Another question for believers and non-believers(and another Minnesota ripoff)

[Darth Executor]

Which point in YOUR position do you find the most compelling?

Personally, I find Jesus's message and the result I felt on my own skin:

Jesus preached that faith in Him makes us good(which sounds ridiculous when you think about it), and His promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide us. The funny thing is that I never knew the promise even existed until AFTER it happened and I happened to read about somebody else's experience, and realising the same thing had happened to me. Combined with the somewhat strange events that have piled up throughout my life, I find it absolutely illogical to ever change my position.

[cavegirl]

Which point in YOUR position do you find the most compelling?


The absence of an acting and/or intervening God as described in for instance the Bible. I mean, the Bible is a collection of stories full of fantastic events, but when was the last time you heard a thundering voice from above, or an animal talk, or saw a sea parting, etc.

God may exist, but if He does, He's doing His utmost best to make the world look like He doesn't.

cg

[Superbug]

What cg said. :teeth:

[TrinityKicker]

Which point in YOUR position do you find the most compelling?
The impossibility of the contrary. Without God the is no cause for the universe. The universe coming into being uncaused seems absurd.

[Darth Executor]

The absence of an acting and/or intervening God as described in for instance the Bible. I mean, the Bible is a collection of stories full of fantastic events, but when was the last time you heard a thundering voice from above, or an animal talk, or saw a sea parting, etc.

God may exist, but if He does, He's doing His utmost best to make the world look like He doesn't.

cg


I saw Jim Carey part his tomato soup in two on tv. Does that count?

[cavegirl]

I saw Jim Carey part his tomato soup in two on tv. Does that count?No, but on second thought the inexplicable success of mr. Carey does.

[HRG_new]

The impossibility of the contrary. Without God the is no cause for the universe. The universe coming into being uncaused seems absurd.

Why do you think that the universe came into being at all ? As far as we know, it has always existed (always = for all values of a time coordinate which make sense). "Before the universe" is meaningless, unless you already believe that there is a supertime running outside the universe.

And if it was God's work, how do you explain the existence of a being which was sufficiently powerful and suitably motivated to create exactly our universe ("He has always existed" is no explanation) ? I think you'll have to take recourse to Super-God :tongue:

[TrinityKicker]

HRG_new, The actual begining of the universe is not understood by science, but the important part is that the universe came into being a finite time ago. 'Before the universe' makes perfect sense unless you presuppose naturalism. Naturalism implies a space-time connection.

I don't need to explain why God created the universe. All that is necessary is a first space-time event in the finite past and then you have a choice between an uncaused first event or a caused first event. The concept of an uncaused first event is absurd to my mind. However, if the first event was a decision by a free agent, then it is not absurd. A free agent can have existed for eternity past and spontaneously act, as opposed to re-acting to stimulas.

So, I am faced with a choice between an uncaused event of a finite universe comming into to being OR a free agent spontaneously causing the event of time and space to come into being.

[HRG_new]

HRG_new, The actual begining of the universe is not understood by science, but the important part is that the universe came into being a finite time ago.

I'm afraid you confuse "our local observable patch of the universe" with "the universe".
And why you think that the universe had to "come into being" ? The universe just is.

'Before the universe' makes perfect sense unless you presuppose naturalism. Naturalism implies a space-time connection.

"Time" doesn't make sense outside the universe, whether or not naturalism is true. Thus "before" doesn't make sense either.



I don't need to explain why God created the universe.

You need to explain the existence and powers of your God before you use him as explanation for the existence of our universe.

All that is necessary is a first space-time event in the finite past

"Finite" doesn't imply that there is a first space-time event. The interval (0,1] (all real numbers >0 and <=1) is finite and has no first point.

and then you have a choice between an uncaused first event or a caused first event.

Or many uncaused events. From what premise do you deduce uniqueness of a "first event" ?

The concept of an uncaused first event is absurd to my mind. However, if the first event was a decision by a free agent, then it is not absurd. A free agent can have existed for eternity past and spontaneously act, as opposed to re-acting to stimulas.

Fine. The idea of a disembodied mind which, for unexplainable reasons, suddenly decides to create a universe is absurd to my mind. Uncaused events, however, are quite familiar to anyone who has studied quantum theory in detail.

So, I am faced with a choice between an uncaused event of a finite universe comming into to being OR a free agent spontaneously causing the event of time and space to come into being.
For this "free agent" to cause anything, it must exist in time. The cause-effect relationship requires the existence of time, otherwise we could not distinguish between cause and effect.

And your choice of words "coming into being" is begging the question, by postulating that it is meaningful to speak of points in time when the universe did not yet exist.

[TrinityKicker]

HRG_new, I'm not confused about what natualists mean by the universe and even if I was, that's no reason to fear. The scientists of today agree that the universe began a finite time ago. I looked at some of their reasons for believing that the universe began and decied that it was compelling. If you want to believe that the universe 'just is' that fine... but it's faith.

To say that time doesn't make sense outside of the universe is to simply presuppose naturalism. You nee to explain how you can know that time is meaningless without the universe before that is a serious argument.

Why should I explain God's existence when you don't explain the universes 'just being.'

An interval of number's arent in temporal order so of course the don't have a temporal first point. However, events in the universe are in temporal order and the universe does have a first point.

Or many uncaused events. From what premise do you deduce uniqueness of a "first event" ?I don't understand your question? The first event is unique because it is the first one.

I've studied quantum theory and it is an exercise in absurdity. When people start saying that things pop in and out of existance at random or that statements are both true and not true that's a sign they have abandoned logic. If you want to put your faith in quantum theory then that's fine.

You are almost right in saying that God must exist in time to cause something, but not quite. God's causing anythign would naturally create time. At the first event you have a before and after relationship. However, cause and effect does not request that we are able todistiguish between the two.

You've been question begging throught your entire post. You pressupose a naturalistic view of space, time, cause and effect, but you refuse to apply cause and effect to the the universe itself (when you say the universe just is) or quantum theory (when you claim that uncaused events are familiar).

If you want to limit your intellect to saying the universe 'just is' and 'uncaused events' are familiar then go ahead and do it, but why call it logical or rational?

[NeilUnreal]

God may exist, but if He does, He's doing His utmost best to make the world look like He doesn't.

This presumes we would know how the world would look if God didn't exist.

-Neil

[Cognos]

I don't need to explain why God created the universe. All that is necessary is a first space-time event in the finite past and then you have a choice between an uncaused first event or a caused first event. The concept of an uncaused first event is absurd to my mind. However, if the first event was a decision by a free agent, then it is not absurd.What is the connection between a "free agent" that created the universe, and the concept of a personal God, especially the triune God of Christianity?

In any case, my answer to "Which point in YOUR position do you find the most compelling?":
The fact that there are so many religions with contradictory beliefs, each of which has millions of intelligent, conscientious truth-seekers, tells me that no single religion is "right" at the expense of all other religions.

Religious beliefs are personal. They are not right or wrong. All of them have some compellingly rational benefits, and all of them have some "irrational", "unproductive" components.

Isn't it amazing, though, how it's mainly the non-believers who perceive the negative components, and not the "true believers"?