Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Esquilax]

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?

I'm saying this: "X category exists, but I'm the only one allowed to use it," has two claims that require justification. The first, the existence of the category at all, is an issue, but the more pressing claim is the one where you assert that god is the only thing in that category/is that category, whatever. How did you determine that this is the case? That's a really important point: your entire argument hinges on this idea that we aren't allowed to use this category, but you're doing nothing to establish that, you're essentially trying to take ownership of the category just by saying "mine!"

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.

The problem is that "it's possible" isn't a compelling case for something having actually happened. Moreover, how did you determine any of this was possible? How do we know gods are possible? Or the creation of time? You're just hanging your position on a collection of hypotheticals.

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.

If it's not demonstrable, it is at best indistinguishable from fantasy. You certainly have no logical or rational reason for believing it.

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.

So why did you attempt to characterize your beliefs as logical and self evident, if in the very next post you admit that it's not demonstrable? Demonstrability is step one of the "evident" part of being self evident.

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 if there isn't an explanation, then there isn't an explanation. That's not place where leaping to god solves anything, which is what you're attempting to do every time you say science doesn't have an explanation, but god does.

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?

Because when scientists say that, they're doing so based upon evidence and testing. When you say it, it's to cut out an obvious problem with the argument you've decided is right without evidence, by fiat assertion alone. You have no basis for your argument.

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.

Sure, sure.

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

God doesn't need to come from anything. Therefore it follows that nothing was where god came from. That's just the flipside of your own beliefs. However you want to dress it up, that is the implication of what you're saying, you've just decided you want to phrase it in a way that makes that acceptable.

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."

No, what's implied is that we don't have enough evidence yet. Intellectual honesty goes both ways; you don't accept claims on bad evidence, but you also don't deny claims based on a lack of knowledge, as that would be an argument from ignorance. Always be prepared for the idea that future evidence may change your perspective.

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

Your certainty is not an argument. You're making the same mistake that presuppositionalists do all the time, in thinking that if they just say that they're absolutely certain, that means that the thing they're certain about is a fact.

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'm not American, and I don't fetishize that document the way some people do. You're not just gonna be able to blow that particular dog whistle and get me to heel. Do better than an argument from authority, please.

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.

Yeah, but what you're describing is the regular kind of evidence.

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 men can't fly, there's water above the dome of the sky, the Earth is flat, and the sun moves around it.

All of these things are "self evident" from the limited perspective of people in the past, but new evidence later proved them all to be dead wrong. Perhaps you see my point regarding just whining that something is self evident, now?

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.

That's very convenient for you, that your claim actively resists testing. But you can use that excuse to justify a lack of results for anything, it's not exactly an effective claim.

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.

Doesn't matter how strongly you state it, the fallacy is still there. "You don't have an answer, but I do!" is an argument from ignorance.

Everyone is clueless except theists, which should tell you something.

Yeah, it tells me that theists are so uncomfortable with the fact that they don't know, same as the rest of us, that they pretend to have a clue rather than being honest. You want to say there's something more to it than that, then you need to prove it.

Moreover, I could switch that question back at you: Do you always disbelieve things until they've been proven true?

I don't believe things until they're proven true, which is different from disbelieving. You don't actively reject things either, you just don't automatically accept them as true. It's a subtle, but important distinction.

Hell, how about gravity? It's still just a theory, isn't it?

You don't know very much about the lexicon of science, do you? Try doing a search for "scientific theory," if you please.

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.

If a thing does things in the real world, the effects of that can be tested. You can observe and document those effects, that's just a knock on consequence of the fact that people have eyes.

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.

The comparison is valid, in that the Greek gods were gods, but were not omnipotent. My point was that saying something is a god doesn't necessarily entail that omniscience is a trait they possess.

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

You don't bother countering any argument. You effectively just say "nuh uh!" in more words. What I was pointing out is that you're making a whole heap of unjustified assumptions and then expecting everyone else to partake in the same assumptions just because you hold them.

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?

Heh, this'll be fun: according to your own logic here, that god would be unable to be unable to do things. Omnipotence is a self refuting claim.

But my point is that "creates universes" is a single ability, and not necessarily one that even requires a terribly large amount of power; you're assuming it requires a lot of power because you don't know how to do it, but ignorance doesn't make a thing insurmountable, just unknown. Universe creation could be trivial, we might be able to do it right now, and we just don't know how. You can't say anything about how much power it takes to create universes when you also say that you don't know how to do it.

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

No, I don't need to prove you wrong, that's shifting the burden of proof.

Perhaps no less evidenced, as I certainly can't explain exactly how He created the universe, but far more ridiculous.

How? How are they any more ridiculous than the claim that a space wizard made the universe from nothing? If anything, the last example is more consistent with what we know to be true about reality than your claim is. You're really finding it hard to disengage from your presuppositions and examine your beliefs from the outside, here.

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.

I'm saying that "omnipotence" and "can create universes" are separate concepts. Do you disagree with that?

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.

Science makes no assumptions, it makes hypotheses based on current observations. Theists make assumptions, as they have no observations.

Moreover, "science does it too!" is not an argument in favor of you being able to do it. I have to remind christians of this more than I have to remind my little niece and nephew, but two wrongs don't make a right.

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.

The consensus is that the sort of "something can't come from nothing" claims based on the current physics models aren't applicable prior to the big bang, and yet you're still making them. Let's not pretend you're even acknowledging consensus where it disagrees with you.

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!"

What solid argument would that be? "Something can't come from nothing, end of story"? Because that's precisely the sort of assertions I'm talking about here. It's also all you've been doing.

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 know it can't? So you know absolutely everything in the universe, and you know what things were like before the big bang? How do you know that?

See, that's the thing: your certainty isn't an indicator. How do you know? Don't just say you know, don't tell me nobody can say that it's possible, give positive evidence for how you know what you've just claimed to know.

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.

I'm hell-bent on arguing against bullshit, regardless of how often the bullshitter demands that what he's saying is just common sense. You can't simply talk your claims into being obviously factual.

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


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.

Well, you could always stop avoiding the question by laying down a web of baseless assertions and actually provide some justification, that'd be nice.

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.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. Knowledge is demonstrated, not merely asserted. All you're doing is trying to tart up your belief that god exists into something with more authority. Not gonna fall for it.

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.

If you know it, then prove it. If you can't prove it, don't just whine that you know it.

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?

"If."

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.

Like I've said, knowledge is demonstrated. Why would I assume you know something just because you say you do? If I said I know your god doesn't exist, would you just accept that as fact? And if not, why on Earth do you expect other people to?

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.

The problem is, you're being asked for more, and instead of giving more, your response was just "you just don't want to know!" which is directly at odds with the things I'm asking you.