Which Comes First?

[Rhizomorph13]

By what reasoning did you to think God has spatio-temporal properties?

My interpretation of the bible is that God acts on reality so therefore he should leave evidence. So Jesus was never spatio-temporal?

Am I to understand that you will believe a proposition only when there is scientific evidence for it?

Depends on what you mean by proposition. I believe that reality is real because it has been demonstrated to me to be a basic belief from the "non-existence" thread. There are things I will accept without evidence.

Are you aware of the rock and hard place you're wedging yourself into, with a falsehood on one side and a fallacy on the other?

Nope, what are they?

I ask this because, if you think it is possible for something without spatio-temporal properties to exist, then what evidence for its existence would you expect to find?

I don't believe in anything that exists outside the material universe. Anything real should be measurable. I have not seen any reason to believe in a trancendant thing.

I wasn't saying that anyone created an argument in answer to evidential claims directly. I am saying that it is awfully convenient that God just happens to exist in some special place outside of space and time. I now agree that if a thing spoke existence into being it would, by definition, have to be outside of that space and time, but it sounds like special pleading to me.

Rhizo

[chatpilot]

"Darn God sending His Son to die for us and keeping us all alive, what an evil person.
Do you believe it would be evil to let us all die right now? From where did our right to life come from?
What if living isn't a neutral act but a good act of mercy and grace by God and being dead is neutral. "

Solar my entire contention is mulifaceted
1. I wasn't around to commit the original sin of disobedience to God perpetrated by Adam and Eve. Therefore, I shouldn't be held accountable.
2. You seem to be overlooking all of the cruelty, death, and mass murders that the biblical God committed against mankind particularly in the O.T. and by what you are saying it's okay now since he sacrificed his own son so that we may be redeemed and have life through him.
3. I did not ask to be saved nor for this God to sacrifice his son since I don't believe in him nor need his help in living a happy and fulfilling life in the here and now through my own efforts.

My right to life came from being conceived by my parents not from God. And there is nothing neutral about living, living is constantly moving and ever changing. Death may be neutral but I believe that death is a finality. There is no after life for me and if there was one God would have nothing to do with it.

[Ryft]

My interpretation of the Bible is that God acts on reality, so therefore he should leave evidence.

(1) Please provide an example of one of those acts from the Bible, and then (2) articulate what sort of evidence you think it should leave behind, such that it would indicate God as the agent to you.

So Jesus was never spatio-temporal?

Certainly he was. However, I did not presume that you accept Jesus as God incarnate. If you do, then that shifts the argument significantly and makes it easier. But if you do not—which I suspect to be the case—then let us disregard this tangent and focus our attention on why you're expecting empirical evidence for something that has no spatio-temporal properties.

Depends on what you mean by proposition.

You know I'm a student of philosophy. Ergo, you should know I mean it in its philosophical sense. (If you follow the Quine school, think 'sentence'. If you follow the Strawson school, think 'statement'. Take your pick; they all predicate the same thing.) For instance, when you said that "reality is real," that is a proposition.

There are things I will accept without evidence.

Good, because we all do it. Now, I'm going to leap-frog passed a bunch of tedious Q&A and get right to the part where you tell me, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And I'm going to call that baloney and get right to the point, that there is no such thing as "extraordinary" evidence; there is just evidence, plain and ordinary. And since it is empirical evidence for God that you were seeking (Msg. #78), we can continue focusing our attention on why you're expecting empirical evidence for something that has no spatio-temporal properties.

I don't believe in anything that exists outside the material universe.

That did not answer my question, so I shall ask it again: "Would you say that nothing exists unless it has spatio-temporal properties? That existence is defined in empirical terms? I ask this because, if you think it is possible for something without spatio-temporal properties to exist, then what evidence for its existence would you expect to find? Surely not empirical evidence (given its lack of spatio-temporal properties)."

I am saying that it is awfully convenient that God just happens to exist in some special place outside of space and time. I now agree that if a thing spoke existence into being then it would, by definition, have to be outside of that space and time, but it sounds like Special Pleading to me.

That God exists independent of his creation is not something that "just happens to" be the case, but is in fact necessarily the case—i.e., necessary truth, such that "it would be contradictory to deny" (Garth Kemerling, Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names). That which is part of creation cannot be the creator thereof without involving a logical contradiction; God would have to exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same respect. Ergo, (1) it is not something that just conveniently happens to be the case, but rather something that is logically impossible to be otherwise, and therefore (2) does not even remotely commit the Special Pleading fallacy, which occurs only when something is held as an exception "based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception" (FallacyFiles.org). A logical contradiction is certainly a relevant characteristic that defines an exception!

[Rhizomorph13]

My interpretation of the Bible is that God acts on reality, so therefore he should leave evidence.

(1) Please provide an example of one of those acts from the Bible, and then (2) articulate what sort of evidence you think it should leave behind, such that it would indicate God as the agent to you.

The flood comes to mind. If it could be demonstrated that it covered the whole Earth and there would also be a large boat built to the specifications mentioned in the bible. It could be argued that the flood was caused naturally but the fact that Noah had knowledge of the flood before it happened would show that God was involved.

Depends on what you mean by proposition.

You know I'm a student of philosophy. Ergo, you should know I mean it in its philosophical sense. (If you follow the Quine school, think 'sentence'. If you follow the Strawson school, think 'statement'. Take your pick; they all predicate the same thing.) For instance, when you said that "reality is real," that is a proposition.

I don't follow any school of philosophy. I have built my understanding of how to approach knowledge based on ad hoc knowledge aquired from random sources that seemed "cool" to read at the time. I just wanted to know what you meant by proposition. According to your answer it seems simple enough.

Would you say that nothing exists unless it has spatio-temporal properties?

Yes, I would agree with that.

That which is part of creation cannot be the creator thereof without involving a logical contradiction; God would have to exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same respect. Ergo, (1) it is not something that just conveniently happens to be the case, but rather something that is logically impossible to be otherwise, and therefore

As of 8:12 am (PST) yesterday I had an epiphany. I retract my request for evidence of God and see that there is none that would prove the existence of God as you define him. I agree that if there were a God that it would need to exist outside space and time to create space and time so your definition is correct in that respect. So, where that leaves me is, why God at all? Why the Christian God?

Thank you,
Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

Thankyou. You said you would never believe and now you retract that.

When did I ever say that I would never believe in God? As in definitely never?

You have blind faith that I have committed the NTS fallacy despite it being pointed out to you how it doesn't without successful rebuttal from yourself. Fair enough.

It's not blind faith if my observations of you are correct.

We haven't finished discussing prayer and you jump in with a closing statement before waiting for the answer to that.

Closing statement? What closing statement? This is all open discussion.

You're talking about evidence with me which isn't permitted in open forum.

I'm talking about evidence, but I'm not getting into the whole Evidence Versus Faith thing here. If you want to discuss Evidence and Faith in the debate forum, where we really should be: Then please to reply to the latest post there that I did back on the 20th of September.

The evidence in question is Eilonnwy's to support her understanding of prayer against the biblical understanding which she is apparently criticising.

Biblical 'Understanding', what kind of understanding? How can one understand prayer if it's not been substantiated that it works at all? And that being the case, considering that the Bible claims that it works: The Burden of proof is on those who believe that the Biblical understanding is the correct one.

So your tirade against unsupported evidence can't be against me as my evidence is supported. Eilonnwy's on the other hand is yet unsupported.

If your evidence is of the Biblical understanding, then how is it supported? Since when did the Biblical understanding ever substantiate its Godly claims?

You need to get back into your cage to discuss this with me Evie.

I've been waiting for a response their since the 20th of September. You claim that I said to stop the discussion, I deny that I ever said such a thing. I never terminate any discussions. If you can find a quote where I really said that, then I apologize.

If you can find a quote where you think I somehow implied it. I assure you, there was no such implication intended. I don't drop discussions.

EvF

[ecolox]

So, where that leaves me is, why God at all? Why the Christian God?

I want to see this as well.

As a simpleton I say that something must be responsible for this existence. We have to account for rationality, consciousness, and good and evil...the dimensions of our existence (which exceed all other such known features).

Some people say that the existence of evil means that God is immoral, but why would an immoral god allow for the existence of good? If evil is not sovereign and is temporary then God can logically be good - which is the Christian explanation.

If God does exist then we have a reason to seriously consider good and evil and how we conduct our lives. If He doesn't, then we don't - because ultimately there would be no justice (e.g. if you can get away with it, then why not do it?).

[Edwardo Piet]

Some people say that the existence of evil means that God is immoral, but why would an immoral god allow for the existence of good?

A truly 100% Benevolent all-loving God would of course allow the moral, but why would he also allow so much immorality?

This can be easily explained without God. Morality is subjective. From those who aren't sadistic etc, from most of us: Killing and raping, etc, is evil, is wrong. From a highly Evil person's perspective however, they might not be. Or he might just have no problem with committing what most people consider Evil.

We all have feelings, most decent people think killing and raping is wrong. But not everyone: Morality is subjective. We as a species survive better if on the whole we are good to each other though. This can be explained by evolution you see. And even if it was not, there's still no evidence of a creator anyway.

If God does exist then we have a reason to seriously consider good and evil and how we conduct our lives. If He doesn't, then we don't - because ultimately there would be no justice (e.g. if you can get away with it, then why not do it?).

Why not do it? Because we care? Are you saying that if you didn't believe in God...you wouldn't care?

If there are no objective morals, as I don't believe there are, and no God, as I don't believe there is: Then I still care about people, because thankfully, I'm a caring person.

EvF

[solarwave]

A truly 100% Benevolent all-loving God would of course allow the moral, but why would he also allow so much immorality?

If there are no objective morals, as I don't believe there are, and no God, as I don't believe there is: Then I still care about people, because thankfully, I'm a caring person.

How much is 'so much immorality'? If God allowed less you would still complain and if He allowed more you would know no difference since it would be a normal amount inthe world. The case is that there could have been ALOT more suffering too than there is.

But on your reasoning you can't say that it is a good thing that your are caring anyway, because being caring would have no value of its own.

[ecolox]

If God does exist then we have a reason to seriously consider good and evil and how we conduct our lives. If He doesn't, then we don't - because ultimately there would be no justice (e.g. if you can get away with it, then why not do it?).

Why not do it? Because we care? Are you saying that if you didn't believe in God...you wouldn't care?

If there are no objective morals, as I don't believe there are, and no God, as I don't believe there is: Then I still care about people, because thankfully, I'm a caring person.

Yes, why not do it if you can get away with it (if you can benefit from it). What if Jimbo is not built the way you are and what if he's had an unfair life in his own eyes? You said morality was subjective, so it would be fine if he didn't "care" like the boy with the silver spoon in his mouth (you).

You wouldn't want to punish someone who was doing something subjectively right would you?

[ecolox]

This can be easily explained without God. Morality is subjective. From those who aren't sadistic etc, from most of us**: Killing and raping, etc, is evil, is wrong. From a highly Evil person's perspective however, they might not be. Or he might just have no problem with committing what most people consider Evil.

That is a completely useless explanation that you offer up there, here's why:

If morality is subjective, then the truth is that everything everyone does or does not do is simultaneously right and wrong.

This is incredibly stupid and does not suffice as an explanation for any thinking person. It isn't good enough for you or I.

**When you say "most of us" I'm afraid you're going to fallaciously appeal to what is popular to determine what is true (or better). You need not even refer to what is popular or done by most of you and yours, since the truth is not determined by the mob.