I'm reading through "The Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W. Tozer. You can find a copy of it online by searching, but I'm not linking directly because even though Tozer is no longer alive, I don't know who owns the copyright or whether the work is now public domain.

The text is fairly dense, so even though it's only about 80 pages long, you shouldn't really be moving at more than a couple pages per day. It requires a good deal of reflection to really take in the points. I'd recommend Christians read it and treat it almost like a devotional study (instead of pleasure or inspirational reading), and I'll let atheists decide for themselves whether it's worth their time. I'll warn that Tozer's language is a little bit old, and reflects a KJV tradition, so it might be a little bit tough to make sense of his words at some points.

Anyway, in Chapter 5: The Self-existence of God, I found a passage which states much more clearly an idea that I've tried to explain to others in various discussions regarding having "categories of thought," by which I mean some sort of intellectual classification in which certain pieces of information are stored and understood. The one that comes to mind in particular is a conversation with Eddi regarding "the physical universe."

In his conception of "the universe" he required it to be described by things that could be touched, smelled, etc. which led him to ask "What does 'physical' mean?" (If you care, here is the thread.)

Essentially, Eddi does not have (or did not allow himself to have in that conversation) a mental category to allow for the non-physical. How he would classify an "idea" (as either physical or non-physical) still remains a mystery to me since he never addressed that particular point.

You see similar sorts of arguments, like "Who designed the designer?" or "If God created everything, who created God?" in which people fail to have a category to allow for things to exist yet be uncreated.

The passage below speaks directly to these last two questions, but more broadly speaks to the importance of being careful about attempting to describe God in terms of known quantities. If God is who the Christians claim He is, then he is "wholly other" (something completely different) and even though we attempt to describe him in our limited ways, we must also recognize that our finite attempts are ultimately falling short of the infinite God.

Im not sure I understand this part...

So, faith and love are the only way we can glimpse God, but the knowledge that faith and love are the only methods of glimpsing god is rather vague. However, because He is supernatural, faith and love provide a better understanding of God than sensible questions or apprehensions. This is because all sensible images are immeasurably remote from God.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

If so, what reasons does he have for concluding that sensible images are immeasurably remote from god, but faith and love are not. Why does he think that? I ask because it seems he’s using logic and reasoning to illustrate why we can’t understand God with ‘sensible’ questions. So im assuming he has logical/sensible reasons why faith and love are ‘closer’ to supernatural than corporeal or sensible images are.

I mean, I think faith and love have natural causes, why are these not immeasurably remote from God? Why are some natural things incompatible with God, while other natural things actually help to understand God? What characteristics do faith and love have which shed any light at all on understanding supernatural things?

/brain

Tozer is fabulous.

One of my favorite essays by him online: http://www.worldinvisible.com/librar...00.0888.01.htm

I thought of it more like, "Hey, if you guys think this way then god having no creator makes sense!" Doesn't provide any sort of evidence or logic, just a claim and then preaches about it. Seems like a circular argument when I read paragraph 2

When atheists ask "but where did God come from" it is rarely done in isolation, it is usually a response to theists claiming, that any naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe is fatally flawed, because it allows for eternal existence; the theist then offers as a competing explanation, that the universe was created by God, who has existed eternally.
If eternal existence is such a no no that it disqualifies any naturalistic explanation, you cannot build it into your argument. If it is not a problem you have no justification for throwing the naturalistic explanation away.

If the God is eternal claim falls in isolation, I have little to say, but when a theist uses the counter intuitive nature of eternal existence, to disqualify my pet theory, I think I have a right to ask why it is not a problem in his.

Pretty much this.

Who designed the designer is in response to the assertion everything needs a designer. Therefor if God is something and not nothing he needs a designer.

Its really theists who fail to add a category (well category's) and its that the universe might not of needed creation and might of always existed in some way.

Im opened to the idea of a God who didn't have a creator or a universe that didn't, or both needing a creator, or both being one and the same, or maybe everything that is "is" in some way my ape brain cant even possibly grasp. Its mostly theists who close out category's by claiming to know the truth.

My soul followeth hard after thee:
thy right hand upholdeth me.-Psa. 63:8


This is a little too double-entredrish for me.

Are you vhawk?

no

I agree with Skalf and Batair. Just to add, the problem is not that the child is capable of only thinking in terms of one 'category.' I am perfectly willing to accept that there are various categories which may exist of which I have not thought, or may not even be able to comprehend. The question is not whether these categories can exist, but rather why should I believe that a particular one exists?

this is a strawman. the argument is not and has never been "everything needs a designer".

The short response is that every effect must have a cause that is sufficient for the effect, and everything in the universe is caused by something. (These are assumptions about the nature of the universe. You can reject them if you want, but I don't think you'll find the potential replacements satisfying.)

The primary limitation of "natural explanations" is that these are understood to be effects contained within and fully describable within the universe. In other words, natural explanations still require a cause because you have limited yourself to explanations that must be "inside" the universe somewhere. As long as you say that this is the result of something within the universe, I can go back a step and ask you where the antecedent comes from.

Since everything inside the universe is caused, this causes a downward (or perhaps upward) spiral of effects that must find a cause, and this leads to a nonsensical conception of the universe. (This is similar to this post and this post from this thread.)

Therefore, there must be something "outside" of the universe that caused the universe into existence. And because this thing is not a part of the universe, it is not necessarily an effect, and therefore it is not necessary for this thing to have a cause. (This is not an argument for the Christian God, but rather for generic theism.)

[Note: I haven't really gone into the "sufficiency" part of the argument because it isn't quite so attached to the point here. That one is basically that "random chance" is not a sufficient explanation, and therefore we must find a non-random explanation, such as agency or will to explain the universe. This one is more "opinion" than argument, because one can always opine that "chance" is sufficient for any explanation. Obviously, I disagree with that, but it's not a provable position to take. Chance does not prescribe what will happen, but rather describes what could happen. And since it happened, it could have been chance.]

Then we agree the universe might not need a designer.

Does the atheistic view of the Universe necessarily allow for eternal existence? I thought it base premise was the scientific fact of Big Bang. Does this not set a finite existence?

I'm asking a legitimate question, not debating. I find this subject fascinating.

See the bracketed comment in my post. You're right that the universe might not "need" a designer, since chance allows for basically anything to happen. An arrowhead could be the result of random natural causes (perhaps rolling down a hill in the right way, or perhaps other rocks randomly falling on it, or even a combination of these types of events).

The question, however, is whether the appearance of design in the universe is the result of design, or if it's just "chance."

I could just turn this around, if everything needs a designer and Gods not a nothing, and ask is the appearance of design in the something that is God a result of design or chance?

But by not needing a designer im not saying the universe could of came into existence out of chance (although i think that's a possibility too). Im saying for all i know it's possible the universe always was in some way in existence so there is no chance necessary for its creation as there would be no creation.

What are known quantities of God? When someone says "God is love" is that a finite attempt that ultimately falls short of describing an infinite God? If He is "wholly other" then why do humans share some of the same characteristics of God such as love?

And I would simply reply that you're making an error of category. You're basically saying that things outside of the universe must play by the same rules as things inside the universe. There's no reason to accept that position, and it seems reasonable to say that position is probably not correct (since if things outside the universe were subject to the laws of the universe, what would it mean for that thing to be "outside" the universe?)

In other words, you're simply claiming an eternal universe?

You should read the chapter called "A Divine Attribute: Something True About God." It will at least serve as a primer for how we use language to describe God.

The reason we share some characteristics is because we have been endowed with the "image" of our creator. However, being an "image" we are not the actual thing, but something like a reflection of it. When looking in a mirror, you're not looking at yourself, but a reflection of yourself. There's not an actual "you" in the mirror.

The original Cosmological Argument stated 'everything that exists had a cause' which is easily shot down by the 'what caused god' argument and is why Kalam is now the preferred argument.

Yes, these are assumptions but the potential replacements being unsatisfying is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not you can justify the assumption in the first place regardless of how well you like the alternatives. In order to label something an effect, you must know that there was a cause in the first place. And the general way to do this is to demonstrate what that cause was.

I think we agree here but for somewhat different reasons. Natural explanations do not necessarily require a cause. I think you are categorizing things here. I think you are limiting yourself to explanations that must be 'inside' the universe when you speak of 'natural explanations.' There are a number of other potential explanations, such as our universe being eternal with the Big Bang simply being a change of state, or a multiverse which is eternal.

Again, I think this is categorizing things unjustly. Here you are assuming that the 'first cause' (if there is one), if it be naturalistic, must abide by these internal rules or 'natural laws' (ie. cause and effect). In other words, you are describing cause and effect as 'inside the universe' and then saying that if the universe were created by natural means then it must abide by these internal rules. The problem is that this disregards the possibility that these internal rules may not have existed yet, as they may simply be a product of our universe. Why cannot the universe be eternal? And, if it is not, why cannot its origin be of a natural explanation 'outside' of the universe?

And this is the problem. The bottom line is that we do not know how the universe began, if it began, or even if 'before the universe' or 'what caused the universe' makes any sense. When this is the case, the honest answer is not to make conjectures about what you feel makes more sense. The answer is 'I do not know.'

I read the chapter and he essentially says that our descriptions of God often fall short because we are "thinking creature-thoughts and using creature-words".

We cannot describe what we can hardly comprehend.

Tozer says a better way to "answer our questions concerning Him"..."must be sought by prayer, by long meditation on the written Word, and by earnest and well-disciplined labor."

Why does the Word get a pass here? Is the Bible completely accurate in its usage of words to describe God? I assume you think that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but it was compiled by "thinking creature-thoughts and using creature-words".

I wouldn't use the word must in things i have little to no knowledge of. I should of said if God is something and all somethings we know need a creator than God seems to need a creator.

Oh no i could be wrong. But im not making anymore of a guess then people saying something that exist outside of our known universe doesn't need a creator. In fact i would say given the first assumption which isn't proven, that is everything we know ultimately needs a creator, i think my position is a better guess.

No im claiming idk much about the universe and it always being in some way is a possibility, along with a number of others. And all of those are still leaving out possibility's for the universe my brain can't comprehend.

Physically outside - As in, there is our universe (a ball), some barrier, and then something (as opposed to nothing) on the outside?