A problem with how theists think.

[robvalue]

OK, apologies if I've misunderstood. I'll stay out of it.

[RoadRunner79]

OK, apologies if I've misunderstood. I'll stay out of it.

Your input is welcome...I was just a little frustrated is all.  You where arguing against things that I hadn't even said, and that where not involved in the conversation.  I'm finding a large number here, who I don't believe understand these arguments (at least not in their best form) and what the implications and reasoning are. At minimum, I think it is best to correct that, so we are at least talking about the same thing.

[RozKek]

I don't understand what you want me to expand on "if you think about it". It's quite simple. Think about if it is logical that the first thing to exist/be is insanely complex with super intelligence, with the ability to do exactly everything, see everything, even change/break the laws of the universe (omnipotent).

"And I am questioning how logical is it?" because many theists seem to think the existence of everything is illogical without a God and I am asking you theists how logical is it that the first thing to exist/be is insanely complex with super intelligence, with the ability to do exactly everything, see everything, even change/break the laws of the universe (omnipotent).

I don't think I can be more clear than that. I want you to answer how logical it is from your perspective, and good points/arguments to why it would be logical, it seems like you're trying to dodge my question.

For that which is self existing (non-contingent), I don't see that there is any logical necessity that this thing be either simple or complex, as it is not dependent on anything else for it's existence.   That which is the effect of something else, requires a cause, which is sufficient to explain that effect.  If that which is in question, is not the effect of something else, then I don't think we can make any demands as it must be this or that.  It would seem to me, that a first cause, must be sufficient to explain everything that came after and that you are working the other way around.  

Before I understood what you meant I had to reread it several times because of my not so good english.

But according to my understanding of what you're saying (correct me if I am wrong) doesn't "If that which is in question, is not the effect of something else, then I don't think we can make any demands as it must be this or that." backfire on the theists saying that it is illogical for the universe to exist without a God (or backfire on the "How did the universe come into existence? Where did the first cell/matter come from? Where did the Big Bang come from?" implying that a God must have been the cause.)

Fyi, I wasn't really making a statement I was asking a question to the theists saying that the beginning of the universe without a God is illogical.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everything in this world (universe) requires a cause, because it is contingent. 

"God" escapes this observation of yours how, precisely?  What is it you know about god, and how did you come to know it?

The evidence points to the universe having a beginning, and therefore everything in the universe (world) must have also had a beginning (or to have originated from outside of the universe)  That which is non-contingent by definition does not dependent on something else for it's existence. 

I assume you're going to stick with "the evidence"...when you begin to discuss god? I'm afraid that defining something into existence is going to be pointless in this discussion with me. I want to see something that -fits- the definition. Words exist, neither you nor I dispute that, but we're not talking about words....are we?

In any case, it seems difficult to me, to make an argument which states that everything must have a cause/beginning and have this system exclude itself (or am I misunderstanding).  It appears that you are saying, that everything must have a beginning (explanation for it's existence), yet are using this to say there is no beginning?

I'm not saying anything Road, but nice try, lol.  I don't know.  I haven't the foggiest, but that doesn't matter much in context, it's simply an issue of consistency. You seem to think you know something. Let's hear that. Tell me it's more than defining the word "dragon". That can't be all there is to god, can there?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Everything in this world (universe) requires a cause, because it is contingent. 

"God" escapes this observation of yours how, precisely?  What is it you know about god, and how did you come to know it?

The evidence points to the universe having a beginning, and therefore everything in the universe (world) must have also had a beginning (or to have originated from outside of the universe)  That which is non-contingent by definition does not dependent on something else for it's existence. 

I assume you're going to stick with "the evidence"...when you begin to discuss god?  I'm afraid that defining something into existence is going to be pointless in this discussion with me.  I want to see something that -fits- the definition.  Words exist, neither you nor I dispute that, but we're not talking about words....are we?

In any case, it seems difficult to me, to make an argument which states that everything must have a cause/beginning and have this system exclude itself (or am I misunderstanding).  It appears that you are saying, that everything must have a beginning (explanation for it's existence), yet are using this to say there is no beginning?

I'm not saying anything Road, but nice try, lol.  I don't know.  I haven't the foggiest, but that doesn't matter much in context, it's simply an issue of consistency.  You seem to think you know something.  Let's hear that.  Tell me it's more than defining the word "dragon".  That can't be all there is to god, can there?

---

[Red_Wind]

http://9gag.com/gag/axjPpDW

Religion pops up every now and again on the front page of 9gag, comments are funny like always.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're creating two classes of things.  You insist that everything in this universe is contingent. I presume you believe that god is not, but I wonder why, beyond the need to overcome your own objections, you would believe that? Is god not in this universe?

[RoadRunner79]

You're creating two classes of things.  You insist that everything in this universe is contingent.  I presume you believe that god is not, but I wonder why, beyond the need to overcome your own objections, you would believe that?  Is god not in this universe?

As I had said before, I believe that everything in the universe had a beginning, because I believe the scientific evidence and reasoning, indicates that the universe had a beginning.  Therefore everything within the universe, that is dependent on the universe, must also have a beginning, and a need for a cause.  The other alternative would be an origin from outside of the universe.

The cause of the universe, must be outside of the universe.  Once you get outside of the universe, we are limited in what we can say from science and reason.  I think we can induce certain attributes, that the cause of the universe must have, to produce the effect we see.  I also believe the reasoning on infinite regress, so at least eventually, there must be a first cause. I don't know of any arguments from science and reason, which state one way or the other, whether the cause of the universe, is itself contingent or non-contingent.  I also don't know if we can determine from this point of view, whether something is non-contingent, although we can reason that there must be.

Once you start asking specific questions about God, I think it is important to note, that for the most part, you are entering a different territory of knowledge.  It is going to be theological, and based on the history of God's interaction and revelation with man.   This indicates that God is the creator of the universe, outside of the universe, and non-contingent.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I had said before, I believe that everything in the universe had a beginning, because I believe the scientific evidence and reasoning, indicates that the universe had a beginning.  Therefore everything within the universe, that is dependent on the universe, must also have a beginning, and a need for a cause.  The other alternative would be an origin from outside of the universe.

What does scientific evidence and reasoning say about gods-as-cause? What does it say about that "cause" of the big bang in the general? Do you believe that great "I don't know/the question may not be informative" as well? Seems like you don't.

The cause of the universe, must be outside of the universe.  Once you get outside of the universe, we are limited in what we can say from science and reason.

Then why lead in with it up above?  

I think we can induce certain attributes, that the cause of the universe must have, to produce the effect we see.  I also believe the reasoning on infinite regress, so at least eventually, there must be a first cause. I don't know of any arguments from science and reason, which state one way or the other, whether the cause of the universe, is itself contingent or non-contingent.  I also don't know if we can determine from this point of view, whether something is non-contingent, although we can reason that there must be.

What reasoning on infinite regress, exactly, and it was limited just a moment ago, wasn't it?  Why must there be some non-contigent thing, and if there were, are you sure it's your god? I think you may have tied yourself into a knot regarding infinite regress. You misunderstand what it means, and thus feel that there is some problem that you have to work your way around for gods case....but you're wrong here, flat out, and doing so is special pleading that only creates further problems of consistency for you below.

Once you start asking specific questions about God, I think it is important to note, that for the most part, you are entering a different territory of knowledge.  It is going to be theological, and based on the history of God's interaction and revelation with man.   This indicates that God is the creator of the universe, outside of the universe, and non-contingent.

You don't see any issue with consistency in any of this?  You create a rule, then break the rule.  Appeal to standards, then deny the standards are uniform. All this to say nothing more than "revelation". God's interaction and history. For a being that's outside the universe, and thusly free to break the rules you insist upon (but how could you know that's true.....perhaps the same rules do apply), he seems awfully involved, awfully -inside- the universe.

If god is outside of the universe, how did you come to know anything about it? I barely know my neighbors, and they live inside the universe.  Science, reasoning....couldn't be, they're uninformative in this context.  Now we've got a third category, special knowledge.  You clearly don't reach your position through scientific evidence, or reasoning. You reach it through revelation. That's what you know -and- how you know it. What's with all the rest of this stuff?

In any case, if things outside this universe can traipse in, then we're right back to where we were before when asking, "if there are un-caused things, why not the universe?". The point where a consistent person, convinced by scientific evidence and convinced by reason, would have to conclude that the singularity could have done the same.

[robvalue]

Well, it's all arguments without evidence, just like all apologetics. Conclusions relying entirely on massive assumptions which can't possibly be demonstrated to be reliable. I covered it recently in a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inw1fNItjdU