God Exists

[onlinebiker]

A blorp by definition is an entity that consumes gods.
It exists on a massive scale and contains an infinite number of infinities.

No gods can exist in universes where blorps exist.
If a blorp exists in one possible universe, they exist in all possible universes.

Thus by definition, gods cannot exist.

Sounds legit 

[Abaddon_ire]

OP seems to have ducked for cover.

---

So, we've got drick, johan, and defective, now where is that pesky forth horseman of absurdity?

Oh, oh....I know the answer...

Gee I was sure I had a map of the world right there....

[Pat Mustard]

I think the OP has listened to King Arthur and:

[Mister Agenda]

New guy - BrokenRecord - leads with William Lane Craig.

Surely many will be converted.

What's wrong with William Lane Craig? And why hasn't anyone in this thread been able to cogently defend atheism?

You made claims. Those are what need to be defended. Atheism is merely not believing any God or gods are actually real. Theism is merely believing at least one God or god is actually real. They make no claims except about what we do or don't believe.

---

Then why assume there was anything other than material before the universe ?

Because we're talking about all physicality. A physical reality producing all physical reality is a logical contradiction.

Some form of physical reality having always existed is not, though. If existence (rather than just this iteration of a cosmos) has a beginning, and time began at that same beginning (as seems to be the case for our cosmos), then physical reality always existed, since time has no meaning 'before' the beginning of time unless there's a larger cosmos with its own time that this one sprang from.

---

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations:

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

By nonbeing you seem to mean absolute nothingness; no matter, no energy, no space, no time. Such a state of affairs doesn't seem plausible, at least not for long, there being no time. So the second explanation seems sounder, based purely on intuition.

The second explanation gets rid of the problem of nonbeing producing being and there doesn't seem to be any glaring issue with it. Issues arise only if you're an atheist. Put simply, atheists do not believe that God exists. There are many flavors of atheism and ways that people spin the word, but this is what it really comes down to. If an atheist chooses to accept the second explanation, then they're forced to believe that something eternal exists, but it's not God. Typically, atheists who choose this second explanation will believe that the universe or multiverse is eternal. But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

This cosmos is past-finite, yet it has also existed since time began. If anything 'preceded' it, that thing existed in its own spacetime continuum.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

God doesn't have to change for an infinite past to be a problem. Merely existing brings in all the same objections. How long did God wait in the infinite past before creating the universe? Infinitely long, by definition; so God would never reach the time when God created the universe. Alternatively, past-infinite may not be the problem we think it is, similar to the way that the Fletcher's Paradox doesn't prevent the arrow from actually reaching the target. However infinite the past, there must be a 'now'.

[Rahn127]

My defense of Atheism.

I'm rational (most of the time)

[brokenreflector]

A blorp by definition is an entity that consumes gods.

God with an uppercase g is typically defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, necessary, the creator of all things outside Himself, immaterial, and omnipresent.

God with a lowercase g typically refers to very powerful finite beings. Zeus is a good example.

So even if a blorp did exist, it would have no bearing on God; and if a blorp could eat God, then that would just mean "God" wasn't really God and that the blorp itself must be God by another name.

So, yeah, you didn't really think this through.

[brewer]

God with an uppercase g is typically defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, necessary, the creator of all things outside Himself, immaterial, and omnipresent.

All of those are simply a list of man made concepts that have been attributed to another man made concept. Concepts you didn't even think of, you're just repeating what you've been taught (programmed, brain washed?).

Why do you need this product of the mind to exist so badly?

[brokenreflector]

All of those are simply a list of man made concepts that have been attributed to another man made concept. Concepts you didn't even think of, you're just repeating what you've been taught (programmed, brain washed?).

Why do you need this product of the mind to exist so badly?

Wait one moment. There's not a single concept in your brain that wasn't borrowed from another person? I don't know if that's impressive or unimpressive.

I never claimed merely defining "God" means He exists, but you and your pals need to get your definitions straight in order to argue against the concept of God. Otherwise, all you're doing is strawmanning.

And I'd argue that you're the one who is emotionally invested in the idea of there not being a God.

---

You made claims. Those are what need to be defended. Atheism is merely not believing any God or gods are actually real.

If you're a rational person with a normally functioning brain, then you must have good reasons for not believing in God. Otherwise, it's just some emotional preference that doesn't warrant a discussion. For example, you may believe there's no God because there's no scientific evidence for His existence. If these kinds of reasons can be attacked and successfully destroyed, then that leaves a person with no good reason to not believe in God.

Some form of physical reality having always existed is not, though.

It is if that physical reality goes through changes and processes.

If existence (rather than just this iteration of a cosmos) has a beginning, and time began at that same beginning (as seems to be the case for our cosmos), then physical reality always existed, since time has no meaning 'before' the beginning of time unless there's a larger cosmos with its own time that this one sprang from.

This is very convoluted and loaded with hidden premises. Reality is a complete set of all that exists. This would include all physical things, as well as everything else (if there exists things that are not of matter and energy).

Also, how you've described things appears to be logically incoherent. First you say matter and energy didn't always exist. Then you say because matter and energy didn't always exist that therefore it has always existed.

Perhaps it would help you if you thought of reality as a set which includes all matter and energy. Now ask yourself if this set has ever been emptied of matter and energy. And if you're a materialist then I suppose you could yourself if the set has ever been empty. Try not to get too hung up on the language of this question.

This cosmos is past-finite, yet it has also existed since time began.

Yes, but did it exist timelessly? If it only existed in time (because time is interwoven in matter and energy), then it follows that there was a state of affairs where matter and energy and time did not exist.

God doesn't have to change for an infinite past to be a problem. Merely existing brings in all the same objections. How long did God wait in the infinite past before creating the universe?

He didn't "wait" at all, being in a timeless state. This makes sense because causally prior to His creation of matter and energy there was no time. It was only after His creation that He entered into a time relationship.

[Rahn127]

By definition, Blorps consume all Gods, upper and lower case.

Blorps are necessary.
Why do you reject them ?

[brokenreflector]

By definition, Blorps consume all Gods, upper and lower case.

Blorps are necessary.
Why do you reject them ?

Well, first, I'm not sure why you're continuing your disanalogy. You've already been owned once. This will be your second owning.

A blorp that consumes "all Gods" is a logical contradiction because part of the definition of "God" is creator of all things outside of Himself. So, there couldn't be more than one "creator of all things outside of Himself."

Also, I've already pointed out that if a blorp could kill God, then that would just mean God wasn't really "God" and that the blorp is really "God" by another name.

Do you want to try again?

*sips White Monster*

Nice sig by the way. When are you going to take the advice?