Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Silver]

And why does God, if He exists outside the laws of physics, have to come from anything? Why do you apply the standards of the creation to the Creator?

Because, as you stated, something cannot come from nothing. To state that god is exempt is special pleading.

Why does everything have to operate under rules?

Because that is how the natural world works.

[rexbeccarox]

(bold mine)

Sorry, but by definition, they can't be one and the same. Care to explain what you could have possibly meant by that?

I think we are getting caught up here either in semantics or miscommunication. All I mean is that to me, outside of the Christian God, there is only superstition and falsehood. To suggest that there is any other God than the Christian God is, to me what is preposterous.

I use proper definitions of things. If that means "getting caught up in semantics", I'm guilty.

Now, care to explain why "God" gets special pleading, when you can't demonstrate his existence to anyone who doesn't presuppose him?

[Esquilax]

He didn't sacrifice Himself to Himself.

He absolutely did too, that's what the logic was behind Jesus dying at all. The Old Testament version of god used to take animal sacrifices to appease him, and the logic behind dying for our sins was that Jesus was such a sublime sacrifice that he appeases god for all of us at once. The only way you could say god didn't sacrifice himself to himself is if you haven't looked at the broader context surrounding why the resurrection is the way it is.

He did it for us - it was an expression of His love. And He was flesh and blood, so of course He could die...

And his death was the... sacrifice, by which all our sins could be forgiven by our putative judge, who is the christian god... and also Jesus. So in one breath you say Jesus didn't sacrifice himself to himself, and then in the next breath you say Jesus was a sacrifice to himself.

by your logic, neither can human beings die, because we are eternal beings as well.

If a process by which you are sacrificed is reversed and then you are gifted additional things, making you better off... did you really make a sacrifice at all?

And why does God, if He exists outside the laws of physics, have to come from anything? Why do you apply the standards of the creation to the Creator? Why does everything have to operate under rules?

So you don't necessarily believe that things can't come from nothing, or that everything requires some form of source, you just want to apply these problems to everyone else while demanding that there's a special category for you and your god. 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.

Special pleading, essentially.

[MilesAbbott81]

And why does God, if He exists outside the laws of physics, have to come from anything? Why do you apply the standards of the creation to the Creator?

Because, as you stated, something cannot come from nothing. To state that god is exempt is special pleading.

But why wouldn't God be exempt? You can label the argument however you like, but you are again applying rules and limitations to the One Who is beyond all rules and limitations. He must necessarily be beyond such as omnipotent God, no?

Why does everything have to operate under rules?

Because that is how the natural world works.

Again, there is no reason to apply the laws of the natural world to that which is unnatural.

There is simply no way to explain something coming from nothing. We are no closer to understanding how matter came into existence than we were thousands of years ago. It always comes back to the same necessary step of providing an original source, and nothing else even comes close to explaining it as satisfactorily as God.

[Esquilax]

But why wouldn't God be exempt? You can label the argument however you like, but you are again applying rules and limitations to the One Who is beyond all rules and limitations. He must necessarily be beyond such as omnipotent God, no?

If that's what you believe then that's fine, but if that's the case then your argument is entirely backwards too, because now you're accepting the existence of a category of things that exist without coming from anything, in reality, and then further asserting that such a category doesn't contain the universe, without evidence or justification. It is you who is applying extra rules without reason here: you can either say something can't come from nothing but you'd need to stick with that, or you can say that god is exempt from that rule, and then you'd have to prove that point and give us a reason to think that things like universes aren't allowed to also not come from anything.

What you can't do is demand that we all have to follow this rule that you won't, because you said so. Either it's a thing in play or it isn't, but if it isn't a thing, it's not a thing for any of us, not just for you. You don't get to define special rules for yourself.

Again, there is no reason to apply the laws of the natural world to that which is unnatural.

... Or something that existed prior to the natural world, like the pre-big bang state of reality.

There is simply no way to explain something coming from nothing.

But you think that things don't always need to come from something. Aside from the fiat assertion that only god is allowed to be in that category, how do you justify assuming that the same category isn't available to us?

We are no closer to understanding how matter came into existence than we were thousands of years ago. It always comes back to the same necessary step of providing an original source, and nothing else even comes close to explaining it as satisfactorily as God.

How is god an explanation for that?

[MilesAbbott81]

I use proper definitions of things. If that means "getting caught up in semantics", I'm guilty.

Now, care to explain why "God" gets special pleading, when you can't demonstrate his existence to anyone who doesn't presuppose him?

Care to explain why God shouldn't get your "special pleading?" If there were ever an instance for a case of special pleading, should it not be in this particular case?

I don't presuppose God - I came to the conclusion of His existence long ago through logic, years before I knew Him or followed His ways. Why is presupposition necessary? Look at the world and deduce, rationalize. Science explains some things, but none of it disproves God in the slightest. In fact, science and mathematics do nothing but point to intelligent design of some sort.

Go ahead and cite evolution. Not that I believe in it, but who is to say that isn't how God created us? Why can't He use evolution if He chooses? Why can't He use the Big Bang to create the universe? He certainly could. Again, nothing to disprove God.

[Esquilax]

Care to explain why God shouldn't get your "special pleading?" If there were ever an instance for a case of special pleading, should it not be in this particular case?

Sorry, but "prove me wrong!" isn't an argument we have to take seriously.

[Silver]

But why wouldn't God be exempt?

Because that is special pleading.

You can label the argument however you like

You can be an ignorant twit all you like, but do not expect me to continue to put up with your bull. I have my limits when it comes to stupid theists who repeat the same bullshit lines over and over without applying any critical thinking skills to the ill logic of what they post.

He must necessarily be beyond such as omnipotent God, no?

Nope.

Again, there is no reason to apply the laws of the natural world to that which is unnatural.

Of course there is, especially considering there is zero evidence for the existence of anything unnatural. If you are going to make a positive claim for the existence of something, you must provide the verifiable evidence. Otherwise, all you have is faith, the lack of evidence, which might as well mean that in which you believe exists merely as a concept in your deluded mind.

There is simply no way to explain something coming from nothing. We are no closer to understanding how matter came into existence than we were thousands of years ago. It always comes back to the same necessary step of providing an original source

If something cannot be explained, simply be honest and state that you do not know the answer. To make the god claim is very intellectually dishonest when you have zero evidence to support it. Jumping to irrational conclusions for the readily simple answer right then and there, god, is not a proper course of seeking an answer.

and nothing else even comes close to explaining it as satisfactorily as God.

First, provide verifiable evidence that god exists. If you cannot, then you are making a baseless claim on nothing except fallible faith.

[MilesAbbott81]

But why wouldn't God be exempt? You can label the argument however you like, but you are again applying rules and limitations to the One Who is beyond all rules and limitations. He must necessarily be beyond such as omnipotent God, no?

If that's what you believe then that's fine, but if that's the case then your argument is entirely backwards too, because now you're accepting the existence of a category of things that exist without coming from anything, in reality, and then further asserting that such a category doesn't contain the universe, without evidence or justification. It is you who is applying extra rules without reason here: you can either say something can't come from nothing but you'd need to stick with that, or you can say that god is exempt from that rule, and then you'd have to prove that point and give us a reason to think that things like universes aren't allowed to also not come from anything.

What you can't do is demand that we all have to follow this rule that you won't, because you said so. Either it's a thing in play or it isn't, but if it isn't a thing, it's not a thing for any of us, not just for you. You don't get to define special rules for yourself.

Again, God is above all rules and limitations. This isn't another category, because that word implies multiple entries. God is the entire category. Everything must have a source, we must eventually be led to a source that is beyond the limitations of physics. The logic is the evidence.

But you think that things don't always need to come from something. Aside from the fiat assertion that only god is allowed to be in that category, how do you justify assuming that the same category isn't available to us?

The category isn't available to you because you refuse this "special pleading" thing of which you speak. You claim it's a non-argument, I say it is perfectly reasonable. If you want to go ahead and say that there were two gods from which all existence sprang, well that would be another discussion I suppose, but at least you would be conceding that there must be a supernatural explanation to explain existence, as there must be, based on the laws of physics.

Physics says the universe is impossible, therefore physics says existence is impossible. And who can accomplish the impossible but God?

We are no closer to understanding how matter came into existence than we were thousands of years ago. It always comes back to the same necessary step of providing an original source, and nothing else even comes close to explaining it as satisfactorily as God.

How is god an explanation for that?

I believe I've answered this several times now. Read above.

[dyresand]

Oh, come on! God sacrificing himself to himself isn't a sacrifice because nothing is ever lost. It's god on the cross and god by definition cannot die.

He didn't sacrifice Himself to Himself. He did it for us - it was an expression of His love. And He was flesh and blood, so of course He could die...by your logic, neither can human beings die, because we are eternal beings as well.

---

And what the fuck does this mean? Where the fuck does your almighty god come from?

What do you think it means? It means what it says.

And why does God, if He exists outside the laws of physics, have to come from anything? Why do you apply the standards of the creation to the Creator? Why does everything have to operate under rules?

Yes he did jesus is god god is jesus holy spirit is god god is holy spirit holy spirit is jesus. Jesus is god in human form and he died for himself in god form so yeah his sacrifice is nulled at best.