Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[MilesAbbott81]

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!"

The problem here is that you won't allow a simple conjunction of ideas that every single other person I've ever spoken to automatically allows, that being if God exists, He is omnipotent. It's essentially part of the definition, dictionary.com stops just short: "the One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

Logic dictates that neither matter nor the universe would be eternal, because matter isn't sentient. Furthermore, neither of those things has supernatural powers; God does, therefore He isn't subject to the same logic. I feel as though this is also self-evident, and that you are simply doing anything you can to avoid the substance of my argument (that you claim isn't substance).

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.

I've already mentioned it in this thread; God has spoken to me, literally speaking. That is my personal proof. Of course you won't believe me, nor do I expect you to, but the arguments I'm presenting here I was arguing long before that ever happened. It simply confirmed what I already knew from deductive reasoning.

Possible was good enough for people to believe in relativity, wasn't it? You say it was based on established science, well what do you call the law of the conservation of energy? Is that not science, and is my "hypothesis" not based upon it?

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

I will include the above idea here. You're relating my argument to such things as "space wizards" when I am basing my hypothesis on actual science (conservation of energy). It's not only childish and a poorly veiled insult, it's demonstrably wrong, as I've just accomplished.

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.

Because I believe in possibilities that make sense, not things that are obviously impossible. We're not living in the stone age anymore; retarded theories like a flat earth and whatnot no longer have their place.

And how many things have you demonstrated for yourself to make "self-evident" that you currently believe in? I could name hundreds, probably. Your strict interpretation of the language here is illogical; you are obviously using it to suit your argument.

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.

I can also say there is no explanation, currently, for why pigs haven't yet taken to flight. Is it then correct for me to say they're going to, somehow?

If you can't explain the origin of matter, or even come close, then I say your science is unreliable at best, which it has proven itself to be so often in the past. It is quite obvious that science is your god - perhaps you should examine its credibility before placing such faith in it.

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 scientists are, incredibly often, stupidly wrong. You laud scientists, evidence and testing as though it is the final authority on anything at all, when it has proven itself over and over to be wrong, which even a cursory Google search will prove to anyone willing to look.

So perhaps the better question is, who says your way is the right way? Why must my arguments be judged by your standards in order to be correct? Not that I discount science on certain things, but you speak as though it and its processes are perfectly infallible. I would call that fiat.

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 just contradicted yourself in the first two sentences. If I say He didn't need to come from anything, you can't say He came "from" nothing. That isn't my argument and you know it, or you simply haven't been paying attention. I said God has always existed, therefore He never came from anything, nor can the verb "come" be applied in any form.

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.

You claim I must show evidence while claiming you can use future evidence which, by definition, does not exist and so can't be shown, either. Intellectual honesty goes both ways.

Moreover, I am not saying I lack any knowledge. Where did I say such a thing? I know my argument is true because it make perfect sense, and it is based on an existing law of science accepted by the entire scientific community. If you want to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you should get your facts straight.

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.

My certainty is not based on supposition, but on scientific fact, the standard upon which you base all of your arguments. Up until now, I thought we both agreed something cannot come from nothing. Perhaps I am wrong, and there's no way I'm going to search this thread up and down looking for the answer. I will say, though, that if you DO believe something can come from nothing, then you either have access to proof the rest of the world doesn't, or you are literally out of your mind. Using non-existent, possible future evidence isn't reasonable at all.

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.

Very well, that's a valid argument, but I was also being somewhat facetious. Basic human rights are universally self-evident.

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

Fair enough, I'll grant you that.

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?

The people who came up with such silly theories were also, more often than not, scientists. God is the one "theory" that has existed longer than any other theory, and it has yet to even come close to being proven wrong. You can't categorize it similarly, as you have been wont to do with your "space wizards" and "space cats pooping" or whatever.

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.

I'd say it's more convenient for you, actually. It's much easier to sit back and say someone's logic makes no sense without giving any justification as to why it doesn't make sense; you can just sit back and say "prove it" until you're blue in the face. Must be the life!

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.

You call it a fallacy, yet you haven't expressed a single flaw in my logic, you simply say "there's no proof." That's not even an argument, that's a no-brainer!

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.

If you're calling me a liar, point out one thing I've said that is a lie. And I don't "need" to do anything. You demanded proof that is impossible to provide, I provided proof of logic that you refuse to address, and we're back where we started. Hopefully someone reading all of this crap will get something out of it, because I certainly am not, and it is apparent you aren't, either. Why even bother continuing?

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

More poorly veiled condescension, though I seriously doubt you are putting in any effort to conceal it. I am aware of the fault in the argument here, and gravity was not a good example, but surely the point still comes across, no? Perhaps not.

Let me use another theory, then, say evolution. Obviously there is no "law of evolution," because the phenomenon has never been observed or tested or proven. Do you believe in that? Perhaps not. Even if you don't, it's a favorite of atheists, so I should hope you are at least consistent in pointing out to them that they have no right to assert it as fact. Nowhere else to go on this particular point, really.

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.

The comparison is not valid, because the Greek gods are obviously myth, at least from a creationist standpoint, which is the standard you must apply to this particular argument we are having. Just because they share a title doesn't make the comparison accurate (it's not even in the ballpark of reasonable, sorry).

And again, you are still grasping at straws in your insistence that I must include omniscience and omnipotence as traits not inherent to God, when everyone but apparently you agrees that God, if He exists, must be omnipotent to create the universe. And, by the way, it is still a straw man that ignores the crux of my argument.

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.

That's not true, I simply refuse to keep repeating myself. Either attack the logic in the argument or stop arguing, because "prove it" is getting extremely old.

You know what the big problem here is? You can't provide any alternative whatsoever, and you can't even come close to doing so. Therefore, you demand proof for things that can't be proven and label it an argument. It's one gigantic cop-out. You're not even really arguing with me, you're just shaking your fist at the sky and making unreasonable demands. Good luck getting the ruler of the universe to capitulate.

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.

I laughed at the first part, but the rest is just nonsense. Creation of the universe could be a trivial matter? Gimme a break!

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

No it isn't. I'm not asking for any kind of evidence, I'm simply asking for anything resembling a reasonable hypothesis. There are no reasonable hypotheses explaining the origin of matter. If you can't even come up with that, then why should I be required to come up with actual evidence? At least I have a supposition that makes sense! Yet, you equate it with fantasies like "space wizards" and blah blah blah I've said it before.

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.

Again, the basis of my logic - the cornerstone of it, in fact, is the law of the conservation of energy. I am not weaving a fantastical story out of thin air like J.K. Rowling, and to make such a comparison is simply careless. I'm sure must be one of your favorite lines or something, but it doesn't apply here, sorry.

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

No - but I am saying it's unreasonable to assume that "can create universes" would not require omnipotence.

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.

Now we're just talking semantics, which is a total waste of time.

You're right that two wrongs don't make a right, but my point is that it is unreasonable for you to demand that I conform to your scientific standards, yet reject my argument even though I do that satisfactorily, basing my hypothesis on the observable law of the conservation of energy. By your own definition, my assumption IS a hypothesis.

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.

Confusing language here, not sure what you're saying.

Fringe theory by definition means it is not consensus. And to be honest, there really are no theories on the origin of matter. There are some wild speculations that are completely retarded, and if you want to go ahead and offer some of those as an argument, well, at least we'd be making some progress here.

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.

Essentially, yes. Based on the observable law of the conservation of energy, the existence of the universe is an impossibility, therefore one must point to the impossible. I hate myself for saying that one more time, but there it is.

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?

Yes, I know it can't, and so do you and anyone else who accepts the law of the conservation of energy to be fact. Are you saying it isn't, or are you saying it simply hasn't been disproved yet? Either argument=fail.

I never said I knew absolutely everything in the universe, and your making the implication shows how desperate you've become in this argument.

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.

Not going to keep saying it, so I'll abbreviate it: L.o.t.C.o.E.

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.

What you just wrote is bullshit, ya bullshitter. I have to admit you've got a talent for it. Are you a politician by chance?

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.

That's all I've been doing, you simply aren't listening. I've tried putting it in your language now, all scientifficky and whatnot. Maybe now you'll finally hear (shah right).

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.

"Knowledge is demonstrated" sounds nice, but it's just not true. I swear, you've got so many one-liners and punchlines you should make a living creating bumper stickers.

Whether you wish to believe me or not, God has spoken to me on two separate occasions, and so I know He exists, therefore I know I am right and that your arguments are foolish. (I'm not saying you're stupid; you are obviously a smart person, but smart people are fools all the time)

I've already said I don't expect you to believe me; my point in telling you was to prove that I am not being presumptuous or arrogant, because I am operating from a position of actually knowing the truth (this doesn't require belief on your part, just that you believe that I believe I know the truth). If I know that I am right, then I know that you are wrong, and therefore you must be wrong for any of a few different reasons. I only see one, perhaps, that I didn't mention before that might apply to atheists:

E) You are so angry at God for the way your life has turned out, or because He hasn't revealed Himself to you, that you turn your back on Him to spite Him, i.e. you purposefully become His enemy.

Outside of that, from my perspective, there is really no other reason for atheism. I might add stupidity at some point, as it seems a reasonable option, but I've never met a stupid atheist so I'll exclude it for now.

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. But why would I accept you saying God doesn't exist if He has already proven His existence to me personally? I'd be pretty stupid in that case, don't you think?

People can only believe what God wills them to believe. Either you were predestined to never believe in Him in this life, or you were predestined to eventually be convinced in this life, and only He can make it happen. However, He does use people to accomplish His will, so perhaps someone will read what I say and change their mind. I don't expect it, but it's possible, if and only if it is His will.

---

It might surprise you to learn that, at times, atheists view theists in much the same light, that they are either lying, stupid, or crazy — thus the frustrated responses such as those by people such as Sionnach. You may not understand this, but that seems a natural reaction toward people with radically different beliefs. The idea that they just might not understand the other person is quickly removed from the table when misunderstandings ensue; to be quickly replaced with liar, lunatic, or loser. Your suppositions, such as they are, are a projection of your frustration at dealing with people whose ideas make no sense to you; so you force them to make sense by casting them in these molds. I'm not an atheist, but I rather doubt your characterizations here are accurate descriptions of most atheists.

---

No, I wasn't raised in a bubble; my own father is an atheist, and he has been just as insulting to me as Sionnach. I know all the reasons, but please note that I never called anyone stupid, crazy, or a loser.

I would also hope that Sionnach's reaction is decidedly unnatural, or it doesn't paint the atheist community in a favorable light. Unfortunately, I know better; it is both natural and exclusive, at least overall. How many theists have you witnessed frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, spittle flying everywhere in rage?

It's still an argument from ignorance unless you can demonstrate — there's that word again — that there is no alternative explanation other than God (or God and an impossibility). I'm not even talking something from nothing here — we simply don't know what preceded the big bang. Unless you can demonstrate that no other explanation for the existence of the universe but God is possible, you have an argument from ignorance, and your conclusion that "Goddidit" is worthless. It's as if you were taking a math test, and you come across the question "2 + 2 = ?" You're stumped by this, so you look at a neighbor's paper and notice that he's stumped as well and has yet to write in an answer. The test proctor calls time and you quickly scribble "5" figuring any answer is better than no answer. You get your test back the next week and find you got zero points for your answer of "5." You go to the teacher and complain that the other guy didn't even have an answer, so you should get some points for your answer. Your teacher is unimpressed and refuses to change your grade. That's the argument from ignorance. You claim you should get points because the "other guy" didn't have an answer, that's a fallacy and your argument is invalid. (Logical my ass.)

As I've said, perhaps not in these words but in essence: science has already demonstrated that there is no other logical argument, notable not only by the law of the conservation of energy, but as well by the extraordinary lack of theories period explaining the origin of matter/energy. But then, why should science bother to argue against itself? [/i]

It is not enough that the idea of an omnipotent god created the universe is consistent with what you know, and that the other guy doesn't have an answer; you need to demonstrate that this god hypothesis is the right answer. This you have not done, though claiming to have done so multiple times.

See above.