(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: I never said God doesn't operate under cause and effect when interacting within this universe. When someone can jump to anywhere on the space time "track" and go in either direction doesn't mean that while he's traveling on the track he isn't part of the space time.
So let's get this straight. God is spaceless and timeless, but he can have en effect on space and time.
Can you give any evidence to support this claim? How would you distinguish this being as being necessarily existent?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: An infinite regress outside the universe is possible. Within this universe an infinite regress isn't possible because we know that the universe at some point started, then begs the question what started it (the big bang). That leads to the question, if there was nothing before the universe then what started the big bang, what was the initial cause to start the causal chain. If you see a design to teh universe then that answer is typically God, if not it typically stops at random chaos from the big bang.
The big bang isn't what started the universe, the big bang is the expansion of the universe. Universal origins are still as of yet unknown, for the reasons I've outlined in my previous post. You've apparently not understood anything I've written about how we have no understanding of causality prior to the singularity, as that is a meaningless term. Causality works within the boundaries of time and space.
To say you have a definite idea of what happens outside these parameters, and demonstrate that they are true would win you a nobel prize, so don't keep it to yourself. However, if you don't, and are just stating this out of necessity to keep the concept of God going in your head despite glaring contradictions - which is the more likely case - then I'd ask you to drop the argument.
The design in the universe is a buzz word for personal incredulity.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Laws of someplace outside this universe which we're not privy to. God being created still doesn't affect this universe at all from what I see.
I never stated what the conditions were, as it would be an exercise in futility and speculation. However, the fact that God is a finite being, having at one point NOT existed, negates an omnipotent being. If he was created, he at one point wasn't - and therefore could not have power over anything, nor could he have been the necessary author of the conditions he was created into.
I asked: "If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version?"
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: through religious study the things I attribute to God are best described by Jesus's interpretation or what God is, as described in the Bible
"My religion says so" isn't a good reason. Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth, especially not with a concept as varied as God.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: 3- You asked my contention of the following:
1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.
This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship.
I would say I'm at none of the above. God did send a clear message, he can't be fit in a box (despite our best attempts), yet who I see as my personal concept of God is quite clear.
OK, this gets absolutely nowhere in distinguishing which version of God is correct, or if one even exists at all. If God sent a clear message, there would be a concensus. I'll take, for example, gravity. Newton developed the Laws if Gravity, which are accepted virtually unanimously by scientific individuals and laymen alike. This is something that is rarely contested, and has a mountain of evidence to support it. This is a consensus.
Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make sense.
I'm sure you have a great idea of what God is to you, but that has no bearing of what something is in reality - it also has no bearing on if that something necessarily exists in any objective form.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: The eternalness of God (whether he grew up or just always was) has nothing to do with his power (powerfull enough to created everything in the universe).
Did you have power over anything before you were born?
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: There is a concensus as to what God is.
Really? Please give me an explanation of God that is true and that everyone can agree with. Be specific, preferably without self-refuting attributes.
I guarantee you that at least 2 other theists on this site have different views, not to mention the billions who don't agree with you.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Let's just assume that God did grow up, he'd be "alive long enough" to be the closest thing to eternal that we know, and therefore from our perspective endless.
But he would still have been finite and not an infinite being. He would not always have existed, and he would have necessitated a creator, by your logic, who created him within specific parameters. This is a huge question.
(June 25, 2010 at 4:26 am)tackattack Wrote: You'll have to forgive me I'm tired tonight I'll catch up later.
I know the feeling.
