Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[Cheerful Charlie]

Martin Luther
Bondage of the Will

In the former case, he scatters favour and pity upon the unworthy,
in the latter, he scatters wrath and severity upon the undeserving:
in both cases excessive and unrighteous according to man's judgment,
but just and true according to his own. For, how it be just that he
crowns the unworthy, is incomprehensible at present ; but we shall
see how, when we come to that place, where he will no longer be
believed, but with open face beheld. So again, how it be just that
he condemns the undeserving, is incomprehensible at present; but we
receive it as matter of faith, until the Son of man be revealed.
----

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Martin Luther
Bondage of the Will

In the former case, he scatters favour and pity upon the unworthy,
in the latter, he scatters wrath and severity upon the undeserving:
in both cases excessive and unrighteous according to man's judgment,
but just and true according to his own. For, how it be just that he
crowns the unworthy, is incomprehensible at present ; but we shall
see how, when we come to that place, where he will no longer be
believed, but with open face beheld. So again, how it be just that
he condemns the undeserving, is incomprehensible at present; but we
receive it as matter of faith, until the Son of man be revealed.
----

This is an example of clinging to an abusive guardian for perceived survival. In this case, however, the guardian is a fantasy and therefore the speaker is demonstrating a mental condition.

I wouldn't call it a mental abnormality because if the whole group is doing the same thing you're in even deeper shit if you protest, and there's plenty of proof of that.

But today, science and knowledge having advanced since these sentiments were more widely practiced, I tend to see it as legacy ignorance. It's no longer necessary, but the brain it's coming from can't do any better.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's got to be a name for that fallacy, when a standard is selectively applied and not consistently applied, when the claim is made that the rules just don't apply to my team or my player.

I wouldn't know. I have just posted that the infinite regression problem is fixed by either the non-theist or the theist by reasoning that either;
a) God never came into existence
or
b) The universe never came into existence.

B is a bit problematic. There was an ice cube in my freezer. It wasn't always there. A theist must conclude that the ice cube popped into existence from nothing, instead of thinking that the ice cube is just another form of something that has existed. Nothing in Physics claims the universe did not exist at some point, only that it changes in its form.

The infinite regression problem doesnt asymmetrically apply ONLY to the non-theist.

Actually it does. The suggestion is that a god can exist without creation, which would seem to imply that an infinite number of gods can exist then, unless god doesn't exist in a medium at all. While I find the origins of the universe poorly understood, the idea that a god existed somehow and then that god created everything... that's even less logical. All existence makes no sense. Adding god to the mix doesn't help.

 

[bilby]

The first law of thermodynamics implies an eternal universe.

Of course we don't know that the first law applies in all cases; it only applies in every case we have ever tested.

I tend to think that the singularity at the Big Bang is likely not the beginning of mass/energy, but rather a point before which the history of mass/energy is irrelevant to what comes afterwards. But as is the nature of singularities, there can never be any justification for that thinking - there can never be proof that the first law of thermodynamics applies across the singularity, so it will always be an assumption.

I just have a gut feeling that the first law of thermodynamics is a better assumption than the existence of a logically contradictory hyper-intelligence for which the only evidence is a collection of Bronze Age folk tales written by people who didn't appear to know where the sun went at night.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn't the third law, however, say all good things come to an end?

 

[bilby]

Doesn't the third law, however, say all good things come to an end?

I like Ginsberg's summary of the three laws of thermodynamics:
1) You can't win
2) You can't break even
3) You can't get out of the game.

Or you can take Asimov's approach:
1) No thermodynam shall harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm
2) A thermodynam shall obey the orders given by humans except where these contradict the first law
3) A thermodynam shall protect its own existence, except where this conflicts with the first two laws.

 

[Lion IRC]

Check the thread title. Theists don't say "I don't know", they say "You don't know, therefore god(s)"

I'm a theist and I NEVER say anything of the sort.
Check out who wrote the Op. Underseer - a highly skilled craftsman in the art of building a strawman.
You want me to spam the thread with actual quotes from well-known Christian apologists denouncing God-of-the-gaps and appeals to ignorance?

Blah blah blah* god/bible/the usual equivocation/straw man etc.

Smoke screen mate. Get back to the point.

OK
I see you want to put words in my mouth too.
Bye.

 

[Lion IRC]

I wouldn't know. I have just posted that the infinite regression problem is fixed by either the non-theist or the theist by reasoning that either;
a) God never came into existence
or
b) The universe never came into existence.

B is a bit problematic. There was an ice cube in my freezer. It wasn't always there. A theist must conclude that the ice cube popped into existence from nothing, instead of thinking that the ice cube is just another form of something that has existed. Nothing in Physics claims the universe did not exist at some point, only that it changes in its form.

Atheist
Ice cube, pool of water, steam, hydrogen, oxygen...forever and ever amen.

Theist
Father, Son, Holy Spirit...forever and ever amen.

The infinite regression problem doesnt asymmetrically apply ONLY to the non-theist.

Actually it does.

Wait, are you saying there actually IS a problem for non-theists who claim the universe has always existed? WOW
I say God has always existed as the uncaused first cause who created the universe.
And I had thought that opponents of this argued that the (supposedly) uncaused universe doesn't need a creator.

The suggestion is that a god can exist without creation, which would seem to imply that an infinite number of gods can exist then, unless god doesn't exist in a medium at all.

You mean if there is one (monotheistic) God, there could in theory be multiple gods that have always existed?
Yep. That's polytheism. How does that affect the infinite regression scenario?
Surely the atheist still has to posit a past eternal universe which needs no creator(s).

...While I find the origins of the universe poorly understood, the idea that a god existed somehow and then that god created everything... that's even less logical. All existence makes no sense.

One great big mystery hey?

 

[abaddon]

Surely the atheist still has to posit a past eternal universe which needs no creator(s).

Nope, the atheist does not have to posit this. And if he wants to posit something, the problematic words in your proposition are "a" and "eternal". What do you mean by those words? Just one single universe that goes backwards on a linear, infinite time-line? Why do you imagine that is the way it must be? Cuz it's conventional? cuz it's how the words are usually applied? cuz it's 'intuitive'?

If existence, and especially the time and space aspect of it, started at some point, then what did God do before they started? When was he infinitely everlasting into the past before he made existence/time and space/"the" universe?

 

[abaddon]

Check the thread title. Theists don't say "I don't know", they say "You don't know, therefore god(s)"

I'm a theist and I NEVER say anything of the sort.
Check out who wrote the Op. Underseer - a highly skilled craftsman in the art of building a strawman.

Why do you bring up the beginning of the universe? What's your point in doing it? If it's to suggest it requires a god to explain it then the OP is not a strawman and you DO say things of the sort.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A Treatise against two letters of the pelagians, [2526] by
aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo; In Four Books, written to
boniface, bishop of the roman church, in opposition to two
letters of the pelagians, a.d. 420, or a little later
------
But wherefore does God make these men sheep, and those not,
since with Him there is no acceptance of persons? This is the
very question which the blessed apostle thus answers to those
who propose it with more curiosity than propriety, "O man, who
art thou that repliest against God? Does the thing formed say to
him that formed it, Wherefore hast thou made me thus?" [2829]
This is the very question which belongs to that depth desiring
to look into which the same apostle was in a certain measure
terrified, and exclaimed, "Oh the depth of the riches of the
wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the
mind of the Lord? or who has been His counsellor? Or who has
first given to Him, that it should be recompensed to Him again?
Because of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to
Him be glory for ages of ages." [2830] Let them not, then, dare
to pry into that unsearchable question who defend merit before
grace, and therefore even against grace, and wish first to give
unto God, that it may be given to them again, -- first, of
course, to give something of free will, that grace may be given
them again as a reward; and let them wisely understand or
faithfully believe that even what they think that they have
first given, they have received from Him, from whom are all
things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things. But why
this man should receive, and that should not receive, when
neither of them deserves to receive, and whichever of them
receives, receives undeservingly, -- let them measure their own
strength, and not search into things too strong for them.


---------------

Tis a mystery why God is unjust and unfair.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A Treatise against two letters of the pelagians, [2526] by
aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo; In Four Books, written to
boniface, bishop of the roman church, in opposition to two
letters of the pelagians, a.d. 420, or a little later
-----

For it is enough for man to know that
there is no unrighteousness with God. But how He dispenses those
benefits, making some deservedly vessels of wrath, others
graciously vessels of mercy, -- who has known the mind of the
Lord, or who has been His counsellor? If, then, we attain to the
honour of grace, let us not be ungrateful by attributing to
ourselves what we have received. "For what have we which we have
not received?" [2613]

----

Some are created the elect, others reprobate. Not for what they do, but by God's predestination. Why? Don't ask.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Historically, when theologians have been faced with logically insurmountable problems, theologians have always abandoned logic and reason by asserting God is incomprehensible, inscrutable and beyond all understanding. This was one of Christianity's first dogmas.

Romans 11:33
³³ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

A lot of major theologians have admitted God does not fit well with logic by doing this, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and many others. It has long been a standard theological concept that God is beyond all human understanding, William of Okham and many others.

If God is good, why does he allow original sin to cloud our judgment and cause evil? Logically this does not work. So, God is inscrutable. Not logical.

Isn't an unknowable God the conclusion of Agnosticism? What's the difference between "God is undescribable" and "God is so amazing that he's undescribable"?

It's more like this all powerful, all good God and existence of evil do not jibe logically. Therefore lets us take refuge in invincible obscurantism. Away with reason, rationality, logic. So if God is manifestly not good, let's us claim God is incomprehensible.

So when we say "good", maybe with God. "good" is something other than good as we know it.

And yes, Christians have pulled that on me in internet debates.
But then we have to redefine words like merciful,compassionate, just, fair, and enter a sort of intellectual nihilism. Logic no longer means anything, nor any word that constrains God actions. I can't follow here I am afraid. And I get offended when people demand I abandon all reason and rationality to pretend God exists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin_sectionI.html

A TREATISE OF THE ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD
ETC., ETC.

-----

Augustine then adds, "Faith, therefore, from its
beginning to its perfection is the gift of God. And that this
gift is bestowed on some and not on others, who will deny but
he who would fight against the most manifest testimonies of the
Scripture? But why faith is not given to all ought not to
concern the believer, who knows that all men by the sin of one
came into most just condemnation. But why God delivers one from
this condemnation and not another belongs to His inscrutable
judgments, and 'His ways are past finding out.' And if it be
investigated and inquired how it is that each receiver of faith
is deemed of God worthy to receive such a gift, there are not
wanting those who will say, It is by their human will. But we
say that it is by grace, or Divine predestination."

----
God is good, but not really. Doesn't make much sense. So invoke God's inscrutability and don't let logic get in the way.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin_sectionII.html
----
But I will proceed no farther with discussing the several
portions of God's Word relative to this divine and deep matter.
Let this summary suffice: if we admit the same Spirit of God,
who spoke by the apostles, to be an interpreter of the prophet
Isaiah, we must also acknowledge that that secret and
incomprehensible judgment of God which blinds the greater part
of mankind, "that seeing, they may see and not perceive," etc.,
is to be adored while it does so. Here let human reasonings of
every kind that can possibly present themselves to our minds
cease for ever. For if we confine our, reflections to men, apart
from the grace and eternal purpose of God, the first thing that
will strike us is that God gives freely to those that ask Him,
and that others sink and die under their need, for which they
do not seek a remedy. But if we have not in our mind and
understanding that which Augustine saith, "That the nature of
the Divine goodness is not only to open to those that knock, but
also to cause them to knock and ask;" unless, I say, we
understand this, we shall never know the real need under which
we labour.

----

God is just, merciful and compassionate. Not. Though the Bible proclaims God to be so.

Calvin goes on and on and on in this vein ad nauseum in this little treatise.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A Defence of the Secret Providence of God - by John Calvin
---

Here is a list of the headers from Calvin's Treatise "A Defense of the Secret providence of God". These are the original headers, not written by me. It's quite nasty little read. See for example article 4.
4.
"ALL THE CRIMES THAT ARE COMMITTED BY ANY MAN WHATSOEVER ARE,
BY THE OPERATION OF GOD, GOOD AND JUST."

These ideas of Calvin's are strictly drawn from the Bible and NT and are heavily inspired by the writings of Augustine. This is an ugly theology.

Pulling objectionable sections out of these works is almost impossible to do with justice. It's all objectionable and illogical at length.

--------------

List of Calvin's articles 1 - 14.

"Calumnies", that is claims Calvin wishes to rebut, made by
Albertus Pighius.

------------------------------------------------------------
1.
"GOD OF HIS PURE AND MERE WILL CREATED THE
GREATEST PART OF THE WORLD TO PERDITION."


That on which you seize as your FIRST ARTICLE is, "that God, by
His pure and mere will, created the greatest part of the world
to perdition."
------------------------------------------------------------
2.
GOD NOT ONLY PREDESTINATED EVEN ADAM TO DAMNATION, BUT TO THE
CAUSES OF THAT DAMNATION ALSO, WHOSE FALL HE NOT ONLY FORESAW,
BUT HE ALSO WILLED BY HIS SECRET AND ETERNAL DECREE AND ORDAINED
THAT HE SHOULD FALL, WHICH FALL, THAT IT MIGHT, IN ITS TIME, TAKE
PLACE, GOD PLACED BEFORE HIM THE APPLE, WHICH SHOULD CAUSE THAT
FALL.

------------------------------------------------------------
3.
THE SINS WHICH ARE COMMITTED, ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY THE
PERMISSION, BUT EVEN BY THE WILL OF GOD. FOR IT IS FRIVOLOUS
TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERMISSION OF GOD AND THE WILL
OF GOD, AS FAR AS SIN IS CONCERNED. THEY WHO ATTEMPT TO MAKE
THIS DIFFERENCE MERELY ATTEMPT TO GAIN GOD OVER BY FLATTERY.
------------------------------------------------------------
4.
"ALL THE CRIMES THAT ARE COMMITTED BY ANY MAN WHATSOEVER ARE,
BY THE OPERATION OF GOD, GOOD AND JUST."
------------------------------------------------------------
5.
NO ADULTERY, THEFT, OR MURDER, IS COMMITTED WITHOUT
THE INTERVENTION OF THE WILL OF GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------
6.
THE SCRIPTURE OPENLY TESTIFIES THAT EVIL DOINGS ARE DESIGNED,
NOT ONLY BY THE WILL, BUT BY THE AUTHORITY, OF GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------
7.
WHATSOEVER MEN DO WHEN AND WHILE THEY SIN, THEY DO ACCORDING
TO THE WILL OF GOD, SEEING THAT THE WILL OF GOD OFTEN CONFLICTS
WITH HIS PRECEPT.
------------------------------------------------------------
8.
THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH, AND SO HIS OBSTINACY OF MIND AND
REBELLION, WAS THE WORK OF GOD, EVEN ON THE TESTIMONY OF MOSES
HIMSELF, WHO ASCRIBES ALL THE REBELLION OF PHARAOH TO GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------
9.
THE WILL OF GOD IS THE SUPREME CAUSE OF ALL THE HARDNESS OF
HEART IN MEN.
------------------------------------------------------------
10.
SATAN IS A LIAR, AT THE COMMAND OF GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------
11.
GOD GIVES THE WILL TO THOSE WHO DO EVIL. HE ALSO SUGGESTS
DEPRAVED AND DISHONEST AFFECTIONS NOT ONLY PERMISSIVELY,
BUT EFFECTIVELY, AND THAT, TOO, FOR HIS OWN GLORY.
------------------------------------------------------------
12.
THE WICKED, BY THEIR ACTS OF WICKEDNESS,
DO RATHER GOD'S WORK THAN THEIR OWN.

------------------------------------------------------------
13.
WE SIN OF NECESSITY (WITH RESPECT TO GOD), WHETHER
WE SIN OF OUR OWN PURPOSE OR ACCIDENTALLY.

------------------------------------------------------------
14.
WHAT WICKEDNESSES SOEVER MEN COMMIT OF THEIR OWN WILL, THOSE
WICKEDNESSES PROCEED ALSO FROM THE WILL OF GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------


--- End ---

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Martin Luther
"Bondage of the Will"


Since, therefore, Reason praises God when He saves the undeserving, but
accuses Him when He damns the undeserving; it stands convicted of not
praising God as God, but as a certain one who serves its own profit; that
is, it seeks, in God, itself and the things of itself, but seeks not God and
the things of God. But if it be pleased with a God who crowns the
undeserving, it ought not to be displeased with a God who damns the
undeserving. For if He be just in the one instance, how shall He not be just
in the other? seeing that, in the one instance, He pours forth grace and
mercy upon the undeserving, and in the other, pours forth wrath and severity
upon the undeserving? - He is, however, in both instances, monstrous and
iniquitous in the sight of men; yet just and true in Himself. But, how it is
just, that He should crown the undeserving, is incomprehensible now, but we
shall see when we come there, where it will be no longer believed, but seen
in revelation face to face. So also, how it is just, that He should damn the
undeserving, is incomprehensible now, yet, we believe it, until the Son of
Man shall be revealed!
___________________________________________

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

From: Subject: Calvin's Calvinism - "A Defense of the Secret
Providence of God" - Section II

In the next place, although my doctrine is that the will of God
is the first and supreme cause of all things, yet I everywhere
teach that wheresoever in His counsels and works the cause does
not plainly appear, yet that there is a cause which lies hidden
in Himself, and that according to it He has decreed nothing but
that which is wise and holy and just. Therefore, with reference
to the sentiments of the schoolmen concerning the absolute, or
tyrannical, will of God, I not only repudiate, but abhor them
all, because they separate the justice of God from His ruling
power. Now see, then, thou unclean dog, how much thou hast
gained, and how far thou hast advanced thy cause by this thy
impudent barking. For myself, while I subject the whole human
race to the will of God, I at the same time ever affirm that
God never decrees anything but with the most righteous reason,
which reason (though it may at the present time be unknown to
us) will assuredly be revealed to us at the last day in all its
infinite righteousness and Divine perfection.

-


So if you deny the obvious, it must be true? God predetermines all our acts but isn't responsible for doing so?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm a theist and I NEVER say anything of the sort.
Check out who wrote the Op. Underseer - a highly skilled craftsman in the art of building a strawman.

Why do you bring up the beginning of the universe? What's your point in doing it? If it's to suggest it requires a god to explain it then the OP is not a strawman and you DO say things of the sort.

I didn't bring up the beginning of the universe.

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

 

[Underseer]

Why do you bring up the beginning of the universe? What's your point in doing it? If it's to suggest it requires a god to explain it then the OP is not a strawman and you DO say things of the sort.

I didn't bring up the beginning of the universe.

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

Strawman?

Then you deny that many Christians and Muslims make these arguments?

Interesting.