Categories Of Belief In Deities

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Cuz humans can't conceive nothing but yet pretend they do and therefore presume there's even a conceptual "nothingness" anyone can "reasonably" talk about as a possible (really? how do you know?) alternative to "somethingness". So, in short, it's

Why is there a God rather than no God?

Cuz ancient humans thought in those terms. Again,

Pretty much. It's like asking, "Why is there something instead of abracadabra?"

 

[steve_bank]

I hadn't thought about that before.

If god did not create him/her/it self then where didst god come from? An amorphous blob of something needing no energy source and consuming nothing gets lonely or bored and creates a universe with humans as playthings to worship it?

A pretty ugly image.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there a God rather than no God?

An old BC cartoon. Wiley climbs up a mountain peak on which a bearded guru is sitting.

Wiley asks 'What is the meaning of life?'

Guru replies 'Why should I tell you?'.

 

[steve_bank]

I invite you to step out of your tantrum and tell me why modern cosmology can’t be used as evidence to support my case that God exists. Again not that you have to agree with it. But why it cannot even be considered as evidence.
Also………..from our last post……..

Sounds a bit whiney. To answer tyour question you must first submit your claim in the form of a proof.

You can interet any number of things frpm cosmology. Many people do but it is all speculative.

The BB Theory is the most prominent theory, but it does not adrwess ultimate orgins of the universe.

It runs time backwards to a set of initial conditions with defining how the initial conditions came to be.

The BB is not provable in an absolute sense. What it does do as a working model accurately predicts the universe today from atoms to galaxies starting from the initial conditions.

You can conclude god as I can conclude no god, neither of which are provable.

One of the common arguments on the forum is 'the universe I see can not possibly exist without god therefore god exists'. I was talking to an Evangelical about evolution, creationism, and god. He pointed out the window and said 'Just look, it is obvious god exists'.

Then there is the 'it is so complex it must have a designer'. The Intelligent Designer claim which is just a code for god.

So, lay out your proof and we will respond.

Then there is the bootstrapping and circular argumnts.

My proof of god is true because I know god exists in the first place.

I know god exists because god is in the bible.
I know the bible is true because god inspired it.
I know god exists because god is in the bible.
.
.
ad infinitum

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... ad infinitum.

Gods are simply a subcategory of woo. I'd go so far as to say that attraction to woo is human nature, whether it's simply enjoying a good movie or practicing a formal religion. There isn't any fundamental difference between being a Mormon, enjoying Lord of the Rings or believing in the Tooth Fairy. When it comes to woo what separates us is self awareness, the ability to think critically about our behavior even though we derive pleasure from the behavior.

 

[remez]

We have two choices. God in time, God outside of time. I pointed out why neither works in the end. The Flies In Amber scenario. Or God is subject to time, physics and all of reality. And in the end is a superfluous hypothesis that explains exactly noting.

This is a good reason to think God is a bad hypothesis that self destructs when examined carefully.

But you have provided no good reasoning.

You have more than two choices. And you made no case against the God in time theology. You simply asserted that this includes God. Which doesn’t address the actual theological reasoning to the contrary. You didn’t engage the reasoning you just asserted your contrarian view. You seem unaware of the vast depth of this topic.

First tell me how the theologian reasons that God is not in the stated position of your conclusion. Then tell me why your reasoning trumps that of the theologian.

 

[remez]

Its gibberish because your claims are unsupported by evidence and reason. You have not done the work to demonstrate the validity of your claims, or even to flesh out your claim in any meaningful way so that others may attempt that task. All you have done is made assertions that are so poorly defined as to be unintelligible.

No, I simply was making the case against steve’s notion that my faith is blind thus eliminating free thinking from the realm of natural theology. I was trying to avoid a lengthy diversion from his thread. I addressed this back with you back in post 73. You took that to mean I didn’t do the work to lay out my case for cosmology in lengthy specifics. Again I wasn’t trying to derail this thread with lengthy specifics. Hence why I referenced our earlier “battles” where we were specific and did the work. As a matter of fact I answered your last post 4 years ago here………specifically post 170….

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...f-Reasoning-Scientific-Method-vs-Faith/page17

You have improved. Your actual reasoning in your last post was mentally engaging.

But my point again, was to steve, that natural theologians can make and have made a case for God’s existence from nature (specifically cosmology) using logic, evidence and reasoning. I was not trying to present a lengthy detailed case. If you would like to revisit the detailed specifics then I invite you to add your last post to the thread I directed you to above where we could hash out our reasoning in a more appropriate context and where we can each reference our prior efforts addressing these ideologies. It would be fun and steve could join us there in the details if he wishes.

Fair?

 

[steve_bank]

remez, old buddy, pal, amigo...I never accused you of blind faith. You made claims of a proof of god based on science. I sense you are a bit uncomfortable with the debate because you can not make adequate responses.

Present on proofs of god thread in the form

p1...
p2...
c therefore god exists

Be as lengthy and detailed as you need. Start your own proof thread if you like.


Years back there was a steady stream of theists making proofs based on science. A well trodden path on the forum.

 

[Keith&Co.]

remez, old buddy, pal, amigo...I never accused you of blind faith.

Don't matter a damn. remez excels at misstating the contents, intentions, and motives of his fellow posters.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie
We have two choices. God in time, God outside of time. I pointed out why neither works in the end. The Flies In Amber scenario. Or God is subject to time, physics and all of reality. And in the end is a superfluous hypothesis that explains exactly noting.

This is a good reason to think God is a bad hypothesis that self destructs when examined carefully.
But you have provided no good reasoning.

You have more than two choices. And you made no case against the God in time theology. You simply asserted that this includes God. Which doesn’t address the actual theological reasoning to the contrary. You didn’t engage the reasoning you just asserted your contrarian view. You seem unaware of the vast depth of this topic.

First tell me how the theologian reasons that God is not in the stated position of your conclusion. Then tell me why your reasoning trumps that of the theologian.

I gave you very good reasons why neither works. Sorry you can't understand how deeply unlikely God is when we take a close look at God and the nature of time.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie
We have two choices. God in time, God outside of time. I pointed out why neither works in the end. The Flies In Amber scenario. Or God is subject to time, physics and all of reality. And in the end is a superfluous hypothesis that explains exactly noting.

This is a good reason to think God is a bad hypothesis that self destructs when examined carefully.
But you have provided no good reasoning.

You have more than two choices. And you made no case against the God in time theology. You simply asserted that this includes God. Which doesn’t address the actual theological reasoning to the contrary. You didn’t engage the reasoning you just asserted your contrarian view. You seem unaware of the vast depth of this topic.

First tell me how the theologian reasons that God is not in the stated position of your conclusion. Then tell me why your reasoning trumps that of the theologian.

I gave you very good reasons why neither works. Sorry you can't understand how deeply unlikely God is when we take a close look at God and the nature of time.

You are missing the point. The point is that god and magic are the same thing, and I don't mean that god has magic powers, I mean that god is magic. That's how it works in the mind of a believer when it comes to gods and other forms of woo. The belief in magic comes first, which in turn enables the belief in gods. What good is any god that doesn't have magic powers, seems kinda silly, it wouldn't be a god. Believing in magic powers is what makes gods possible.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

My point is this. When we consider time and God, the magic collapses into foggy nothing. Either way, God in time or God outside of time, we end up with a God that is not what the theologians insist God must be, which they use as a basic foundation for their theologies.

Which in the end they insist must be Biblical, which to the theologians means a maximized, perfect being theology. Not the very limited God of Genesis et al. Yes, their God is magic. But not really when you start looking at the details. There are a number of thick, learned tomes out there about God and Time, but none of these schnooks seem to be capable of following the clues to their logical and damning conclusion.

Debunking all of this is as easy as a hand grenade in a barrel of fish.

 

[Politesse]

What modern Christian theologians insist that God "must be" anything?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What modern Christian theologians insist that God "must be" anything?

William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, John Hicks, David bentley Hart, every RCC theologian in good standing with the RCC, really, it is hard to think of any that do not try to justify and harmonize Perfect Being theology with the reality we see around us.

 

[Politesse]

What modern Christian theologians insist that God "must be" anything?

William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, John Hicks, David bentley Hart, every RCC theologian in good standing with the RCC, really, it is hard to think of any that do not try to justify and harmonize Perfect Being theology with the reality we see around us.

Betcha you're wrong... shall we go down your list and see why? For instance, if God "must" be anything, then Craig's preferred philosophical crux, the Kalam ontological argument, wouldn't make sense; God, in his view, is inherently free from constraint, and thus the only class if being that could possibly have produced a finite universe. God, in his view, can be anything, but we can infer from the nature of the universe itself which sort of thing God is. It's an Aristotelian approach, filtered through Al-Ghazali, not a top-down chain of reasoning from the assumed qualities of God.

No Catholic theologian "in good standing" would ever claim to know what God fundamentally is at all; Latin theologians embraced apophatic theology from early on. The nature of God is fundamentally mysterious in Catholic thinking, accesible insofar as God has revealed Godself to humanity intentionally. So there's no room for "musts" there either.

 

[steve_bank]

What modern Christian theologians insist that God "must be" anything?

Then if you are not a secular philosophical Christian what do you believe god is? God exists without definition by us mere mortals but god is an active agent that can make things happen?

You either believe in god or you do not. If you do, definitions do not really matter. God s a mystery to us and works in mysterious ways, a common Christian retort.

 

[Politesse]

Then if you are not a secular philosophical Christian what do you believe god is?

A very interesting question, for the most part.

You either believe in god or you do not.

I'm agnostic on the question, personally.

If you do, definitions do not really matter. God s a mystery to us and works in mysterious ways, a common Christian retort.

That sounds like a much more common Christian perspective than what Charlie was proposing, yes.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

William Craig Lane
#535 Must We Prove God’s Superlative Attributes?
July 16, 2017


But apart from the ontological argument, “how do you get from ‘very’ to ‘omni’?” This is a requirement of Scripture and perfect being theology, both of which I have good reason to regard as true.

And then we have the Council Of Trent, in all it's glory

I am the Almighty God;" 3 and again, Jacob Scriptures,
when sending his sons to Joseph thus prayed for them, " May That of
my Almighty God make him favourable to you." 4 In the Almighty
Apocalypse also it is written, " The Lord God, who is, who ^"e nL
was, and who is to come, the Almighty :" 5 and in another
place the last day is called " the day of Almighty God."
Sometimes the same attribute is expressed in many words ;
thus : " no word shall be impossible with God :" 7 "Is the hand
of the Lord unable?" 8 "Thy power is at hand when thou
wilt." 9 Many other passages of the same import might be
adduced, all of which convey the same idea which is clearly
comprehended under this single word " Almighty " By it we Its mean-
understand that there neither is, nor can be imagined any thing ing
which God cannot do ; for he can not only annihilate all created
things, and in a moment summon from nothing into existence
many other worlds an exercise of power, which, however
great, comes in some degree within our comprehension but he
can do many things still greater, of which the human mind can
form no conception. But though God can do all things, yet he
cannot lie, or deceive, or be deceived ; he cannot sin, or be
ignorant of any thing, or cease to exist. These things are com
patible with those beings only whose actions are imperfect, and
are entirely incompatible with the nature of God, whose acts are
all-perfect.
...
Catchism of the Council of Trent


And on and on. God is perfect. Omnipotent. Omniscient. Perfectly good. etc.

 

[steve_bank]

A very interesting question, for the most part.

I'm agnostic on the question, personally.

If you do, definitions do not really matter. God s a mystery to us and works in mysterious ways, a common Christian retort.

That sounds like a much more common Christian perspective than what Charlie was proposing, yes.

ok, you are agnostic as I thought. Nowwe are getting aomewhere...

In a show on religion a rabbi was asked if god existed or not. He plied it does not matter.''It bs what we do hyat matters.

Christians mold god and Jesus to match themselves.

When I was a kid I saw a painting of a black Jesus in a black family's place. I was too young to realize the significance. The grammar school I went to was attached to a small Catholic basilica. Cavernous with a dome over the alter. Hanging over the alter was a large pearly white Jesus with blue eyes and blond hair.

Jesus and god are what you make them into.

I would imagine the same for all mythologies and traditions.

The thing about the ancient Hebrews is that it was blasphemy to say the word god and to have any image related to god.


I sat next to a Jew on a plane. He took out a wooden cube with symbols that had a strap. He attached it to his forehead and covered his head with a black cloth. He told me afterwards was in the presence of god.

Online sites by conservative Jews will say g_d instead of god. One of many peculiar workarounds for conservative Jews with biblical requirements. You are not supposed to do work on the Sabbath which some ineterpret as not dialing the old rotary phones. So you use a machined to dial it for you.


God the unseen unimaginable unknowable with a universal presence felt by believers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God the unseen unimaginable unknowable with a universal presence felt by believers.

Translation: Woooey Ooooey Yummy Uuuuuummy anything I want it to be that makes me feel good to think it.

When a toddler picks up a toy airplane and makes it fly around, or has two plastic dinosaurs fighting it out, or has a conversation with a baby doll, this is god in all its glory and without all the formal trappings of culture.

Then god grows up and becomes a person that flies around in the sky, a person that made the dinosaurs. In short a god is anything a person wants it to be at anytime and in any place.

And incidentally I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just recognizing it for what it is.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It does matter when some toxic, stupid Christian has the president's ear. Such as the miserable Paula White. Or when some such ignorant toxic Christian bleaters wobble into the voting booth en masse.