First……..
I gave you a theistic argument upon your request and I was fairly defending it. I did not anticipate that in the course of your opposition that you would turn course and instead oppose the basic truism of theism instead of the KCA. By basic truism here, I specifically assert the obvious that the eternal God created the universe…meaning all space, time and matter. If you cannot accept that that truism of theism then you are the one denying the obvious.
I’m not saying you have to agree, just recognize and understand. Please I don’t believe that atheists are correct but I do recognize and understand that atheism is the belief there is no God or gods. And arguably the “lack of belief” scenario. I recognize and understand both and agree with neither.
Thus you can conclude……
Theism has no good arguments because your version of theism does not make sense.
I have no longer have a problem with your faulty conclusion now that I have exposed the straw man supporting it. We can end it here because, I’m not trying to defend your straw man version of theism.
But just in case you desire to continue I’ll address the rest here……
Well
I didn’t assert that it was. You changed the context….and created a red herring by short quoting me there and altering the context.
Because specifically the context was…….
So…..
I did not saying anything of capital G. I was redressing you notion of a plurality as opposed to a single monotheistic God. Only because every time you did that I felt I would have to always point out the singularity instead of the plurality. So I asked you to present the single case with me as to not always have to address it.
Now…..
Monotheists believe in one…mono….. God. A trio would not be monotheism. I’m not here to defend the doctrine of the trinity. But that is still monotheistic hence the doctrine.
So put it on the line here. What is your recognition and understanding of theism in regards to the relationship of God and the universe, time and eternity? Spell it out. Tell me what theism is. I have my straw man detector ready.
So again…..
What genuinely is theism to you? If it is not that.
You just yourself admitted it was a truism. You were forcing me to address a truism. A long held commonly accepted truth.
And again…………
You were at that time also implying I was making up something new so I responded with reasoning to combat that. Thus in that context I was appealing to the mainstream acceptance to combat the “I alone” part and historical reference to combat the something new part. How else was I to redress your direct charge?
2) The KCA long predates the BBT. And the KCA is a theistic argument. And that….. “that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter”…is a truism of theism.
3) Part of your case against the KCA, the part we’re are battling here, rests upon you fighting the truism that theism is the recognized belief that the eternal transcendent God created the universe to include all space, matter and time. You don’t like it, but that is what theism asserts.
So consider number 2 further. The KCA long predates the science that now lends support for to it. The theists were reasoning, hypothesizing, that the universe was not past eternal long before that science was available to support it. The KCA began as a philosophical argument with only philosophical reasoning to support p2. In a time period where the Aristotelian paradigm was that the universe was eternal. Hence the reason for the argument to begin with.
Why must you alter theism…to create a straw man? When you say “If the universe (including gods) began” you are creating a straw man of theism. God did not begin. A truism of theism is that God is eternal. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.
I can conclude that astrology is gibberish but I can’t deny that it is a type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and planets. To deny that is what astrology is would be unreasonable.
Further….
To alter astrology to something else that it is not in order to defeat an astrological argument would render my reasoning insufficient.
That’s my point with you here….to alter theism to something that it is not to defeat the KCA is unreasonable.
Hold on. That was not my fault.I wish we could discuss the KCA, but you keep changing the subject.
I gave you a theistic argument upon your request and I was fairly defending it. I did not anticipate that in the course of your opposition that you would turn course and instead oppose the basic truism of theism instead of the KCA. By basic truism here, I specifically assert the obvious that the eternal God created the universe…meaning all space, time and matter. If you cannot accept that that truism of theism then you are the one denying the obvious.
I’m not saying you have to agree, just recognize and understand. Please I don’t believe that atheists are correct but I do recognize and understand that atheism is the belief there is no God or gods. And arguably the “lack of belief” scenario. I recognize and understand both and agree with neither.
Thus you can conclude……
Theism has no good arguments because your version of theism does not make sense.
I have no longer have a problem with your faulty conclusion now that I have exposed the straw man supporting it. We can end it here because, I’m not trying to defend your straw man version of theism.
But just in case you desire to continue I’ll address the rest here……
…..and blah blah blah. In some attempt to develop a case that theism is not uniform in it’s entirety.There isn't much that has always been the theistic view. Theists disagree -- and have always disagreed -- on everything other than whether gods exist………It has always been the theistic view
Well
I didn’t assert that it was. You changed the context….and created a red herring by short quoting me there and altering the context.
Because specifically the context was…….
…..…and not all of that other diversion. Theism is the belief that an eternal transcendent creator created the universe, to include all space, matter and time.It has always been the theistic view that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter. Thus God has always existed even though time has not. Hence time is a subset of the eternal.
So…..
Since YOU brought it up.At one point you said I should capitalize "God" because you are a monotheist, but even monotheists disagree on whether one god are three or three gods is one, or -- weirdly, perhaps, from your point of view -- one god is only one.
I did not saying anything of capital G. I was redressing you notion of a plurality as opposed to a single monotheistic God. Only because every time you did that I felt I would have to always point out the singularity instead of the plurality. So I asked you to present the single case with me as to not always have to address it.
Now…..
Monotheists believe in one…mono….. God. A trio would not be monotheism. I’m not here to defend the doctrine of the trinity. But that is still monotheistic hence the doctrine.
I could care less what 2 Christians told you regarding their unreasonable beliefs. They were flat out wrong and were not understanding theism. You need a better source. Trust me I’ve witnessed atheists that are bad sources for what they believe as well. So big deal. I would never use their fringe or uninformed beliefs to discredit actual atheistic understanding.Two Christians have told me that Jehovah created himself, which does away with any claim that theists have always believed gods to be eternal.
I don’t know how he squares those beliefs, but they do not match mainstream theism in regards to those issues. And those issues have nothing to do with what we are talking about. You only presented that here to develop a case for your red herring that theism is not uniform at every issue. But I never said it was.One Christian (Jesuit trained) told me I'm more likely to make it to Heaven than he is, because I don't believe at all, whereas he believes but sometimes falls short anyway. He wonders whether god is helium. He believes Hell exists, because the bible says it does, but he also believes (for whatever reason) that gods are good. How does he square those beliefs? Hell exists, but it is empty.
You twisted my reasoning. I was only attempting to redress your implication that “I was making up something new.”Your defense of your it-has-always-been-the-theist-view claims is that you are talking about a particular subset of theism, which immediately devolves into a game of no true Scottsman. Your claim -- to the extent it is true at all -- reduces to this: Theists who have always agreed with your current beliefs have always agreed with your current beliefs.
So put it on the line here. What is your recognition and understanding of theism in regards to the relationship of God and the universe, time and eternity? Spell it out. Tell me what theism is. I have my straw man detector ready.
Precisely, and you are denying it. You are making it something else….a straw man. And I would also assert you are weakly underselling the “some theists” part to your own ends.The most you can legitimately claim is that (for some value of "eternal") some theists have always believed that gods are eternal. That's less a claim than a truism.
So again…..
What genuinely is theism to you? If it is not that.
I would agree with you but for the context.Any claim that theists have always believed X comes across as pompous and disingenuous.
You just yourself admitted it was a truism. You were forcing me to address a truism. A long held commonly accepted truth.
And again…………
You were at that time also implying I was making up something new so I responded with reasoning to combat that. Thus in that context I was appealing to the mainstream acceptance to combat the “I alone” part and historical reference to combat the something new part. How else was I to redress your direct charge?
Again I agree with there in most cases. However, I did not offer that opening to defend theism, only to combat your implication that “I was making up something new.”Making such claims is keep-off-my-side quality argumentation.
1) I’m not saying you have to find theism plausible. Only to recognize and understand what it is and what it asserts.that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter.
That's not plausible. But, if you wanted to argue that theists have, since the advent of big bang theory, increasingly found it convenient to argue that way, then you could make a case.
2) The KCA long predates the BBT. And the KCA is a theistic argument. And that….. “that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter”…is a truism of theism.
3) Part of your case against the KCA, the part we’re are battling here, rests upon you fighting the truism that theism is the recognized belief that the eternal transcendent God created the universe to include all space, matter and time. You don’t like it, but that is what theism asserts.
So consider number 2 further. The KCA long predates the science that now lends support for to it. The theists were reasoning, hypothesizing, that the universe was not past eternal long before that science was available to support it. The KCA began as a philosophical argument with only philosophical reasoning to support p2. In a time period where the Aristotelian paradigm was that the universe was eternal. Hence the reason for the argument to begin with.
Pasresed….To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times. If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.Thus God has always existed even though time has not.
To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.
Yes. But not only time but more. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times.Thus God has always existed even though time has not.
….If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.Thus God has always existed even though time has not.
Why must you alter theism…to create a straw man? When you say “If the universe (including gods) began” you are creating a straw man of theism. God did not begin. A truism of theism is that God is eternal. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.
That is your conclusion about theism. That does not change what theism is. You can find it gibberish if you want, but you can’t reasonably deny what it is.To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.Thus God has always existed even though time has not.
I can conclude that astrology is gibberish but I can’t deny that it is a type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and planets. To deny that is what astrology is would be unreasonable.
Further….
To alter astrology to something else that it is not in order to defeat an astrological argument would render my reasoning insufficient.
That’s my point with you here….to alter theism to something that it is not to defeat the KCA is unreasonable.
You misunderstood me there. I did not assert the eternal meant timeless. Eternal is existence without beginning or end. Timeless is existence without time. We have time now and that is part of the eternal. So the question within theism is this…Is God now timeless or temporal? But that is another subject altogether.On its face, that seems like meaningless word salad. When you elaborate, saying that "eternal" means "timeless" (and thus that timeless includes time) you take away doubt.Hence time is a subset of the eternal.