Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[MilesAbbott81]

*Sighs* That's the thing; I already have. I'm really not sure how else to describe my argument to you.

You've already established that god is the only thing allowed in the category "things that come from nothing"? How did you do that? If you're just referring to the naked assertions you've made thus far, then no, you have not. Just saying something is so doesn't make it true; if you've made an actual argument, with evidence, then save me having to look through nigh on forty pages of material and just give me the cliffs notes version.

Okay, I'll bite.

First, I never said God is in the category of "things that come from nothing." This is what you said:

You do believe there exists a set of things that don't need to come from anything else, you just don't want anyone else to be able to use that category because it's inconvenient to your position.

I never said a set of things, I said one being, that is, God. Neither did I say He came from anything else - you are putting words in my mouth. What I DID say is that God is the only possible thing that could exist in things that don't need to come from anything else, due to His very nature as God. As God, He is not bound by the rules of His creation, that is, the universe and all that is in it, because it stands to reason that if God created the universe, then He was outside of it to begin with. Therefore, how could He be subject to its laws?

I never said anything about a pre-big bang universe,

True, but since you were discussing things beyond our current model of physics, I thought I'd point out that such a state is equally true of the universe prior to the big bang. It's one of those things that makes it very clear that when you describe god as being the only thing in the category of things outside of our physics models, you haven't done much reading on our current ideas in science.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to tell me that the law of the conservation of energy has been disproved? Is that not the essence of my argument? I am not referring to fringe theories or physics models that theorize fantastical scenarios that try to explain something coming from nothing.

Tell me, do you truly think it is possible that something can come from nothing? If not, then what exactly is your argument, or are you simply trying to discredit me on the basis that I'm not as scientifically savvy as you or your cohorts on this forum? That, I assure you, is certainly the case, and I freely admit it.

I simply said that God could've created the universe (or perhaps its expansion and formation would be more accurate) using the big bang. Whatever the current model, no model explains the origin of the matter, so going into details is pointless.

If you recognize that no model founded by the people actually testing the beginnings of the universe gives us an explanation of its origins, why on earth do you feel okay about asserting god as that explanation without even attempting to test it?

Because, quite obviously, there is no way to conduct a test that will prove or disprove the existence of God (unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking here), and because I believe the existence of God to be self-evident, and completely logical to the point where that logic should be accepted as evidence. No one has offered a reasonable explanation to the contrary, except to say that it hasn't been proven in a lab or something, which is a foolish expectation given the nature of the question and the obvious truths of God's existence. You propose to judge/measure God by the same standards you might judge/measure a hypothesis concerning the malleability of iron. It makes no sense to do so.

Actually, no, I'd never heard the special pleading argument before, but I inferred the meaning from context. I looked it up just now to make sure, and I inferred correctly. God justifies the exception by His definition as omnipotent.

Two problems: now you have two claims to justify before you can functionally use the exception in an argument, the first being that god exists at all, and the second being that he's omnipotent. Hell, you haven't even tried to address whether omnipotence is even possible, and there's good argument to demonstrate that it isn't. Naked assertions aren't good justification for exceptions from rules; you can make up any sort of exception, if you're content not to restrict yourself to things that you can demonstrate as real. It's not exactly a great feat, to fantasize your way out of a logical fallacy.

So you say (that I must justify two separate claims). I say I do not, because they are completely related and, in fact, inseparable. Who thinks God isn't omnipotent? I've never even heard someone try to argue that He isn't. They might question His existence, but I've never heard anyone try saying that if He does exist, He isn't omnipotent. Just take a look at the universe...if God created it, wouldn't you have to lean towards Him probably being omnipotent? If He can create something from nothing, what the hell kinds of limits would He have?

What you are saying is such an odd argument that I'm not even sure how to properly respond, and TBH it's quite the straw man and ignores the answer I initially gave. Supposing God is omnipotent, or even that He merely created existence, then He should be the exception to the special pleading rule.

As I've said multiple times now and in many ways, God is necessarily above all rules and limitations, if He created our existence. I see no point in repeating myself any further, so this will be the last time I mention it.

It's good that you'll stop repeating it, because it's wrong: one does not necessarily have to be above all rules and limitations to have created the universe. In fact, I can come up with plenty of hypotheticals other than a god for that exact purpose. You're mistaking the thing you want to be true, for the only thing that could be true.

Please, let me hear some. "You're wrong" isn't good enough.

Again, already answered multiple times in multiple ways. There is only so much I can do here.

Yeah, see, I'm not gonna go back over so many pages for you; the way you've argued so far casts incredible doubt on the claim that you've answered anything in a satisfactory manner, despite your thoughts to the contrary.

This is essentially related to what I've written above. I've provided more substance now, though in the end I am still repeating myself. Your problem is that you cast aspersions on my argument yet you don't actually give me any substantive arguments yourself. You say I lack substance, yet where is yours? Please note as well that what I'm saying is that my argument IS the substance.

Unless physics has all of a sudden added the spontaneous creation of matter to its lexicon, I certainly do not.

So, somebody's never heard of virtual particles, or of our current thinking regarding the universe pre-expansion, then. You say the laws of physics do this and that, but you also demonstrate that you haven't read any of the relevant material before you speak.[/quote]

I've read plenty of insane theories that are obviously fringe and not at all accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. I may have forgotten them all, but why should I bother recalling nonsense? Something can't from nothing. Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

So you're wrong from the beginning, but purely on the matter of logic, your argument here doesn't hold up; even if the physics community does not deal with the spontaneous creation of matter, it doesn't entail that they deal with the reverse either. To start with, it's a false dichotomy to assert there are only two options without justification. You also ignore the very obvious possibility that they could just abstain from speaking on the issue at all until better information presents itself.

What exactly is the reverse of the spontaneous creation of matter? The spontaneous destruction? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I do understand that you just said it's possible [the scientific community] are waiting for more evidence before explaining the origin of matter. They would have to, since there is an extraordinary lack thereof. How can anyone ever explain something coming from nothing? I'd love to hear anything that even begins to resemble a sensible argument!

My citation is logic...can I do nothing but repeat myself here? Apparently not.

Your logic is faulty, and your grasp on it tenuous, which is why I ask for something a little more solid. Like evidence. [/quote]

You have failed to even put a dent in my logic, sir. Evidence, evidence! you all cry. Give me reason and a sensible hypothesis, and I will give you evidence. How 'bout that? You want to apply the scientific method, give me a feasible theory that is testable. But you can't give me reason OR a sensible hypothesis, so you will never receive evidence. (Not that I could actually provide it, at least beyond the logic I credit as evidence. I am simply making a point)

Well, at least it's a new question. The answer is, how the hell should I know? You're asking me to explain the unexplainable. If I knew how to create something from nothing, I'd be a god myself.

You can know how something occurred without being able to do it yourself. But if you don't know the mechanism, or even how to find out or test it, you don't have an explanation in any real sense.

See above. There is no hypothesis for the origin of matter that you or anyone will ever accept as plausible because nothing makes sense except God. God makes perfect sense, and is as real an explanation to anyone who isn't deliberately shutting their ears to reason.

Why must you have answers to everything? Why must everything be explained, categorized, analyzed and interpreted?

If you're asserting something about reality, if you're coming here into our discussion forum to talk about these issues, then you'd better have some details. To be clear, you are claiming to have answers, I'm just asking that you explain them; it's not my problem that you have such a poor grasp on the things you believe.

But the reverse of your questions is also pertinent: why are you so content with ignorance? Why is knowledge and the pursuit of it something you're trying to denigrate and paint as an absurd desire?

Answering this in conjunction with the below question/statement.

Why do you want so badly for there not to be a God? That is the most important question.

We haven't discussed what I want at all, and in fact, what I want is irrelevant to what's true. I don't desire that you be wrong, I just point out that, factually and logically, you are wrong. I don't have to want the reverse, or even believe the reverse, to point that out.

But thank you for assuming my motives without asking me, that level of rudeness and presumptuousness tells me a lot about your position. You presume a personal motive from someone you've never met before you'd even entertain the possibility that he might see a weakness in your factual case, or perhaps it's comforting for you to think that my position is based on something as base as desire, rather than on evidence. I don't care which, the point is this: you're not going to denigrate my position with assumptions like that, without me correcting you on that.

Your most important question is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and why I'm taking part in it. Try again.

Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

A) Insincere in their unbelief
B) In denial
C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite
or D) Demon-possessed

To elaborate...
A) Many atheists, I believe, are simply afraid of what they don't know or understand. Everyone is afraid of death, and the vast majority of religious folks seem fake or worship a monstrous God. Atheism is a warm blanket, a kind of shelter from fear.
B) All people love their sins, and all people find it preferable to excuse their sins rather than face up to them. Thus, pretending there is no God becomes a viable alternative, even if the arguments against His existence are fallacious/non-sensical.
C) When confronted with the kind of logic I've presented in this thread, some will cling to false notions because of pride, preferring to save face instead of admitting they were wrong. It is usually the last thing to fall, pride.
D) I won't bother explaining this one, since I am sure to be ridiculed for it regardless.