Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[MilesAbbott81]

To be clear, before we continue: the content of the category doesn't matter, nor whether there is one thing or multiple things contained within it. What matters is the existence of the category, your belief that it exists, and what that implies for the rest of your argument. You can stop splitting hairs about what I call it, or whether I characterize it as a category capable of containing one thing or many, as those are profoundly irrelevant points.

To clarify, your original complaint was that I am claiming a category of things that don't have to come from anything, and assuming that God is the only thing allowed in that category. So what are you saying, then? Are you saying that perhaps the universe always existed, that matter always existed?

If that is so, then you must concede it possible that God always existed, and isn't subject to the current laws of physics (conservation of energy). Next two points answered, at least as well as I am capable.

It's really not that hard to understand how God could always have existed if you look at time itself as a created thing. Impossible to grasp in its entirety, but not entirely confusing.

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.

Which is the thing you need to demonstrate, and haven't yet. You've got a long road to hoe before we get to the point where any of us need to take that claim seriously. Right now you're effectively arguing the minutia of fan fiction as though it were real; you're missing step one, of talking about concepts in reality.

But that's my point! It's not demonstrable, and never will be, as I've already said. Perhaps you should look at the rules and stop kicking the dead horse.

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'm not particularly interested in discussing the abilities of a being you've yet to demonstrate exists; I'm not a fan of the franchise, see. What I care about is the premise grounding all these assertions that you don't seem to want to discuss, namely that the set of things that don't need to come from anything contains exactly one thing. How did you determine that?

Again, you are trying to analyze something that is impossible to analyze. Until scientists figure out how to break on through, we're kind of limited in what we can do.

Here's what I'm saying: our current models of physics stop at the point of the big bang. If you actually go out and read the modern scientific discussions of this topic, the commonality is that at the point that universal expansion stops, so too does out ability to predict how physics works. Essentially, modern physicists generally think that beyond that point we'd need an entirely new vocabulary to describe what goes on. Conservation of energy, and any other laws of physics, may not apply, which is something you already believe, so don't scoff.

You speak as if you are revealing some great mystery to me. I am perfectly aware that the "current" models stop at the point of the big bang. That is why the theory is pointless and invalid, because it doesn't explain the origin of matter.

And you're right - they would need an entirely new vocabulary, and the laws of physics wouldn't apply, so why are you so averse to the logic of my argument, which is based on an incredibly similar premise? And what the scientists are actually saying is that God lies beyond the Big Bang, if that is indeed how the universe was set in motion, they are just dressing it up in language that is sympathetic to itching ears such as your own.

Tell me, do you truly think it is possible that something can come from nothing?

Why not? You do.

Please do point me to where I've actually said such a thing.

My position is that I don't know. But that doesn't blind me to bad argumentation when I see it.

You don't know if something can come from nothing? Please attempt to even begin to tell me how it might be possible, then. What gives you any shred of confidence that it even might be possible? Surely that is implied when you say "I don't know."

Well, I do know, because it's as simple as 1+1. Something cannot come from nothing, period, end of story.

Two things: One, "it's just self evident" is a cheat, a demand that everyone take you seriously without having to provide an argument. Not gonna work.

Secondly, for logic to be valid it must be based on observations, and observations can be tested for consistency and accuracy. If you say we can't devise a test, you don't have a valid logical syllogism, and if we can devise a test, then god keeps failing it and you don't have a valid logical syllogism. Pick one.

Well, it was a good enough argument for the founding fathers of the United States (we hold these truths to be self-evident...). Guess they were cheating!

I find gravity to be self-evident; it doesn't need to have a name for me to know it exists, and I certainly didn't need Newton to enlighten me. You drop things, they fall. Similarly, things don't just appear out of thin air. It just doesn't happen, as surely as apples fall to the ground. Self-evident is absolutely not a cheat.

And we can't devise a test because God won't allow it. You really want to figure out if there is a God? Kill yourself. That's the only way to know, you've just gotta have the balls (or lack of brains) to find out that way.

Do you always believe in things until they've been proven false? Or is it just things you want to believe, that get the privilege of seeing you shift the burden of proof?

It's not just that they haven't been proven false, it's that no one has even come close to offering a satisfactory explanation. Everyone is clueless except theists, which should tell you something.

Moreover, I could switch that question back at you: Do you always disbelieve things until they've been proven true? How about OJ Simpson? Do you believe he was innocent? Hell, how about gravity? It's still just a theory, isn't it?

You can't just define your god outside the bounds of testing, while simultaneously defining him into existence. It can be one or the other, but not both; if it exists in any way that affects the real world, it can be tested.

Says who? You? Other atheists? Just because some people live and die by the scientific method doesn't mean it's the holy grail of definition.

Never heard of the Greek gods, then? Or did you just think yours was the only one?

Besides, it doesn't matter how often the two claims are paired together, they are still two claims.

The Greek gods are obviously myth, nor does their "theory of creation" bother to explain the origin of matter in any way, shape or form. The comparison is ridiculous.

Any limits I can imagine. Power is not some tower, where each trait of it is predicated on all the others being present. Creation ex nihilo is a single ability, it doesn't entail, merely by its presence, that the being who can do it can also, as a random example, play a bass guitar. Why would you think it would?

You are just grasping at straws here. No offense, truly, but why should I even bother countering such arguments?

The problem is that you're assuming a lot of things about god to be true, without even attempting to think about how someone who doesn't do that would see the issue. Like I said, Greek gods: step outside of what you already believe, stop taking it for granted, and look at it step by step. A god exists? Well, okay, but I know of god claims that don't entail omniscience, therefore they don't automatically entail that claim, therefore saying "he's god!" doesn't mean I should leap immediately to "he's omniscient!"

You call it a straw man but the truth is I'm making less assumptions about the god you believe in than you do.

Again, this is just silly. If the Creator of the universe actually did what I say He did, then assuming He is anything but omnipotent (which allows for omniscience) is a weak argument at best. What the hell would such a being not be able to do?

Omnipotence is only one thing, yet it is an umbrella for everything, and logically so.

Supposing God is omnipotent, or even that He merely created existence, then He should be the exception to the special pleading rule.

You still have to go from "supposing" to "is."

And you still have to give me a reason not to suppose. We're getting nowhere here.

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

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't violate causality. His powers involve creating universes, but don't include time travel.

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't create complex life from scratch. Never got the hang of nervous systems, so he was forced to arrange for abiogenesis and evolution to happen.

God exists, he created the universe, but he couldn't create it from nothing. He had to lop off an arm and use that as raw materials.

I'm just making these up off the top of my head, here. None of them are less evidenced than your claim, either.

Perhaps no less evidenced, as I certainly can't explain exactly how He created the universe, but far more ridiculous. If He is capable of creating the universe, why would He be incapable of anything at all? You're trying to create arguments where none should exist. Why is it so difficult to assign omnipotence to a God you don't even believe exists? It is perfectly logical to do so, given what He must have necessarily done in order to create the universe, which is itself far beyond current human comprehension.

You're not making an argument, is the problem. You're making a heap of assertions without justification. I can do that too, but both of us shouting "because I said so," isn't much of an argument. Where's your actual evidence? And don't just say "it's logical!" because logic, as I've said, is based on observations, or else it's not necessarily true. "All presidents are dogs, Bush was a president, therefore Bush is a dog," is a logically valid statement. It just isn't true, because one of the premises is wrong.

How many people faulted Einstein for making a "heap of assertions" with his theory of relativity? How many even blame the man today for being wrong? My point is that there is a double standard here. Science makes all kinds of radical assumptions all the time, in heaps, yet people accept them as possible or even probable without a second thought. Yet, when it comes to God, making even simple assertions is condemned as scientifically heretical. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

I've read plenty of insane theories that are obviously fringe and not at all accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

So, if you disagree with it, it's a fringe theory?[/quote]

Is that what I said? No. I said the "vast majority of the scientific community." Find some consensus on your end of the stick and we'll talk.

I may have forgotten them all, but why should I bother recalling nonsense? Something can't from nothing.

Yes it can. Oh, what's that, you're not going to accept that as true just because I said it? Then why are you expecting us to do so?

What a smart-ass remark! You know that is simply not what I have done. I've provided a solid argument over and over, to which you can say nothing but "prove it!"

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.

Argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

It's not that I don't understand how, it's that I know it can't as surely as I know gravity exists or that water is wet. You say it's arrogance, I say it's just common sense. It is actually you who are operating from a position of arrogance, and you who are saying the very thing you quote above about God; you don't understand how He could exist, therefore He couldn't/doesn't. I know you will say that you don't discount the possibility for God, but you sure seem hell-bent against accepting a common sense explanation.

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.

You're asserting that the two options are spontaneous creation from nothing, and creation from something. There is at least one more option, that I described in my post.

I don't have time to play hide and go seek.

[quote='Esquilax' pid='893559' dateline='1425798352']

So why privilege god?

All you are doing is repeating yourself in various ways, trying to get me to answer the same damned question over and over and over. I'm just about done playing your game.

We don't need a competing theory in order to show that yours isn't good. If you claim that space cats pooped out the universe, I don't need an alternative to space cats in order to say that's stupid.

Another straw man. You ignore debating the logic at every turn, constantly pointing everywhere BUT the logic itself, which isn't an argument at all.

So you're being deliberately evasive, or grandstanding. Neither bodes well, and if you want to continue not having a discussion, I'd point you to look at the rules. Specifically, the early ones.

Wow. You essentially shout "prove it" a thousand different ways, I answer, and I'm somehow the one at fault? I've recognized over and over that I am repeating myself, and I am unequivocally done doing so.

That's right, keep shifting the burden of proof. That'll work.

I've provided proof, you simply don't accept it as proof. Not really my problem.

Before we continue, how can you possibly know any of the options below? Can you read minds? Or does it just make you feel more comfortable?

No, I can't read minds, but seeing as how I personally know 100% that there is a God, then I can make certain assumptions about those who do not. Just as I know God created something from nothing and thus know that there is no scientific explanation, I know that those who do not believe in God are suffering from any of the aforementioned factors. Call it arrogance if you wish, but I take no pride in these things.

or D) Demon-possessed

Or maybe you're just crazy.

You already think I'm crazy for believing in God, so what difference does it make? And by the way, if God does exist, then how far-fetched does demonic possession become?

Do you understand at all how profoundly disrespectful you're being, when you see fit to dictate to other people what they think? Where does that get us, in conversation?

I understand how you might interpret it as disrespectful, but how have you and others treated me since I first stuck my nose in this thread? There has been nothing but extraordinary condescension from pretty much everyone, because you people look down on creationists as smugly as aristocrats on servants. Take a look, in particular, at Sionnach. Is that acceptable behavior to you? Why has not a single person rebuked him for his disgusting attitude? You should all be ashamed of yourselves for condoning that kind of conduct (and it isn't just in this thread, it's everywhere). But such is the behavior in an echo chamber; everyone is guilty but the echo.

Ah, so we move on from presumptuousness to outright arrogance, because the only way someone could disagree with you is because of emotional reasons, right? Nothing to do with the complete lack of justification you present, they're just too prideful to admit the obvious truth of your fiat assertions.

Well, space cats pooped out the universe. Oh, what's that? Are you too prideful to accept that self evident logical truth?

It is not presumptuous if I know there is a God, nor is it arrogant to tell you the truth of the matter based on that knowledge. You assume that I don't know and can't know, therefore it is you who are being presumptuous and arrogant. Call me crazy if you like, but I am neither presumptuous nor arrogant.

[quote='Esquilax' pid='893559' dateline='1425798352']

How about you demonstrate it, instead of explaining it?

There, no ridicule, just a request for more. Doesn't it bother you, that what I'm asking for is more information about what you're saying, and instead of providing it, you assign nefarious motivations to me? You are literally being asked for more of the things you're saying, and somehow you're taking this as me attempting to flee from what you're saying?

What's up with that?

I don't think they are "nefarious" motivations necessarily, just common human weaknesses. I don't condemn you or anyone else, but I speak the truth, whether you are willing to recognize it or not.