God's God

[Mystic]

Again, if everything needs a "constant cause" (separate from what "it" is) for existing, then the point stands. Your deity needs its own "constant cause" (separate from itself). What "seems to you" is exactly what is in question.

Why does it need from separate from itself? If I believe I can't be causing myself to exist, nothing can be causing itself to exist?

If it was eternal, immensely powerful, it seems to me the case that it can cause itself.

However it seems to me quarks, and atoms cannot.

Huh? No sir. It is not "defined already". You haven't even come close to defining what "constant cause" means, neither have you demonstrated it's necessity.

Which word are you confused about. Constant as in perpetual. Cause as in what results in a effect.

The Creator's existence is a constant effect, and he is the constant cause of that existence.

I see it possible for 1) what is eternal 2) what is immensely powerful and supernatural, but don't see it possible for things like quarks.

Therefore the conclusion will follow. I don't claim certainty. I don't go around trying to prove to Atheists a Creator exists by this proof because I understand they might and probably will disagree on that everything needs a cause, and nothing is not an effect.

Is English your second language? You keep typing incoherent sentences, "it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think". HUH? Please type more carefully in English.

I just told you, earlier, that the idea of "causing themselves to exist" is incoherent. Do you not understand? What part of this is so difficult for you? Second, your last argument (regarding atoms and the universe) is, again, the fallacy of composition. Even if it were true (and it's not) that the atoms in the universe cannot be causing themselves to exist (whatever that means) it doesn't follow to the entire universe. You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

I wasn't make an argument based on a universal regarding that. The universe being formed of lifeless parts or biological parts, it doesn't seem possible to me, that it is constantly causing itself. That means everything in the universe would be combining somehow to cause everything in the universe or somethings in the universe would be causing everything else in the universe. It doesn't seem rational.

However a supernatural creator constantly maintaining his own existence, and that of the universe, seems plausible.

And since it seems to me everything needs a cause, it seems to me such a being exists.

HA! The God of the gaps argument again. LOL. So any place science cannot determine something with certainty, you somehow feel justified in inserting "Allah did it" there?? Weak! This is the same argument attempted by your predecessors with lightening (Zeus did it!) or tsunamis (Poseidon did it!). WOW. Still in the broze age I see. So then you truly don't care whether your beliefs are actually true. You just want to lower your standard of evidence for what you already assumed to be true from the beginning (what your parents/elders told you) and keep believing b/c it made you feel comfortable.

I do care about what is true, but I don't dismiss evidence that points to something, simply because I am uncertain of it. Arguments from ignorance like argument from authority are not sound, but make a strong case regardless often. Often they don't, often they do.

This is where your absolute credulity rears its ugly head so clearly. A supernatural creator is "more plausible"?? Tell us, just exactly how did you come to determine this probability (as if that matters)? What data points have you collected? What statistical mathematics have you done to come to your conclusion that it is more plausible (or to warrant belief!) that your alleged deity is "more plausible" than particles arising from an undetermined place - when you have exactly one universe to examine?? WOW.

Well now you want it all defined by empiricism. Again, this what seems plausible to me. I don't say it has to mean plausible to you. I don't know how you think.

I can only act what seems more plausible as an explanation to me.

HA! Really? Those who don't believe in deities are called atheists dude. Get with the program. Are you an atheist? If so, why are you arguing for "supernatural causes"? Deity and "supernatural cause" are being used synonymously here. Get with it.

Weren't saying before if there was a supernatural cause, it would not mean it's a deity. Weren't you saying if such a being exists, it would not mean it's "Allah"?

It does NOT follow that if one rejects the idea of faith that they also reject "morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc" (as you claim). Could you get any more irrational?

It does follow, because these are based on faith. Morals, praise, frree-will, human rights, are all things humans have faith in. There is no empirical evidence they are true. Neither does humanity base them on a inference from a logical argument if there was one that proves them to be true.

So how are you defining faith? If you define faith as something that must be believed in for no good reason or no basis or is not justified, you are being quite circular in dismissing faith.

Huh? Different equals not ontologically necessary? How so? This is more burden shifting. The burden is on you to demonstrate some "necessary living being" is required for our existence. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

I don't think you understand Plantinga's ontological argument. Or what "possibly neccessarily" mean. To be possibly necessarily, it must be that case, that it's possibly the case, that x is so, in all possible worlds.

I can't be a necessary being because I could always be different. Just give me a different hair cut right now, shows I can't be ontologically necessary.

NOPE. If someone makes the argument that their God's existence does not need an explanation (as was my point), then we can also make the argument that our existence does not require an explanation.

Not really. Re-assert. By explanation, I take it to mean outside itself. Well, I am here because of my parents. Their parents are here, because of their parents. Humans are here I believe because of evolution with divine intervention. Whatever the case is, we know we need an explanation outside ourselves, while the same is not known of the Creator.

Second, you can't "know by faith". Faith is believing when you do not have good reason to. And it is not a pathway to truth. It is not reliable for deciphering what true from what's false.

What's your proof of that. The way I see it, all the most fundemental beleifs of humanity will have no path way except via faith.

For example our beliefs in human rights. Our beliefs in a perpetual identity. Our belief in a identity. Our belief in praiseworthiness.

WOW. This is total magic hocus pocus. Assuming your "creator" doesn't make it true - just saying it is so doesn't make it so. And you haven't demonstrated any "Creator constantly maintaining itself". How gullible are you? Can you not just admit when you don't know things, instead of believing crap your parents told you?

You just repeat your argument over and over again. Calm down. You don't know what I believe in.

Just because I took away the praise you wanted to get for posting this video, doesn't mean you should take me as an enemy.

Get to know me better. We can possibly become friends.

I know assuming a Creator will not make it true.

I see much of what I'm saying is going over your head.

Suppose morality was a total delusion. And for some reason a person was hell bent on proving that.

I don't see how you can say "your faith in morality cannot give you knowledge of it being true" and expect everyone to bow down and accept your assertion.

From their perspective, their belief in morals is strong, and it does give them a justifiable knowledge of it being true.

You can say "You are special pleading with your belief in morality, you require proof for this and that, but you don't require proof for morality".

From their perspective, they have knowledge.

Now if someone has knowledge of ultimate existence existing, they could also explain why that existence if it were to exist, doesn't need outside cause, doesn't need a maintainer outside itself.

Also, if it explains everything that requires an explanation, including itself, then I don't see what's the problem you have?