The absolute absurdity of God

[The Grand Nudger]

So much for jesus and his no way but me bit.

[Simon Moon]

A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?

It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.

Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Fine so far.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence

Yes it does.

that explanation is God.

Whoa there sparky!

This sounds an awful lot like an unsupported premise/assertion.

Please show your work. How did you eliminate every other explanation? How do you even know about every other possible explanation?

3. The universe exists.

Yes, it does.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

I am sure it does.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

How does an unsupported assertion (from 2) lead to true conclusion?

Your argument is unsound.

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters).

Again we seem to differ on our definitions.

My definition of a "perfectly logical" argument is one that does not contain fallacies or unsupported premises.

Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

The argument is unconvincing because it has unsupported assertions.

All that other stuff you tacked on there to describe your "first cause" is not supported. How do you know the first cause could not have been just powerful enough to create the universe? Why does it have to be personal? Why could it not have changed after it created the universe?

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Yeah.

Why don't you try to post an inductive argument that meets your own criteria? Because this one certainly doesn't.

[SteveII]

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Space-time itself kinda checks all of those attributes...
Maybe a few of those have been added due to some anthropomorphism and maybe some are just plain wrong.... then, space-time can check all the required attributes.

Space-time is uncaused.... or rather can be uncaused, for all we know. We only have access to the space-time within our Universe... there might be much more of it outside.
Space-time can be beginningless. Even within our Universe, there is no preferred spatial coordinate. There seems to be a preferred temporal one, but maybe the space-time out of our Universe is beginningless.
Space-time is not changeless. It changes a bit in the presence of mass - that's general relativity for you.
Space-time is timeless. Things in space-time move with time and have a temporal coordinate. The space-time itself is not subject to its own coordinate system.
Space-time is immaterial.... for the most part. It does tend to generate particles, though...
Space-time is enormously powerful. It might be infinite and, in a few locations, it generates both negative and positive energy particles and these should be allowed to be as great or as small as they can be, given that the negative offsets the positive, so that, overall, everything remains neutral.
Space-time is not personal. I'd classify it as very impersonal. It just happens to have the capacity to generate persons, after a very long time of evolution of those particles that it generates.

An infinite space-time that very sparsely produces Universes where stars can form, planets, life... intelligent life...
Everything after the initial spark of particles in our Universe can be accounted for by physics. Anything prior needs some guesswork. But the known direction has been from a disordered state to a more ordered one, at the expense of greater disorder somewhere else - that's the second law of thermodynamics for you.
Inductively, this is as valid as your own argument... perhaps even more valid, as it presents itself as an extension to the known Universe, while your version presents an altogether separate thing.

That is all a nice theory (even though not the current preferred theory). What is the explanation of 'spacetime'? A brute fact? What metaphysics are you using to justify dismissing all causal principles for something that does not exist necessarily?  Why does the universe seem to have a beginning and is heading toward heat death? An past infinite series of events is logically impossible. My 'God conclusion' looks conservative compared to all the metaphysical extravagance your theory has. 

The point is that I have reasons to believe in God that are rational and can be defended and are a better explanation that what you can come up with. I am not saying you are wrong, just that my version is superior because it does not require leaps in logic and a whole bunch of "it could that...and for all we know". Any charge that my beliefs are irrational (notice I did not say wrong), is simply not the case.

[LadyForCamus]

Noted, but that doesn’t answer my question.  Why did god decide to create people?

I said this earlier: to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Need some Bible Reference? Check our Got Answers. I was going to pull a couple of sentences out, but it really is good to read the 5 short paragraphs in their entirety. It brings out several aspects.

So, god created beings; beings capable of experiencing immense physical, mental, and emotional anguish; beings who he can, and will, and knows ahead of time he must cast into an eternity of anguish; so that his ego can revel in these beings worshipping and glorifying him?  Because, it’s not fun to be almighty god unless you’ve got some pet audience to tell you how great you are every day? God made people for himself; for his own selfish desire to be praised; knowing the pain his decision to create would cause untold numbers of souls? That’s beyond unjust. It’s sick.

[SteveII]

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Fine so far.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence

Yes  it does.

that explanation is God.

Whoa there sparky!

This sounds an awful lot like an unsupported premise/assertion.

Please show your work. How did you eliminate every other explanation? How do you even know about every other possible explanation?

I know you know how a syllogism works. I also know you know there are tens of thousands of pages written about each one of these premises. So we can dispense with your "sounds like an unsupported premise/assertion" nonsense.

What explanation of the universe does not just kick the can back up the road of explanations? Since you already admitted that the universe has an explanation of it's existence, at some point you have to discuss the characteristics of a first cause.  A first cause must be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. What do you propose is a first cause that is not God? So how about it, what possible other explanation could there be? 

3. The universe exists.

Yes, it does.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

I am sure it does.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

How does an unsupported assertion (from 2) lead to true conclusion?

Your argument is unsound.

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters).

Again we seem to differ on our definitions.

My definition of a "perfectly logical" argument is one that does not contain fallacies or unsupported premises.

Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

The argument is unconvincing because it has unsupported assertions.

All that other stuff you tacked on there to describe your "first cause" is not supported. How do you know the first cause could not have been just powerful enough to create the universe? Why does it have to be personal? Why could it not have changed after it created the universe?

You cannot have a first cause without all of those features. Power? I didn't say omnipotent, so all that is needed is enough power to bring matter into existence. If you don't want to classify that as "enormously powerful", fine. Does not change one thing. Personal? because a decision to create had to be made otherwise the effect (the universe) would have been just as timelessly existing as its cause and not just 14 billions years ago. 

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Yeah.

Why don't you try to post an inductive argument that meets your own criteria? Because this one certainly doesn't.

Come on. You have to know that the only people that think this argument can be defeated are echo-chamber internet atheists that keep telling themselves that it can be even though no one ever actually does it. The most you can say is that it does not prove God. Fine. I concede that. What it does do is insulate my beliefs from charges of irrational/stupid/bronze age/pick your adjective.

---

I said this earlier: to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism). Need some Bible Reference? Check our Got Answers. I was going to pull a couple of sentences out, but it really is good to read the 5 short paragraphs in their entirety. It brings out several aspects.

So, god created beings; beings capable of experiencing immense physical, mental, and emotional anguish; beings who he can, and will, and knows ahead of time he must cast into an eternity of anguish; so that his ego can revel in these beings worshipping and glorifying him?  Because, it’s not fun to be almighty god unless you’ve got some pet audience to tell you how great you are every day? God made people for himself; for his own selfish desire to be praised; knowing the pain his decision to create would cause untold numbers of souls? That’s beyond unjust. It’s sick.

Whoa. Why do you dwell on only the negatives of existence? What about all the great things of life? What about the billions who will live eternally with God?

God does not need us. I think you are getting hung up on a misunderstanding of what it means to "Glorify God". Glorifying God involves having the fullest possible existence--which includes a relationship with him. Part of this is to understand the differences between an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God and ourselves (which is pretty much the opposite). This rightly results in an awe of God and a desire to worship him as a being worthy of worship. 


We are not "pets". That is entirely too simplistic and shows a total lack of understanding the point which I am trying (imperfectly) to articulate.

God knows exactly how many will reject whatever truth he has made know to them. It says in the Bible that he does not want anyone to perish. It does not logically follow that no one should exist. At its root, this is an emotional response, not an argument.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Steve, if an individual attributes the beginning of the universe to a deity, then is that more of an act of faith than an actual explanation?

[Angrboda]

Has to be on the list. A decision is a thing only a person can make. A first cause must have within itself a mechanism to cause an effect that was not there from eternity past.

Still wrong. We've been over this several times and seem at an impasse. You seem to delight in asserting it even though the fundamental arguments for it are flawed. As best I can recall, you never responded to my pointing out that your first response to the problem didn't actually solve the problem. If you responded and I simply missed it, feel free to bring it to my attention. Oh, and for what it's worth, it doesn't require a person to make a decision. Computers do it all the time. There's no reason to believe that God's creative act and his being are not co-extensive, other than that you need to make the assumption to reach your conclusion. Furthermore, as I've argued elsewhere, a sentient God with all the other relevant properties is indistinguishable from a God that is not sentient whose decisions are driven by his omniscience. So nothing it seems, can get you to a personal God being necessary.

---

Personal? because a decision to create had to be made otherwise the effect (the universe) would have been just as timelessly existing as its cause and not just 14 billions years ago. 

That 14 billion years is all post-creation and so it doesn't even factor into the equation. That you even bring it up makes me strongly suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

[KevinM1]

Until god can be falsifiable, put me in the "I don't give a shit" camp.

[pocaracas]

That is all a nice theory (even though not the current preferred theory).

Could you point me towards the current preferred one, then?

What is the explanation of 'spacetime'? A brute fact?

Much like the explanation of 'god'. The basic necessary framework upon which everything else exists.

What metaphysics are you using to justify dismissing all causal principles for something that does not exist necessarily?

What do you mean?... spacetime necessarily exists.

Besides, I think metaphysics fails upon introspection. What came first, metaphysics or human reasoning? (I lean towards the latter)

Why does the universe seem to have a beginning and is heading toward heat death?

Conservation of Energy, I suppose... before the Universe, there was zero energy; after the Universe there must be zero energy, too.
Tell me, how does a Universe designed and created by a reasoning god also head towards heat death?

 An past infinite series of events is logically impossible. My 'God conclusion' looks conservative compared to all the metaphysical extravagance your theory has. 

Did you fail to read what I wrote?
For our Universe, what you say seems evident enough...however, our Universe is just a blip in the infinite vastness of the infinite spacetime. Sure, this Universe occupies some part of spacetime, but not all... the temporal part can extend to infinity past, even if no event happens within that part.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a distinct possibility, if you think about spacetime as a single thing, a single framework upon which things exist and happen.
When you have a circle drawn on a 2D axis, that axis is infinite, but you only have things in it contained on the location where the circle is. And time in spacetime is equivalent to one of the dimensions on that axis.

The point is that I have reasons to believe in God that are rational and can be defended and are a better explanation that what you can come up with. I am not saying you are wrong, just that my version is superior because it does not require leaps in logic and a whole bunch of "it could that...and for all we know". Any charge that my beliefs are irrational (notice I did not say wrong), is simply not the case.

I don't remember saying that your beliefs are irrational.
I think they're wrong, as they imply the existence of a thing so far removed from reality that they may seem irrational to someone who simple extrapolates from the reality presented - Like I said before, more organized things arising from less organized ones.

[Angrboda]

My 'God conclusion' looks conservative compared to all the metaphysical extravagance your theory has. 

Your conclusion only looks conservative due to your familiarity and comfort with it. Timelessness alone is so counter-intuitive that it could merit an essay on its own.