What/Who created God?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I believe I understand your point very well, you are not the same today as you were yesterday some type of change has come about no matter how small and I said it would yesterday. Does this mean I'm able to see the future absolutely not, this came from scientific knowledge. What I stated yesterday is true today and will be tommorow and from now till the end of your days on this planet so yes it is absolute.

The fact that you can state something that will very likely be true for an extended period of time does not invalidate that there are no absolute truths.

Think of this another way - if at any instant I am exactly the same I was at any other instant - the 'absolute truth' you mentioned will be instantly invalidated.
As such, you can never have absolute certainty.

[theVOID]

To me, rational doesn't have to include the independently verifiable, which I'm guessing is your condition here.

It doesn't depend on being independently verifiable, there is also the option of logical necessity. Shame that you have neither.

Sure if your model was consistent I'd consider it as an alternative. I do consider atheism a viable alternative. I hold my current world view despite it being based on non verifiable evidence. I don't eliminate it because of that. To me it's the more rational choice. (No insult intended in my use of the word rational)

What is this non-verifiable evidence you speak of?

Also, would you like to expand on that idea that 'holding a worldview despite the lack of evidence indicating and logical necessity requiring it is more rational than withholding judgement'? I can assure you it is not.

I have rationalised it using the method above. "We can't know the mind of God", or : I credit God with having the knowledge to decide fairly given all possibilities. We may find it unfair, but then we can't know what God knows, so our conclusions aren't fully informed.

So you have nothing beyond the stock standard absolving of one's own moral compass... How very typical of you.

Scientists said that continental drift enabled life on earth and so justify the associated loss of life. I agree with that reasoning too.

So God couldn't create life without first moving the plates about?

Also, i completely fail to see how you can equate the act of your god neglecting to aid the suffering of innocence with "natural mechanism". Beyond your hollow assertions of God caring and all that jazz, how exactly does your god differ from an algorithm?

Haha!

Jesus was born without a father. We discount that as vastly improbable and more probable to have been his mother lying or fertilisation occurring naturally somehow. Heck we can call it a myth the evidence is so thin.

I appreciate the most annoying thing to you here is the separation from fact. I must concede your point there.

Wow... that would be a first.

[fr0d0]

The topic is about god: specifically, according to the OP's first post in this thread, about the following statement that Tavarish made:

I'd like to hear the best explanation of why an infinite regress is not possible, and preferably one that does not negate the qualities or necessity of the God in question at the same time.

I was talking about the discussion in progress TDoA, which you entered into briefly I think, and then changed tack, without explaining your first point that was relevant to the discussion, to the different topic of God's existence, which I personally have zero investment in, and wouldn't bother discussing with you.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I was talking about the discussion in progress TDoA, which you entered into briefly I think, and then changed tack, without explaining your first point that was relevant to the discussion, to the different topic of God's existence, which I personally have zero investment in, and wouldn't bother discussing with you.

I'm more than willing to accept that the topic I started with you is off-kilter from the topic you had with Tavarish. I've only skimmed through parts of this thread and chimed in when I had something relevant to say.
Still, I don't see how I'm off-topic from the conversation you were having earlier or from the main topic of this thread from any instant I look at earlier pages in this thread.
Given that, I have no reason to believe that my imput is irrelevant to any of the topics being discussed.

[fr0d0]

To me, rational doesn't have to include the independently verifiable, which I'm guessing is your condition here.

It doesn't depend on being independently verifiable, there is also the option of logical necessity. Shame that you have neither.

Now now

Sure if your model was consistent I'd consider it as an alternative. I do consider atheism a viable alternative. I hold my current world view despite it being based on non verifiable evidence. I don't eliminate it because of that. To me it's the more rational choice. (No insult intended in my use of the word rational)

What is this non-verifiable evidence you speak of?

The bible primarily.

Also, would you like to expand on that idea that 'holding a worldview despite the lack of evidence indicating and logical necessity requiring it is more rational than withholding judgement'? I can assure you it is not.

Misquote (you omitted non verifiable). I do rationalise my world view logically.

I have rationalised it using the method above. "We can't know the mind of God", or : I credit God with having the knowledge to decide fairly given all possibilities. We may find it unfair, but then we can't know what God knows, so our conclusions aren't fully informed.

So you have nothing beyond the stock standard absolving of one's own moral compass... How very typical of you.

You don't see the logic there?

God, being all knowing, can be totally just, where we cannot be just : based on complete knowledge. Therefore we have no right to judge without all the information. Rationalising the God concept, I conclude that God is a positive force, and as such has to be just.

Scientists said that continental drift enabled life on earth and so justify the associated loss of life. I agree with that reasoning too.

So God couldn't create life without first moving the plates about?

I was talking about the conclusion of a group of scientists & not God

Also, i completely fail to see how you can equate the act of your god neglecting to aid the suffering of innocence with "natural mechanism". Beyond your hollow assertions of God caring and all that jazz, how exactly does your god differ from an algorithm?

Are we still talking of the scientists conclusion? Yeah to me, I see natural forces as paramount and human suffering unsubstantial in the grand scheme of things. We are a speck in the universe that will be gone in a nanosecond in relation to our universes time scale.

I don't think it's a hollow assertion, I think it is part of a cohesive model. That model does not prescribe for humanity to have a charmed existence without suffering.

---

I'm more than willing to accept that the topic I started with you is off-kilter from the topic you had with Tavarish. I've only skimmed through parts of this thread and chimed in when I had something relevant to say.
Still, I don't see how I'm off-topic from the conversation you were having earlier or from the main topic of this thread from any instant I look at earlier pages in this thread.
Given that, I have no reason to believe that my imput is irrelevant to any of the topics being discussed.

I'm having a conversation with VOID. tavarish chimed in with a point which you backed up. That conversation is my only interest in this topic. You're trying to engage me in a subject I have no interest in. You are of course at liberty and very welcome to add to the thread/ topic all you wish, and address me. For the reasons stated, I respectfully decline a discussion on the topic of existence with you, for the reasons stated above, unless you wish to discuss the validity of using scientific method with a philosophical idea. I'm sure you don't, and it's sort of the discussion we're having already in another thread. No hard feelings

[Godscreated]

I believe I understand your point very well, you are not the same today as you were yesterday some type of change has come about no matter how small and I said it would yesterday. Does this mean I'm able to see the future absolutely not, this came from scientific knowledge. What I stated yesterday is true today and will be tommorow and from now till the end of your days on this planet so yes it is absolute.

The fact that you can state something that will very likely be true for an extended period of time does not invalidate that there are no absolute truths.

Think of this another way - if at any instant I am exactly the same I was at any other instant - the 'absolute truth' you mentioned will be instantly invalidated.
As such, you can never have absolute certainty.

You and I will die some day and that is absolutely certain and this is why, no one to this point in time has not died and there is no evidence that this will ever change, the human body has no way of replicating new cells for all the parts of the body that is needed to continue on indefinitely this is a scientific fact.

[tackattack]

@Void and Fr0d0- What about metaphysical necessity?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You and I will die some day and that is absolutely certain and this is why, no one to this point in time has not died and there is no evidence that this will ever change, the human body has no way of replicating new cells for all the parts of the body that is needed to continue on indefinitely this is a scientific fact.

Which makes the possibility extremely likely that I will die, but never an absolute certainty.

[DiRNiS]

No one to this point in time has not died and there is no evidence that this will ever change

Well, as far as I know I haven't died.

[Rhizomorph13]

---

I believe I understand your point very well, you are not the same today as you were yesterday some type of change has come about no matter how small and I said it would yesterday. Does this mean I'm able to see the future absolutely not, this came from scientific knowledge. What I stated yesterday is true today and will be tommorow and from now till the end of your days on this planet so yes it is absolute.

The fact that you can state something that will very likely be true for an extended period of time does not invalidate that there are no absolute truths.

Think of this another way - if at any instant I am exactly the same I was at any other instant - the 'absolute truth' you mentioned will be instantly invalidated.
As such, you can never have absolute certainty.

You and I will die some day and that is absolutely certain and this is why, no one to this point in time has not died and there is no evidence that this will ever change, the human body has no way of replicating new cells for all the parts of the body that is needed to continue on indefinitely this is a scientific fact.

---

Hey Elijah didn't die, he was taken up to heaven by God! 2 Kings 2!