Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Three irrefutable miracles.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally Posted by 37818
    The classic god-did-it argument is based on the assertion that there must be some kind of first cause. The presupposed denial that there could not be in any way be no first cause. And that uncaused cause to be God.
    The key word here is “assertion”. You are making a bald assertion, without proof or evidence of truth. Why would anyone take this seriously?

    Now for the genuine Christian, they know.
    They “know” no such thing; they may “believe it” or “feel it”, but they don’t know it.

    And the uncaused cause of anything is God's Logos.
    “God’s Logos” is not an especially Christian concept. It’s borrowed, as were the Mesopotamian Creation Narratives in Genesis. It goes back to at least to the 6th-century-BC philosopher Heracleitus.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      The key word here is “assertion”. You are making a bald assertion, without proof or evidence of truth. Why would anyone take this seriously?
      There is an uncaused existence. I know it to be the identity of God. You do not.


      They “know” no such thing; they may “believe it” or “feel it”, but they don’t know it.
      You know nothing of the sort, you just think so.


      “God’s Logos” is not an especially Christian concept. It’s borrowed, as were the Mesopotamian Creation Narratives in Genesis. It goes back to at least to the 6th-century-BC philosopher Heracleitus.
      Well, that does not change the Christian concept.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        So what?!?!?! Does not address the topic of the thread.

        The denial is not that 'there could not be in any way no first cause,' The denial is that this first cause must be God, and that Natural Law is possibly the first cause.
        Natural Law as a first cause does not account for the uncaused existence which would precede it. Natural law would be the reason that there was no first cause, if that were the case. [It's not]
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Natural Law as a first cause does not account for the uncaused existence which would precede it.
          It is possible nothing preceding Natural Law. Can you provide and evidence that this is not a possibility.

          Natural law would be the reason that there was no first cause, if that were the case. [It's not]
          Assertion not based on evidence.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            There is an uncaused existence.
            Very possibly this "uncaused existence" is Natural Law, why would you think otherwise?

            I know it to be the identity of God. You do not.
            No you don't. You think you do but I think you're wrong.

            Well, that does not change the Christian concept.
            Nor does it make it likely to be any truer than the sources from which it is derived. Namely, pre-Christian Greek philosophy and theology...as well as pre-Christian Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems. All the great religions have borrowed from each other.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Very possibly this "uncaused existence" is Natural Law, why would you think otherwise?
              Because natural law is not just one thing and it being more than any existence it must have would indicate it is not existence proper, but is contingent on uncaused existence to be any kind of uncaused law.


              No you don't. You think you do but I think you're wrong.
              State back to me the two main reasons I thinking that is God's identity and explain why you think those two reasons cannot be true.


              Nor does it make it likely to be any truer than the sources from which it is derived. Namely, pre-Christian Greek philosophy and theology...as well as pre-Christian Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems. All the great religions have borrowed from each other.
              So what other Greek word or Greek phrase should have been used to express the idea of God's eternal temporal agent of His purpose?
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Because natural law is not just one thing and it being more than any existence it must have would indicate it is not existence proper, but is contingent on uncaused existence to be any kind of uncaused law.
                Totally confusing.

                State back to me the two main reasons I thinking that is God's identity and explain why you think those two reasons cannot be true.
                Your proposing to prove the negative which in this case is a fallacy.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Because natural law is not just one thing and it being more than any existence it must have would indicate it is not existence proper, but is contingent on uncaused existence to be any kind of uncaused law.
                  Natural law is not contingent on anything, like the claims for a god, it just "is".

                  State back to me the two main reasons I thinking that is God's identity and explain why you think those two reasons cannot be true.
                  More to the point, you need to explain why you think God's identity is true.

                  So what other Greek word or Greek phrase should have been used to express the idea of God's eternal temporal agent of His purpose?
                  No word is necessary to express a non-existent entity.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Natural law is not contingent on anything, like the claims for a god, it just "is".
                    So are you really going to argue that natural law does not need uncaused existence to exist? Really? Uncaused existence precedes everything, even what we would call natural law.


                    More to the point, you need to explain why you think God's identity is true.
                    Do you really believe that I am the only Christian who ever lived or lives who actually knows God? You cannot even explain the claim nor concept of the gospel of grace, let alone how by it anyone could actually know God.


                    No word is necessary to express a non-existent entity.
                    So you deny that there is any such thing as uncaused existence.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Totally confusing.
                      And your not an agnostic confused about being able to know absolute truths?


                      Your proposing to prove the negative which in this case is a fallacy.
                      In other words, there are no reasons that my knowing God and His good news of unmerited forgiveness through the work of Christ who is His Son, by which God is known to a Christian, can be wrong.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        And your not an agnostic confused about being able to know absolute truths?
                        Baha'is do not believe absolute truths exist from the human perspective. God only knows the absolute. The subject to this thread is not about what I believe.

                        In other words, there are no reasons that my knowing God and His good news of unmerited forgiveness through the work of Christ who is His Son, by which God is known to a Christian, can be wrong.
                        God is only a Christian (?) from the perspective of some fallible human believers.

                        It is not about the reasons for your claim, but rather But does your argument have reasonable logical convincing basis beyond the simple fact it is what you believe. You fail to present a reasonable logical convincing argument. There are too many bricks missing from your yellow brick road.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2018, 05:12 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          So are you really going to argue that natural law does not need uncaused existence to exist?
                          It may well be that natural law is “uncaused existence” in and of itself. This is more likely that positing a hypothetical deity as an uncaused existence”.

                          Really? Uncaused existence precedes everything, even what we would call natural law.
                          Not if natural law is everything that is.

                          Do you really believe that I am the only Christian who ever lived or lives who actually knows God? You cannot even explain the claim nor concept of the gospel of grace, let alone how by it anyone could actually know God.
                          Nobody can “know” a fictional entity especially one with all the primitive baggage of the ‘Fall of Man’ in Eden and consequent need for a cranky creator deity to appeased by a sacrifice. Come now, this has all the hallmarks of mythology.

                          So you deny that there is any such thing as uncaused existence.
                          I’m denying that a deity is an “uncaused existence”.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Natural Law as a first cause does not account for the uncaused existence which would precede it. Natural law would be the reason that there was no first cause, if that were the case. [It's not]
                            Natural law is merely the cause of the forms that existence takes, not the cause of existence itself, existence itself being eternal. Do you really believe that the material world was created a mere 14 billion years ago out of nothing and that prior to that it's immaterial creator just sat around for eternity doing nothing?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Natural law is merely the cause of the forms that existence takes, not the cause of existence itself, existence itself being eternal. Do you really believe that the material world was created a mere 14 billion years ago out of nothing and that prior to that it's immaterial creator just sat around for eternity doing nothing?
                              Uncaused existence is not caused by anything, it is truly self existent. Caused existences are another matter.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                It may well be that natural law is “uncaused existence” in and of itself. This is more likely that positing a hypothetical deity as an uncaused existence”.
                                Natural law, if it were of the same thing as uncaused existence it is still something else. It would not merely just be uncaused existence it would be a second entity we might call uncaused cause. Existence and cause are two different things.


                                Not if natural law is everything that is.
                                In which case it would not be uncaused existence, it would only included it. Meaning uncaused existence itself precedes it.


                                Nobody can “know” a fictional entity especially one with all the primitive baggage of the ‘Fall of Man’ in Eden and consequent need for a cranky creator deity to appeased by a sacrifice. Come now, this has all the hallmarks of mythology.
                                Yeah, but the true God is not a fictional entity.


                                I’m denying that a deity is an “uncaused existence”.
                                Yeah, you are denying God is God.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X