to me: "creation needs a creator." Simply doesn't follow. Now, you've clearly got a host of secondary and tertiary reasons for believing as you do, but since they've come out of an initial premise that the existence we see must have a creator, they're necessarily biased toward a possibly incorrect answer.

I dunno, maybe your additional reasons are actually super convincing. You would be the first theist I've talked to that has that. Mostly it's all just riddled with pressuppositions and confirmation bias, but it's up to you if you feel like unpacking that.

I actually agree with everything written. I generally think those teleological arguments are bunk. "It looks organized, therefore it was organized by the Organizer" really holds no water. The whole argument is based on a mental category. The only one I find even slightly appealing is that statistics one I submitted, but I only submitted it because I'm not sure it's valid.

However, the argument that concerns existence is uncaused causer. I'm not saying that "existence" has a creator, but that "existence" itself is the causer of the "stuff" existing. This is the extent of the argument. It makes the "stuff existing" intentional (willed), allowing us to say that Existence per se is an individual, but doesn't give any meaning farther than that. Technically, I can't even define this as God because there is no necessity of respect, reverence, obedience, or anything that gives the title of "God" any meaning. I think you can get there, but that isn't the purpose of the proof.

I think this would be impossible because for religious people 'proof' is different than the proof that scientists, atheists and any rational person understands

Ironic user name rationalman

I don't see any irony here, how is that ironic. It would be ironic if I were not rational, if I was say: a Christian fundamentalist

Well then, why would "rational people" who are also Christians not be capable of accepting scientific proof were that proof be appriopriate, like for example, I would? And then how would an irrational person, who is not religious, but say, superstitious, that would value irrational proof over empirical scientific proofs, be 'rational'?

You see your words prove to be irrational. Your username 'Rationalman' seems to say the opposite of what you profess. Hence the irony.

A "rational man" does not have to tell people he is rational...

It's like the old saying, "If a woman tells you that she is a lady, she most likely is not".

Just like a "grown-ass man" doesn't have to say that he's grown...

That also supports the accusation of irony

(May 12, 2013 at 11:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: That also supports the accusation of irony

Ummm, that's why I posted it?!?!?

OK I want sure