See if you can understand this exposition of why God does exist in actual reality corresponding to the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.


You and I and everyone keen on proving God exists or God does not exist, first we go into a discussion phase to get concurred on things needed for the resolution of the issue; when we have achieved concurrence on our premises, then we go into the expedition phase to look for God existing in actual reality or not.


Discussion phase:

Discussion phase 1 (dp1), all concur that God in concept is [ in concept ] the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Discussion phase 1a (dp1a), you concur with me that the universe has a beginning..

Discussion phase 1b (dp1b). I concur with you that the universe has no beginning it has always existed.

Expedition phase:

Expedition phase 1a (ep1a), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has a beginning, and even the universe itself as a whole has a beginning; wherefore an entity is needed to give beginning to the universe and everything with a beginning, like God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning..

Expedition phase 1b (ep1b), all proceed to the realm of concrete actual reality to verify that every instance of existence has always existed, including the universe as a whole; wherefore no entity is needed to give a beginning to them, like for example God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, neeeel, what do you say about my exposition?

You are effectively giving a (rather poorly executed) variant of a cosmological argument, in particular the kalam cosmological argument if you are going to worry about beginnings. Something like this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe had a cause, which I shall term "God".

Is this what you are trying to say? Because there has been many threads and many philosophical works over the years discussing such cosmological arguments, and no, they are not at all convincing. To give just one of many possible counterpoints:
This doesn't follow. Why does the beginning of something require an entity? Suppose I agreed (I don't) that the universe necessarily had "a cause". Why would that mean this cause was an entity? Or an entity that loves us and has a son named jesus? If what you want to say is "the Universe simply must have a cause" well okay, you get that it has a cause, but you get precisely no other property from this.

In addition to what uke_master wrote, if you claim to know that the universe had a beginning (or did not have a beginning) I believe you would have to prove it. But of course humanity does not know the answer to that question -- and it is possible we will never know -- and so the kalam cosmological argument, even if it had no other flaws and was only being used to attempt to prove the existence of "some cause" is only able to establish that *IF* the universe began, which we don't know, then x y or z. It does not establish what the case actually is.

You obviously haven't seen the online poker is rigged thread

So let me see if I have this straight:
1 The universe is beyond my understanding
2 I wish that were not the case
3 A creator God simplifies the universe
4 God exists
Is that the gist of the argument?

I say you still need to prove that god is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning. We are accepting the premise for the purpose of your argument. It does not mean that we agree its true, or that its real.

so you still have some work to do

1)Show that god exists, and is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning
2) show that the universe had a begninning.

I mean, sure, if you want I will assign the word "god" to the concept " the creator and operator of everything with a beginning" but this gets us no further that that. If you can show me that such a concept actually exists, then we are getting somewhere. Assigning a word to a concept does not allow us to add further details( eg that its the christian god) for free.

Otherwise we are doing nothing different from assigning "santa claus" to mean "man who delivers presents on christmas eve"



Have you ever seen anything have a beginning? I havent. I have seen things change form, or grow and fade away, but I have never seen anything begin from nothing. So I cant verify that every instance of existence has a beginning. You also need to define "entity". Is "wind" an entity, wind can appear to make things exist (eg waves, rock structures, clouds etc).

It's really more "hi, I'm a gimmick account made to show people how dumb they are by representing ambiguity as a lack of understanding on their part", really.

But then again, I might be a cynic.

I could easily be persuaded gimmick account, but on the other hand, the dreadful ageist in me screams "you're dealing with an old!" Could be either. Or both!

I'm beginning to think more and more that this is all some weird troll.

Assuming it isn't, your reply is very odd. It comes across as if you believe you have just made a fool of me in front of everyone and made my post to look like nonsense.

My point is that it makes sense to base your beliefs on what is most likely, what you understand and what science has taught you. Do I know for a fact that there are no elves? No. Could I be sure to 99.999999%? Pretty much. Why? There is no evidence to suggest they do...

Same with a 'god' . Unless of course you twist your definition of a god in such a way so that it has to be true.

I believe elves to be the creator of trees
There are trees
Therfore there are elves

If the Bible was as advertised, ie the word of God.. this all knowing being who created us, basically just 'because', then why is their no information in there beyond man's knowledge of the time? Dinosaurs, age of the earth etc etc..

Seems a bit odd, huh?

And with the world in an absolute mess at the moment with thousands of times the population, with atrocities happening which way overshadow anything of early man, why hasn't he showed up again to whip us into shape?

Religion is the result of a few different parts of human nature.

The tendency to believe what we WANT to be true
Wanting to add meaning to life
Desperately not wanting death to be 'it'

I believe there are few people out there who genuinely believe 100% in their chosen religion. You would have to question their logic if they did. For example,if priests genuinely believed there was an almighty God watching their every move and that sin resulted in eternal suffering of the worst kind possibly imaginable, they would probably be a bit less tempted by young boys, wouldn't they?

Also, why are Christians still so scared of death?? If I was a believer, I'd be parachuting with a dodgy parachute all the time.. Heaven sounds great!?!

Susmario's arguments vaguely remind me of Plantinga's reformed epistemology, where a belief in God can be seen as a basic belief, which does not in itself require supporting arguments to stand. Just thought I'd throw that out there, whether right or wrong.

Most people "genuinely believe" I think. Your argument doesn't hold generally, and particularly not in catholicism where sinning and asking forgiveness later is a huge part of the ritual. That someone sins is therefore not a genuine believer is antithetical to the very core of the religion.

This argument is the cousin of, "you should kill children so they will go to heaven, and not have a chance to go to hell." It is inherently presumptuous because it undermines God's plan. If God gave you life and has sustained you thus far, why would you kill yourself simply because heaven is better? You're saying that God's plan of life is not as good as your own plan of skipping it and going to heaven.

The same way that God could have not given the baby life, that one might kill to avoid them any suffering, God could at any time take any of us, so playing fast and loose in an attempt to die is illogical. God knows the risks and the rewards, and it is apparently worth it to him to have life play out, so it can't be "better" to simply abort.

But that's why he gave you free will, so you could choose to kill children and/or yourself.

Is every thing you do or don't do violating god's plan, or just those two things? In either case, how did you come to know this?

What is your argument - that because we have free will anything we do is good?

Thanks neeee for your reply.

Do you notice that you are not accustomed to and skillful in systematic critique of what you read.

That is the trouble with atheists: they do not think systematically and thoroughly, shall I use the word integrally but first step by step orderlily.

Okay, take my steps of the exposition and give your critical comments to them one by one, starting with Discussion phase 1 (dp1).



Okay, fellow posters here atheists, do systematic thinking, please.



See you all again tomorrow.





==============================


Annex

No, I was attempting to show that "It is inherently presumptuous because it undermines God's plan" is ridiculous. Literally everything we do with the free will that many apologists seem to think is so important could be said to be undermining God's plan - what makes murder so special in that regard?

If you are going to come to this forum and insult people well fine, but at least have the common courtesy to stop surrounding it with this fake polite bull****. Just do what you really came here to do - tell atheists how they are morons - without everything else attached.

You have yet to demonstrate any ability to actually engage in any "systematic thinking" with any of the criticisms yet offered in this thread, and have reduced yourself to empty insults.

You're not making a good case as to why what I said is incorrect. All you're doing is pointing out other stuff that is also wrong. Okay, but so what?

Killing yourself because heaven is better than life on earth is obviously wrong, not only because it involves suicide, but because God wants you to be alive, which is why you're here in the first place. I'm not sure what pointing to other things that are against God's will does to this argument, but it certainly doesn't negate it.

Susmario, you're lucky that anyone is still responding to you. If you're capable of making a coherent argument, it's time to do it - without the personal insults.

When I saw the thread title "I like to talk with atheists philosophically" I didn't know you meant "I like to belittle atheists pedantically". Here's some systematic thinking along the same lines as you have provided:
1: God probably doesn't exist.
1a: If there is a god, there is no evidence of it, except as created by men (the bible, talmud, koran, etc. - all written by men with ulterior motives.)
1b: The traditional example of a benevolent and omnipotent "God" is beyond defense in any version of the world man has inhabited.
1bi: His own ineffible plan is a facile attempt to resolve this indefensible position.
2: The universe is beyond man's understanding so he has created "God" to explain the apparent magic of things he cannot comprehend. (Ironically creating a "God" that he is content to not understand)
2b: As science explains various phenomena, prior versions of gods are replaced and subsequently viewed as primitive and naive.
2bi: Zeus's lightening, Apollo's sun, various gods of rainfall and rivers etc. have been explained away leaving fewer and fewer mysteries for which to be accounted.
2bii: Scientific discoveries will eventually leave nothing for man to attribute to a god.
3: Unless mankind destroys itself first, a time will come when no educated person believes in God.
3a: All current major religions rely on one or more "miracles" as proof of divinity.
3ai: These miracles either occurred so long ago that they are, as yet, impossible to disprove (although easy to explain) or, if they occurred more recently, they are viewed as lies or exaggerations by a vast majority (Joseph Smith's glasses for example).
3aii: Given enough time, science will explain away every miracle leaving previous believers with the choice of facing facts and abandoning their prior faith or continuing to fool themselves in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now if I must, to touch on your very narrow topics:
dp1: Many, myself included, do NOT concur that any god is necessarily the creator of the universe. We certainly have no reason to believe that he or she is the operator of it.
dp1a&b: I have no idea whether the unverse has a beginning or has always existed. Neither do you nor anyone. I am comfortable with that. I do not need to add another layer of uncertainty to combat that lack of knowledge.
expedition phase (wtf!?): I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but apparently you believe atheists just haven't yet been shown the error of their ways. "The realm of concrete actual reality" would be a very small subset of the universe(s). In my mind it would be limited to only things that I could see or otherwise prove. "Every instance of existence" is far too broad a concept to debate intelligently, especially within the scope of concrete actual reality. This is tantamount to asking: Limiting yourself to the scope of things that you currently have in your hand, explain everything. The topic parameters negate themselves.
I had hoped this thread would include intelligent philosophical discussion rather than the standard circular arguments we've all heard before. My hopes have not, so far, been met.

Very nice. Are you to be our religious voice of intelligent reason and save this thread from the tyranny of its creator?

Do you notice that you never respond to anything I say, you just keep repeating yourself over and over. I have already given my critical comments, I am not going to give them again.

Just get on with your proof now.

No, sir, I don't think I'll be saving any threads any time soon.

What I think would help the OP's argument, is to argue from Plantinga's properly basic belief. Not that it's irrefutable or anything, but it would give him a foundation where he could then go on say the same things he's saying, without people stumping him by asking him for a syllogistic argument. Just my 2 cents.

Well, there is no intention to insult you anyone at all, just the intention to ask you to do systematic thinking when there is a system I present to you for us to prove God exists or does not exist.

Okay, please examine step dp1, in bold below..



If you don't care to give me your critical comments on step dp1, then I will assume that you already accept that my system proves God exists: as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Or you produce a system to show readers how you prove that God does not exist, step by step, and tell me to start with your first step, to give my critical comments on it.


[ This post edited on 10/27/2014 at 0137hrs. ]

Here are my critical comments on dp1:-

I say you still need to prove that god is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning. We are accepting the premise for the purpose of your argument. It does not mean that we agree its true, or that its real.

so you still have some work to do

1)Show that god exists, and is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning
2) show that the universe had a begninning.

I mean, sure, if you want I will assign the word "god" to the concept " the creator and operator of everything with a beginning" but this gets us no further that that. If you can show me that such a concept actually exists, then we are getting somewhere. Assigning a word to a concept does not allow us to add further details( eg that its the christian god) for free.

Otherwise we are doing nothing different from assigning "santa claus" to mean "man who delivers presents on christmas eve"



Have you ever seen anything have a beginning? I havent. I have seen things change form, or grow and fade away, but I have never seen anything begin from nothing. So I cant verify that every instance of existence has a beginning. You also need to define "entity". Is "wind" an entity, wind can appear to make things exist (eg waves, rock structures, clouds etc).