(April 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

So one option is that the universe, which we can observe and thus know exists, has always existed in some form or other. The other option is that god, whom you claim cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist, has always existed and created the universe. Seems that the former explanation is simpler and more likely, and does not require us to presume the existence of things we cannot possibly detect.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:02 am)snowtracks Wrote: "Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

There is no evidence whatsoever to that effect. The physicial laws apply within this universe, that doesn't even imply that they apply to this universe, anymore than a wall made out of unbreakable bricks implies that the wall is unbreakable.

If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

(April 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

It's like they were just making it up as they go along.

(April 14, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: It's like they were just making it up as they go along.

I bet if you wait a week and remember what Snowy has said today, it'd be very possible to engineer a situation in which he contradicts his current statements in order to negate whatever he's up against at the time.

(April 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

You are trying to apply THIS universe's logic to something you have claimed is OUTSIDE the realm of this universe. You have no way of knowing that said logic is applicable anymore. It might be, but it also might not be. I thought I made this clear already, you can't discern the veracity of any statement you make about something outside our universe since all and any possible frameworks to approach the issue with are no longer guaranteed to apply. You have no hope of necessitating such a thing's existence when you have no means of producing reasonable certainty.

(April 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

This is what happens when people with faith-based beliefs try to justify their beliefs with logical equations. Logic and faith are inherently opposed to each other, so when they mix, it's like oil and water. The best theists, in my opinion, are those that admit and embrace what it means to have faith. Strangely, they also tend to be very logical on just about everything else.

(April 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

So one option is that the universe, which we can observe and thus know exists, has always existed in some form or other. The other option is that god, whom you claim cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist, has always existed and created the universe. Seems that the former explanation is simpler and more likely, and does not require us to presume the existence of things we cannot possibly detect.

an unassailable fact : universe is 13 billion years old.

"whom you claim cannot be observed". that part is correct. for instance, an entity standing right in front of you claiming to be God wouldn't be proof.