The God Delusion

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You've proven my point.

Which was?

You said if a proof exists, everyone will know it. That's completely absurd because you've skipped the part where they have to believe it in the first place..

You don't have to believe something to know it.

it would be like saying a doctor could diagnose a patient with cancer and the patient will automatically know the proof and believe it.

They may or may not believe it.

But they can know it regardless.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Alive Hmm? I'm not sure what you're objecting to. "Evidence" doesn't become "evidence" until it is used to support a theory. There is objective information out there, but people interpret this information in very different ways. Atheist activists support a specific method of interpretation that they claim everyone should use--what I call their worldview. I'm just saying that there is no way to prove that everyone should use the activist atheist interpretation, it is one worldview among many.

Yes, of course there is no proof, but you have to move beyond that to meet the atheists on their turf.

There really isn't that many worldviews to consider here. Either there is a God or Gods, or none exists. In terms of the physical world, yes the scientist require the scientific inductive methods of falsification, with the support of mathmatics and deductive reasoning particularly in the more abstract sciences of cosmology. Science succeeds on its ability to predict and falsify the nature of existence.

Me: How do you judge between the evidence-based worldview and other worldviews if none of them can be proven or disproven? You: Being proven or diproven is not the question in the testing of scientific theories based on inductive scientific method is whether it can be falsified.

Because the validity and voracity of an argument in support of any worldview or theory is not dependent on proof. Proofs work well in math for theorms.

the worldviews that base their foundation on inductive falsification, in coordination with deductive reasoning will be more relavent than the vain attempts to prove or diprove theories.

Me: I haven't read Dawkins, but I've read enough discussions of him that I think I know his basic argument--religious-based worldviews are harmful to people. He is making a moral argument against religion, not merely a proof-based argument. You: if you read Dawkins and understood scientific methods that Dawkins uses, you would realize that Dawkins is not proposong a proof of an argument for or against God.

Read Dawkins and others and understand the world first, and your arguments won't be meaningless curses in the darkness.

Hmm, I never said Dawkins is proposing a proof of an argument for or against God. In fact, I said exactly the opposite--the general atheist activist is in no way motivated by proof or disproof of god. This is just what I was talking about earlier, in terms of obsession with certain debate topics. I make a new point that very few people are talking about anywhere and people put into my mouth things I didn't say because they want me to be talking about the things everyone else is talking about, because they are obsessed with those topics. I don't really expect to be understood, but, meh.

Dawkins and other scientists of like mind, investigate and explore the world using scientific methods and see no evidence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

If your going to present a meaningful coherent rational argument you have to deal with that worldview head on, and not some illusionary demands for a negative proof for the existence of God or Gods.

Know the enemy as they see the field of battle, before you meet them on that field.

[Alive]

Quote by: shunyadragon Because the validity and voracity of an argument in support of any worldview or theory is not dependent on proof.

I agree entirely.

the worldviews that base their foundation on inductive falsification, in coordination with deductive reasoning will be more relavent than the vain attempts to prove or diprove theories.

More relevent to who/what? And how so?

I still don't think I'm being understood, sadly.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Which was?

-Slaps forehead- Forget it.. you can read my posts if you want.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You don't have to believe something to know it.

Yes! And just because a proof exists, doesn't mean everyone will believe it. C'mon man.. you must be teasing.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They may or may not believe it. But they can know it regardless.

No, not if the doctor doesn't tell them. A proof can exist, doesn't mean everyone will automatically know. Also.. you yourself said "If proof existed" = "If everyone knew for certain"

Knew for CERTAIN. CERTAIN. CERTAIN.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Alive More relevent to who/what? And how so?

Relavent to the objective reality of the universe and the technology of our civilization. I believe there is a relavent argument involving God and the spiritual nature of existence also and its relationship to the physical nature of existence, but as I said before you have to get beyond simple assertions of your belief.

I still don't think I'm being understood, sadly.

you will have to address the arguments with the knowledge of those you are debating (read and understand their works), and within the framework and language of those whom you are debating, or your argument will be nothing more than an assertion of what you believe, and ah . . . sadly you will be misunderstood.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Destroyer Look, let's face it, Dawkins' book exposes him as a rank amateur when it comes to philosophical reasoning.

The armchair philosopher accuses a tenured Oxford professor & professional writer of being an 'amateur'. Irony, thy name is Destroyer.

Oh, I agree. Maybe you misunderstood me. I agree that explanations need explanations, I just disagree that you have to know the explanation of an explanation for a particular explanation to be valid.

Amazing. You've convinced yourself not knowing an explanation is an explanation. Phenomenal. I am something close to speachless. Read the above sentences again and think hard about how they relate to religion / the claim god is real.

"The skyhook lifted that large load of heavy objects onto that high ledge. What's held up the skyhook? Where is it now? Something and somewhere."

Your analogy about aliens is quite silly. We have evidence of life on planets (our own). God enjoys no such legitimacy.

Say we are walking along the beach and see a 6ft tall, very elaborate sand castle. Now, it would be very easy to recognize that this was the result of some sand sculptor

Another failed analogy. Please stop using them. They're all invalid for two reasons:

1) Objects and phenomenon known to be man made are not analogous to naturally occuring phenomenon the way you've alleged.

2) Design is never a satisfactory explanation in the long term because eventually the designer requires a designer.

In the same sense, we don't have to know the origin of God, in order to determine if God made the universe.

You don't know god created the universe in the same way a sand sculpter created a castle. You have invented god (or are buying into the invention of others) to explain the gap in your understanding.

It is ZHAVRIC that demands we know everything here.

I'm flattered you capsed my name, but I have made no such demand.

I'm saying that not knowing the cause of God is no determiner to whether God did indeed create the universe.

You've forgotten what's involved with claiming god. As a Christian, you're talking about a tri-omni being who cares what we do / listens to prayers and is incredibly powerful & sophisticated.

We know at the beginning of the universe the only things that existed were very simple unsophisticated things (such as protons, electrons and similarly small things). Claiming god made the universe demands we believe something ridiculously complex existed at a time of supreme simplicity. As I've stated before, it's the same as claiming the Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their first powered glider.

We are left with three options: What made god? What process lead to god's formation? The final one is a tremendous cop out which I see you've embraced whole heartedly: god always existed.

Finally, there's also the slight problem of you having ZERO evidence god exists.

[arielmessenger]

We are God. Creation is God's way of creating itself as "unbegotten". Of course we don't realize our final destination because we are primitives far back along the universe's time line in the evolution of God. Proof of God is that we are here.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: arielmessenger We are God. Creation is God's way of creating itself as "unbegotten". Of course we don't realize our final destination because we are primitives far back along the universe's time line in the evolution of God. Proof of God is that we are here.

Hello. I'm a causal link. I provide critical support between your premise & conclusion. Have we met?

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric The armchair philosopher accuses a tenured Oxford professor & professional writer of being an 'amateur'.

A professor of Biology/Zoology. Being a tenured professor doesn't mean you are an expert in everything - he's very good with biology, as H Allen Orr, Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse have all pointed out, his philosophical reasoning is completely horrendous - "We don't know where God came from, so he doesn't exist! lol". He's as trained in philosophy as your average layman.

Amazing. You've convinced yourself not knowing an explanation is an explanation.

Ah yes, the dishonest Zhavric "debating" technique. "Wait until your opponents' post is on a previous page before responding, then attack your own straw men and hope that no one notices that you didn't address their actual argument".

Knock it off.


I've only claimed that we don't have to know "what caused God" in order to determine if God created the universe or not.

Your analogy about aliens is quite silly. We have evidence of life on planets (our own). God enjoys no such legitimacy.

You're being completely dishonest here. I'm not arguing for the existence of aliens here or for the existence of God, but merely giving a scenerio to show that you don't have to have an explanation for an explanation for the original explanation to be valid.

Another failed analogy. Please stop using them. They're all invalid for two reasons: 1) Objects and phenomenon known to be man made are not analogous to naturally occuring phenomenon the way you've alleged. 2) Design is never a satisfactory explanation in the long term because eventually the designer requires a designer.

Don't preach about analogies please, you're horrible at them. Furthermore, you're completely dodging the actual issue here and you know it. Your initial assertion, which you've repeated here was:

design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation.

But this is clearly false. Aliens could be inferred from the machinery on mars even without knowing anything about the aliens -- a sculptor could be inferred from a sand castle even without knowing anything about the sculptor and God could explain the origin of the universe, even if we knew nothing about God. Read that carefully again (and note that the parts in italics are the important parts of the analogy), in this thread, I'm not actually saying that the universe existing proves God created it, just that not knowing the origin of God, doesn't preclude God actually being the cause of the universe. You see, this isn't an argument for the existence of God here (which is what you've confused it with) - it's an argument against YOUR arguments against the existence of God.

And I think you are just confused about the analogies -- I'm not trying to make some sort of design argument here, but rather my claim is this: if there is sufficient evidence for God's existence, one can validly infer that God created the universe, even if we knew nothing of God's origin's. That's it. Of course, we can debate whether God exists at all, but a priori excluding him because you don't know his origin is completely illogical. That was your assertion that I've refuted.

I'm flattered you capsed my name, but I have made no such demand.

Sure you have. You say the God hypothesis is invalid and can explain nothing because we don't know God's origins, so you're clearly implying that we must know EVERYTHING about God or you just rule God out. And actually, you just said "design" itself can't explain anything because it would always require another designer, so in that case, I could never point to a sand castle and conclude that someone made it because I wouldn't know where the sculptor came from. That was the purpose of the analogies, to show situations where you wouldn't know the explanation of the explanation even though the explanation itself is perfectly valid.

You've forgotten what's involved with claiming god. As a Christian, you're talking about a tri-omni being who cares what we do / listens to prayers and is incredibly powerful & sophisticated. We know at the beginning of the universe the only things that existed were very simple unsophisticated things (such as protons, electrons and similarly small things). Claiming god made the universe demands we believe something ridiculously complex existed at a time of supreme simplicity. As I've stated before, it's the same as claiming the Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their first powered glider.

Outstanding red herring! Here we are debating whether you need to know the explanation of an explanation in order for an explanation to be valid and you just throw in your ludicrous "complexity" "argument" as if it had anything to do with the discussion we were having.

I anticipate this is just a ploy to distract from your original argument, but a few points here:

1: Please explain how what we think existed at the beginning of the universe has anything at all to do with what created the universe
2: I don't believe something ridiculously complex created the universe, I believe God created the universe and that he is in fact, simple - please explain in what way God is complex.

We are left with three options: What made god?

Let's say for the sake of argument that I say "I don't know"...what then? What have you "proven"? That I don't know something about God?

The final one is a tremendous cop out which I see you've embraced whole heartedly: god always existed.

Yes and you've never, EVER been able to demonstrate that it is, indeed a "tremendous cop out", this was proven in our last debate. All you were able to do is lemmingly believe and quote Dawkins.

Furthermore, the intellectual hypocrisy of this quote is astounding. As an atheist, you would be perfectly happy with the universe being eternal...but when someone suggests that maybe God is eternal, you cry foul.

Lastly, you're faced with the same "trilemma" as I am. (1)Either something popped into existence out of nothing - (2)there is an infinite regress of events - (3)or something existed forever. I believe that you agree that the first 2 are invalid, but now you've arbitrarily declared the 3rd a "cop out", but only when it applies to God! And when pressed for reasons why it is a cop out, you invariably fall back on "because there is no evidence for God" - which may be the case, but then, you have no reason to allow for the first 2 explanations and declare the 3rd invalid in regards to God.



But let's not get off-track and distracted by your red herrings here. You claimed that "design" is never a satisfactory answer because you'd have to explain what designed the designer, first, this has been thoroughly refuted in my original post to you (which was not addressed "head on") and in this post as well.

Challenge:
Secondly, if you hold this position, please explain precisely how not knowing where God came from prevents him from creating the universe, then reconcile this with any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe as well since that cause would also require an explanation which we probably wouldn't have an answer for.


Also, please address my first post and quite dodging, thank you:

Quote by: Destroyer Clearly false. First off, in order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. Say for instance we found highly advanced machinery in a crater of Mars that was completely foreign to human technology, it would be easy to recognize that this is the result of some extraterrestrial agency even if you couldn't explain the origin of the extraterrestrials. And this "argument" applies to any non-God/designer of the universe as well, as even if we discover that something besides an intelligent, personal cause created the universe, that cause would still require an explanation that we probably won't have an answer for. The Philosopher Alvin Plantiga had the following to say on this subject matter: Quote by: Alvin Plantiga Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors.” A first year philosophy student on our expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are.” No doubt we’d tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren’t trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life: we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God Himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer just because a proof exists, doesn't mean everyone will believe it.

They don't have to believe it to know it's true.

A proof can exist, doesn't mean everyone will automatically know. Also.. you yourself said "If proof existed" = "If everyone knew for certain"

If a proof exists, the point is that everyone automatically knows it's true.

They don't have to believe it, but they know it.

[Zhavric]

Let's see what Destroy had to say, yes?

An opening salvo of straw man alleging Dawkins is "an expert in everything" with a few names flashed with it. A theist trying to discredit Richard Dawkins? How original...

Unlike theism, science is meant to have disagreement. It's how theories are refined. But the attacks on Dawkins' credentials are baseless and unsupported. He's an evolutionary biologist looking for a biological explanation for religion and finding it. Had you bothered to READ... that R-E-A-D... ... the book, you'd know that it's chock full of references and notes from other scientists and researches in a spectrum of fields.

You continued on with an impotent defense of your foot-in-mouth contradiction where you stated we need explanations and 180'ed into not needing an explanation. You've offered absolutely zero explanation on why we do not need to know what caused god. The same principles of design which you use to claim god must by definition also apply to god, itself. Perhaps you can support your argument this time around without clumsy analogies, yes?

As for your previous analogy about aliens, it's still invalid; your rebuttal failed to address the issue I raised (and am raising here). Aliens are not analogous to god. If we find an alien machine we have precedent for how life forms on planets and how living things make machines. So, we have an explanation albeit not all the details of it. God enjoys no such explanation. We have no precedent for god coming into existence what so ever.

Note that I could care less whether you believe aliens actually exist. I am demonstrating we have evidence of life on planets creating machines and no such evidence for god.

Now that your analogy is dispelled we can move on to the issue of your straw man. I will dispell it by owning your two questions:

1: Please explain how what we think existed at the beginning of the universe has anything at all to do with what created the universe

What existed at the beginning of the universe has to do with what created the universe because a creator needs a full explanation and a universe full of only electrons & protons does not offer it... in much the same way that skies filled only with birds & bugs doesn't (no planes) doesn't offer an explanation for a Boeing 747.

2: I don't believe something ridiculously complex created the universe, I believe God created the universe and that he is in fact, simple - please explain in what way God is complex.

How convenient? Does he slice bread as well?

Seriously, Nan, god cannot be simple because the things he's allegedly doing aren't in any way simple. As a Christian, you believe that your god is not only as intelligent as humans, but many times MORE intelligent. We know that human intelligence is a highly complex thing that requires a planet like ours and millions of years of evolution. Logically, god must be even more complex than all that. So, what made god or what process lead to god? Right now, you're going with option C (for cop out) which is god always existed.

(By the by, if you spend the next five pages accusing me of evading these questions I will kill a kitten. Per page. )

You went on to address two of these three options. To answer your question, if you can't explain god then god becomes just another skyhook. We know that "skyhook" is never a valid answer because eventually there comes a point where the claiment has to admit the whole thing is contrived.

"What's holding up the skyhook?"

"Uhm... lol"

What it proves is god is a bad hypothesis. We don't need a valid hypothesis to toss out one we know to be invalid.

You went on with some stellar feet stamping about some other debate I no doubt pwnt you in. Stating "god always existed" is a statement you've never been able to support. It is the intellectual equivalent of the above mentioned hook. God always exists and the skyhook always hangs in the air. Just cuz.

You also mentioned that I would "have no problem with the universe always existing". That's not the case. There is no evidence the universe always existed. The problem with your argument is if you set a precedent that certain things can have the attribute "always existed" then why not assign that attribute to the universe and eliminate god all together? Why do we need god?

Moving on to what is allegedly our "trilemma"...

1)Either something popped into existence out of nothing

Please understand this is a theistic stance and not an atheistic one. It is theists, not atheists, who assert that things pop into existence out of nothing.

(2)there is an infinite regress of events

God is completely incapable of satisfying this issue. He simply swaps one regress for another.

(3)or something existed forever.

Most likely not based on empirical evidence. Again, this is a claim of theists, not atheists. It is the burden of theists to prove there is a thing called god with attribute "always existed". Your ability to conceptualize this thing in no way evidences it nor does it even prove it possible.

You claimed that "design" is never a satisfactory answer because you'd have to explain what designed the designer, first, this has been thoroughly refuted in my original post

I'm sorry, Nan, but you've done no such thing. You have declared, not proven, that a designer you've designated is immune to the requirement of providing evidence. As we've seen, this is not valid.

Secondly, if you hold this position, please explain precisely how not knowing where God came from prevents him from creating the universe,

This is a straw man. We're not so much interested in god's geographical background as we are in proving he's possible. Everything in the universe save protons, electrons and empty space has an observable beginning including the universe itself. Protons and electrons aren't god (certainly not in the Christian sense) so where is your evidence that a supremely complex being called god is capable of having attribute "always existed"?

In essence, your question is asking, "Just because we can't explain how a Boeing 747 got to 1902 doesn't mean the Wright Brothers didn't use one as a design model for their powered glider." By your own logic, you should be just fine with this hypothesis.

then reconcile this with any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe as well since that cause would also require an explanation which we probably wouldn't have an answer for.

Nope.

I've already stated we don't need a valid hypothesis to toss out an invalid one. If you have a specific non-theistic hypothesis you'd like to focus on, feel free to start a thread about it. We're concerned specifically in this thread with the god hypothesis.

I also addressed your first point several times: in dispelling your alien analogy, in pointing out that we need explanations for explanations and showing that there is no precedent / evidence for god which is required by your own explanation.

[Destroyer]

Zhavric, you are going to have several kittens to kill because you completely ignored crucial sections of my post, let me move to the most crucial point first.

EXAMPLE:

Quote by: Destroyer Secondly, if you hold this position, please explain precisely how not knowing where God came from prevents him from creating the universe, then reconcile this with any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe as well since that cause would also require an explanation which we probably wouldn't have an answer for.

In your reply, you completely left out the section in bold, which is crucial and you know it. Because if God is invalid because we don't know the origins of the designer, then any non-God hypothesis to the origins of the universe would be invalid as well as we probably wouldn't know where that came from either.

But now you've changed your original position ("design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation") because in your response to the non-bolded section you say:

"This is a straw man. We're not so much interested in god's geographical background as we are in proving he's possible."
-Zhavric

So not having an explanation of where God came from isn't the issue for you anymore, it's just that you think that there is no evidence for God. And I'm not here to debate that now, just to dispell your silly notion that not knowing the explanation as to where God came from somehow means God couldn't exist. So clearly we can see that you original contention ("design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation") is COMPLETELY invalid and you've now gone back on it.

That's all I was wanting to really debate, but let's see what else you had to say:

You continued on with an impotent defense of your foot-in-mouth contradiction where you stated we need explanations and 180'ed into not needing an explanation. You've offered absolutely zero explanation on why we do not need to know what caused god.

Massive staw man.

I've maintained that God's origin does not need to be known in order to determine if he created the universe or not. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't seek to explain the origin of God, it just means not currently knowing doesn't preclude him from creating the universe.

Not knowing =/= not needing an explanation/answer

And remember, even if something besides a god created the universe, we probably still wouldn't know where that thing came from and the fact that we wouldn't currently know where it came from wouldn't preclude it from being an explanation as to the origins of the universe - this is a point you haven't addressed...but you've now gone back on your original claim, so I digress.

As for your previous analogy about aliens, it's still invalid; your rebuttal failed to address the issue I raised (and am raising here). Aliens are not analogous to god. If we find an alien machine we have precedent for how life forms on planets and how living things make machines. So, we have an explanation albeit not all the details of it. God enjoys no such explanation. We have no precedent for god coming into existence what so ever.

Your confused about the alien analogy because you haven't learned the difference between an analogy and a comparison.

Never-the-less, I don't know why you continue to bring up this point as you've already gone back on it above. However, whatever created the universe, we won't have any sort of "precedent" for it coming into existence because we don't come across universe making things too often in our daily lives - so if merely not knowing God's origins means God can't exist (absurd), then not knowing the origins of any non-God hypothesis would mean it doesn't exist either -- which would render any investigation into the begininning of the universe to be completely invalid because "we won't know the explanation of the explanation, so it's invalid".

But I'm not going to address this point anymore in my reply because you've already gone back on it - you've admitted that not knowing where God came from doesn't preclude Him creating the universe, you just think there's no evidence, so any more "design can't explain anything because we don't know where the designer came from"-like arguments will be ignored as the rebuttal's appear to be superfluous as you've already admitted this is invalid.

What existed at the beginning of the universe has to do with what created the universe because a creator needs a full explanation and a universe full of only electrons & protons does not offer it... in much the same way that skies filled only with birds & bugs doesn't (no planes) doesn't offer an explanation for a Boeing 747.

Talk about bad analogies?! Your analogy fails because the 747, the bugs and the birds are all in the sky. God would not be in the universe (since it hadn't yet been created) - so how does thinking only protons and electrons existed at the beginning of the universe have anything at all to do with something existing timelessly (even a non-God hypothesis) APART from the universe?

How convenient? Does he slice bread as well?

For a fee, yes.

Logically, god must be even more complex than all that.

Please define what you mean by "complex".

Right now, you're going with option C (for cop out) which is god always existed.

Yes, and you have NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's a cop out - keep towing the part line all you like, but repeating your baseless accusation won't change a thing.

To answer your question, if you can't explain god then god becomes just another skyhook.

1) I do think we can explain God's origin
2) My point was that even if we currently could not explain His origin, that wouldn't preclude Him from creating the universe. You're just basically espousing, "if your theory has an unknown, it's invalid".
3) Most importantly, the point you've been ignoring/dodging (another kitten please) is that any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe will require an explanation that we probably won't have an answer for, thus your silly "argument" just eliminates ANY explanation about the origin of the universe.

You went on with some stellar feet stamping about some other debate I no doubt pwnt you in.

lol! Let me sum up that debate:

Me: Why is "god always existed" a "cop-out"?
You: Because you can't say everything has to have a cause and then turn around and say God doesn't have a cause.
Me: I never said that, I only said that which BEGINS to exist must have a cause
You: ...well, there's no evidence for God! lol!

Stating "god always existed" is a statement you've never been able to support.

Sure I have, numerous times...you've just ignored it and then pretend like you didn't read my post -- allow me to give you a little reminder:

Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever
-Destroyer

If something didn't exist forever, then there is a infinite series of events that goes on and on and on, forever. With one event bringing about another event which brings about another event, which was brought about by a previous event, etc. etc. etc. Clearly this is "nonsensical" and the only alternative to an infinite regress of events is if something existed forever (because if it didn't exist forever, it was caused by something else, which was caused by something else etc.). And for various reasons, theists believe this "something" to be God...and we're now left with you declaring "god existed forever" a "cop-out" without ANY justification. It logically follows that God would have to exist forever in order to truly be "God" and you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. Just you calling it a cop-out with zero justification or explanation as to why.
-Destroyer

This might jog your memory as well:
Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

Methinks you have selective amnesia

You also mentioned that I would "have no problem with the universe always existing". That's not the case. There is no evidence the universe always existed. The problem with your argument is if you set a precedent that certain things can have the attribute "always existed" then why not assign that attribute to the universe and eliminate god all together? Why do we need god?

lol! This is completely nonsensical -- the answer to your last bolded question was answered by yourself in your first bolded question.


To be Continued...

[Destroyer]

Continued from above...

Moving on to what is allegedly our "trilemma"

You completely misunderstood, those are our only 3 options, for BOTH of us. Either something popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing (which we both agree is absurd), there is an infinite regress of events (which I BELIEVE we both agree is absurd), or something existed forever...maybe not God, but these are our three options. And here we have you claiming the last option as a "cop out", but ONLY when it applies to God. Please.

Your ability to conceptualize this thing in no way evidences it nor does it even prove it possible.

Agreed. And I'm not trying to prove God exists here. I'm just pointing out that you have NO reason for saying "god exists forever" is a cop out, but allow for the other two options since your only reason for calling "god exists forever" a cop out is, "there is no evidence for God". It's absurd. You can't just sit there and say, "Either God popped out of nothing or he evolved but you can't say he existed forever...why not, you ask? because there's no evidence for god, lol!". Either call them all absurd on the basis that God doesn't exist or allow them all, but calling only one absurd on a basis that would render them all invalid is just dishonest.


EDIT: WOW! You've really gotten us off track with the red-herrings Zhav. Review the thread on what we were originally discussing and look at the issues we're discussing now due to the off-topic issues you brought up. It seems my prediction from a couple posts ago was correct:
"I anticipate this is just a ploy to distract from your original argument". Maybe it was necessary though as you've now practically admitted that your "we don't know where God came from so he can't exist, lol" argument isn't valid. It's good to see some progress, but distracting from our original disagreement by bringing up numerous red-herrings is really in bad taste.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They don't have to believe it to know it's true.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If a proof exists, the point is that everyone automatically knows it's true. They don't have to believe it, but they know it.

I don't believe in God, but I can still know he is true? Wtf?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Destroyer A professor of Biology/Zoology. Being a tenured professor doesn't mean you are an expert in everything - he's very good with biology, as H Allen Orr, Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse have all pointed out, his philosophical reasoning is completely horrendous - "We don't know where God came from, so he doesn't exist! lol". He's as trained in philosophy as your average layman.

The problem with Dawkins is he tries to hard and goes beyond his basic tentents for rejecting the existence of God. He should stick to his statement, 'There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, therefore there is no reason to believe.' This may be challenged, but not easily refuted.

I believe in God and my argument for the existence of God is somewhat different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic arguments, which I may address later.

I prefer to take a different tact and present two arguments, (1) A model of existence that is a logical alternative to God. This does not disprove the existence of God, but presents a model without God that is logical and rational. (2) The Biblical God is silent in recent history as the 'Hands-on' God of the ancient worldview. I would title this argument the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God Dilusion.

(1) I propose an Infinite Matrix (IM) that is infinite in space, time, and energy and matter. It is governed by a set of natural laws that determine the formation, existence and death of universes. It is a multi-verse existence.

This model is sound, and I have little trouble standing it up against the Antiquated Aritotilian/Thomasan arguments still relied on today by many Christians.

(2) The argument against the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is as I said based first on the total absence of the works of the Hands-on God of the ancient scripture, and second by the strong cultural worldly orientation of the nature of God found in each religion. In these religions God is described in specific detail as having certain attributes, and there is so much dispute over the particulars that the result is many divisions and disputes. The conclusion is that IF God exists these represent very human views of God. The evidence of the Biblical God of 'miracles' is at best anecdotal in recent history.

A sub-argument against these ancient worldviews of God is that in the modern world the horizon of our knowledge and vision of existence has gone far beyond these ancient worldviews and revealed numerous flaws in their worldviews, and makes the universal claim of an single religion or a division there of to be problematic, this is compounded be the increasing number of divisions within the religions.

These two arguments are brief at present, but I will gladely amplify them if challenged.

[Zhavric]

Destroyer:

I've had quite enough of your straw men, my friend. You attempted to mischaracterize my argument by fixating on "where god came from" and then attempting to assert I changed my position when I was actually clarifying your mischaracterization. It's a dishonest way to debate.

And I'm not here to debate that now, just to dispell your silly notion that not knowing the explanation as to where God came from somehow means God couldn't exist.

Then, like so many of our debates, you haven't even shown up to the fight. We've already established that you cannot simply sweep god's complete lack of support under the rug. There is no precedent evidencing god as possible nor any direct evidence for a god.

You must provide that or concede the