Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Bad Writer]

Meanwhile - leaving aside the world of fairy tale horseshit for a while, Science is still working.

This is what I keep saying!!

[BettyG]

Esquilax already tore your post down, but I'll just add a few things here and there.

I need to define some things about the nature of God.

And why should a god require you, lowly human, to define these things?
Why should a god require that I accept your view/interpretation of what other humans wrote about that god?
What does god need with a starship?!!?

The whole point I'm getting at is that there had to be some being that did not need to be created. This something we know from logic since the universe did not and cannot create itself.

And this is the part of Krauss's book that you failed to understand.
There is a very real chance that all the constituents of the Universe have always been there... under some other guise, true, but it was always there... at some point, for whatever reason, we got the big bang. Krauss's major point on this is that, adding up all the energy and anti-energy you get a nice fat ZERO. Conservation of energy? check!
A God-like interference would have added some energy into this mix and the whole would be far from zero.
So.... on the whole, the Universe is nothing.
Try to wrap your head around that... it's not easy, even I have some difficulty with it...

There had to be an intelligent being to create it because we observe a complex universe.

Aren't you working backwards?
We see a complex universe... well, not that complex, but a bit more complex than "sleep, eat, fuck & die".
So our limited comprehension leaps to some higher intelligence behind that "complexity"... I wouldn't make such a leap. There may be other explanations. Why don't we try to find them, instead of getting stuck in one that has no evidence to support it?

God is the nth degree of perfection, so since to be a being is a greater perfection than not being a being, God is a being.

Superman is the nth degree of perfection... n=10?... so since to be a being is a greater perfection than not being a being, superman is a being.
Way to go, supes!
Now, the same for Wolverine, Spiderman, The Spawn, Freddy Kruger, darth vader, yoda, etc...

Nothing comes from nothing.

Krauss is still making your head ache, huh?
The Nothing which is empty space is not really nothing. It's full of virtual particles and fields.

God is not a thing, though Jesus did take on flesh about 0 AD give or take a few.

This view of Jesus was made up some time later. Here's what a scholar of the subject says:

Since He is uncreated, He is not limited by time and space. Instead, He created time and space.

No, space-time seems to have always been there.

By definition, God is the uncaused cause of everything. God, by definition, is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Yes... a pretty definition.
But where is this being? How did you get to know this about it?
Let me guess: someone told you, someone wrote about it in a book.

Well, I will only accept such information coming directly from the origin. I dislike the human chain of information transfer regarding this kind of entities. Too many inventions get put in the story along the way...

The Higgs particle and other particles had to be created, so they exist in time and space because there was a time when they did not exist. So you cannot compare the characteristics of God to particles.

How do you know there was a time when time and space did not exist?

My source is St. Thomas Aquinas. Go to his Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2. The existence of God, Article 3 at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm.

To summarize the Second way:
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1 We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2 Nothing exists prior to itself.

3 Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4 If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5 Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6 The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7 Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas is difficult to read, so I was trying to explain his arguments.
When I say "nothing comes from nothing" I am defining nothing is what rocks dream of: nothing, not particles or energy. Absolutely nothing. Zilch, nil, nada, zero. Only a spirit can pre-exist matter.

By the way, you have not demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.
Your arguments sound like "it is impossible for God to exist because God does not exist." That is not logical. You are still comparing apples to oranges, because God is not composed of any matter. It is important to define the nature of God so that we are both discussing the same thing.

Tell me about your idea of the God that doesn't exist. Maybe I don't believe in that either.

[Bad Writer]

You have much to learn still about the Atheist argument, which is sad because there's actually not that much to know.

[Minimalist]

Thomas Aquinas, huh? Head firmly stuck in the 13th century.

Mencken was right again.

The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.

Congratulations on finding the catholic fucking church. You deserve each other.

[Esquilax]

My source is St. Thomas Aquinas. Go to his Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2. The existence of God, Article 3 at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm.

Ah, this is gonna be fun!

1 We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Oh, this is gonna bite you in the ass in a bit.

2 Nothing exists prior to itself.

I can already see the groundswell of special pleading...

3 Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

I see an "except" coming in the future...

4 If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Come on, just say it. Just get to the "except." Don't tease me.

5 Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

We all know it's there. Just say it. Come on. "Except G-"

6 The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Well, how do you know? You and Aquinas are both assuming there can't be an infinite regress, but how do you logically exclude it? This is just an assertion, with nothing backing it. Logic don't play that game.

7 Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

There it is! The "except!" I was right!

Special pleading at its finest: "Nothing exists without a cause, except for this special thing that I want to exist without a cause. Why? Because I said so!"

First of all, you haven't demonstrated that nothing can exist without a cause, and since you've made a knowledge claim, you have to do that. Secondly, you still clearly believe in things that exist sans cause, since you've called it god; your dishonest presupposition is just tainting your and Aquinas' ability to reason that out. Why couldn't the universe itself just have been this uncaused thing? All you're doing is adding an unnecessary layer of obfuscation by calling it god.

Thirdly, even accepting all of your premises, you still come up short: admitting there must be a first cause doesn't even tell us that this first cause was a conscious entity, let alone your special god that you worship. You've just made an argument for a first cause, and then made a handwaving leap to "and it's MAH GAWD!" You don't get to do that.

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed: I asked you some very real questions in my response to your last post, and your reaction was to ignore me completely and restate your original position, problems and all, only this time adding an argument from authority by bringing in Aquinas.

Turns out, you're both still wrong.

When I say "nothing comes from nothing" I am defining nothing is what rocks dream of: nothing, not particles or energy. Absolutely nothing. Zilch, nil, nada, zero. Only a spirit can pre-exist matter.

I'm going to give you a hard time here so maybe you learn not to make bald assertions anymore: how do you know rocks don't dream?

And as a more serious question: spirits? You've demonstrated this?

By the way, you have not demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.

Weaksauce shifting of the burden of proof: we don't need to prove god can't exist, you need to prove that he does. You're the one making an existential claim and, by the way, just what dire straits must your position be in if one of the primary arguments you advance for it is "you can't prove that it isn't true!"

Your arguments sound like "it is impossible for God to exist because God does not exist."

None of us have said that. What we have done, is ask you for proof. Understand, the atheist position isn't generally that god does not exist, but rather that nobody is rationally justified in believing in something without evidence, and that as yet there's no evidence for god. We're asking you to provide it, and then striking down the irrational arguments you use in that process.

But disagreeing with your methods isn't the same as taking an opposite stance to yours. You want to be taken seriously, do better than you currently are.

That is not logical. You are still comparing apples to oranges, because God is not composed of any matter. It is important to define the nature of God so that we are both discussing the same thing.

It is more important to demonstrate the existence of god before defining anything, to make sure you aren't just wasting your time. Can you do that?

Tell me about your idea of the God that doesn't exist. Maybe I don't believe in that either.

It's not our job to do that either. We don't believe in any gods that have no evidence for them. Your mistake is in believing that there must be one god, that that god is yours, and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't have a good enough concept of your god. But from the outside looking in, as we are, all of these gods look exactly the same.

Present real evidence. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.

[Bad Writer]

Present real evidence. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.

This. I do love that you proved how that so-called evidence wasn't real though. I loved how you ramped up to the moment of "except". That was true Atheist art.

[PeterPriesthood]

Christians don't have any true way to discern spiritual truths, so they masturbate with their words. BettyG, I'm looking at you. Your line of reasoning is illogical, ill-planned, ill-prepared, and sloppy, and yet you continue on with it almost without end. You are a piece of work. You need to keep your faith basic, that is, more focused on simple truths. If you can't work from the bottom-up, you will never succeed in anything. Your phrases only serve to confuse, and you are doing yourself and those around you a disservice by spouting off your empty and blathering words.

[Esquilax]

Present real evidence. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.

This. I do love that you proved how that so-called evidence wasn't real though. I loved how you ramped up to the moment of "except". That was true Atheist art.

Wow, thank you.

I can see why bringing in someone like Thomas Aquinas might seem compelling, but in the end the position is right or wrong on its own merits, not who espouses it. If god himself said the sky was hot pink, he'd be wrong; there's no additional category of correctness for smart people to always inhabit.

Anyway, I think that just about fulfills my requirements for a post with substance to it, so I can stop. Hopefully Betty actually responds this time, it'd be nice to have a back and forth.

[Minimalist]

Don't count on it. Catholics love arguments from authority. See, you create a couple of phony "miracles" and then POOF! you have a "saint."

What catholic wouldn't believe a fucking saint?

[Undeceived]

Scientists do their best to explain a universe without a catalyst. They are still looking for a catalyst, it just can't be God. It's their job to find material solutions to natural processes. And it's our job to understand that. Once scientists try to explain something beyond/before the natural world, they need not be trusted--they are by definition outside of their field of expertise.

And anyone who says the any such catalyst must be Supernatural should never be trusted.

Some thing/event/force caused the universe to begin. You believe that much, I hope. Whatever that thing/event/force was, it cannot be natural because it was not part of the universe. It is therefore supernatural.

http://orthosphere.org/2012/03/31/nature...in-itself/

That is where logic carries us, at least. You might assert that some things/events/forces are capable of causing themselves, but then you'd have to prove that (if you wish to adhere to the scientific method).