Amaranth

Still too scared to define "god", I see. We both know that will be the point that gets your wiggling nailed to the wall then, I suppose. PM me if you ever feel like starting that debate.

Biff the unclean

Not everything is natural, else we wouldn't have the concepts for 'unnatural' and 'artificial'. That's why the word 'natural' has meaning. My original point stands.
I think the point that stands is that you haven't a clue as to what the word rational means.
Are you trying to tell us that because we can imagine something and give it a name that makes it pop into existence?

But it is all on the premise that everything that happens is not just in your imagination.
If you've already reached the point where in trying to prove that your fictional God is real you most say that there is no reality it's time that you quit.

1. Every finite thing has a cause
You have not proved that
2. The universe, finite, has a cause
You have not proved that either
3. The universe's cause is a cause of a cause of a cause... or...
4. The universe's cause is uncaused/infinite
Where does that last "infinite" come from? That doesn't follow

The universe is a meaningless concept if it is everything.
"Meaning" is a human concept. Humans subscribe "meaning" to things. It is in the eye of the beholder not the object itself.

The Christian conception of God, by contrast, has God as in His nature relational, and therefore self-referent.
Then all you have to do is produce a God and your argument works. Otherwise you are just posturing.

Trinity is a Christian concept, and the concept says that God's nature is described as trinity. According to the concept, God's nature has *always* been One in Three. As I have already said, Christ made it very clear that He existed before He was born a man: 'Before Abraham, I am.'
And as Abraham said, "Jesus? Jesus who? Isn't that the kid who delivers the pizza? Holy Ghost, what holy ghost? I'm a Jew, Jews don't believe that. Go ask a Greek."

But I can say for certain that most people just aren't well informed on the Christian concept of trinity.
But you are??????? LOL LOL LOL

A book is a book because there exist things outside of a book which provide context and definition- the book is truly something because it isn't everything.
Aren't you embarrassed yet? You must be blushing. You are trying to say that there is a God because there are things which aren't a God. That's the same proof that proves that invisible pink unicorns are real.

Nothing, at least in the universe, is intrinsically meaningful.
There is no such thing as a God.

Infidelettante

quote: Danielious
I would say, upon reading the above several times in order to find some meaning in it, that your attempt to meaningfully define definition is meaningless.

If everything was a book then everything could be meaningfully defined as a book.

If meaning is present in the universe in the same way that books are present in the universe why should the universe have need of an outside agent to give it meaning.

If I, being in the universe as books are in the universe, give meaning to the universe as I give meaning to books then the universe has meaning regardless of what is outside it.

This is a totally new doctrine which has, I am quite sure, never raised it’s grotesque visage in that garden of the bizarre called Christian Theology. It is difficult enough keeping up with how you interpret the old, well worn, doctrines much less when you toss in ones that even Augustine would not attempt to champion.

God needs no definition or meaning. To say that the Father can reach out of himself to the Son is to say nothing. God needs no context. As a Pagan I believe Goddess is a triune deity, a belief every bit as valid as yours and as irrational and unreasoned as yours. Read carefully and try to understand.

The Trinity of Maiden, Mother, And Crone reveals the movement of the deity through the offices of godhead. First Maiden, next Mother, lastly Old Woman. It traces the creative process that gave rise to the universe and continues to sustain it now. “Thus, trinity is logical and reasonable.”

By your formula my Pagan World View is as reasonable your Christian World View. The difference is that I would never make the claim. Religion is irrational and unreasoned and the sooner Theists learn that the sooner they can start having fun with their religion.

You can not know the cause of the universe unless you learn the cause from a source that is both prior to and other than the universe. The problem for you is that you can’t use the existence of the universe as proof of the source. You must prove the source exists by other means.

To claim there is a creator because we know the universe was created is to say nothing about the creator or the creation. If some source is found to reveal the creation how will you tell it is the creator? Christian doctrine allows devils and demons. How are you to verify the divinity of your source, it may as well be a being who claims to be your God or your God may indeed have been a demon all along. How would you know.

If you believe in a creator who has revealed to you the purpose and manner of creation you must First, tell us who that creator is, Second, tell us how he has revealed this to you, Third, prove the revelation to be genuine and trustworthy and, Fourth, prove the revelation is available to everyone to know and understand.

The First and Second I give you. The Fourth you could make a case for, though it will be difficult at this forum. The Third would be very difficult for even the most skilled apologist. Indeed, there are skilled apologists at this forum who have never, to my knowledge, succeeded at a convincing argument. At least not with those they try to convince.

The creation of the universe is a mystery to us and IMHO will always be a mystery. It is a barrier we can not cross. You have yet to convince any here, as far as I can tell, that you have seen the other side. Verbiage is not evidence. You are weighed and found wanting. Go back to Three and try again.

JT

danielius

Well, the loaded language to one side, it's already been discussed that things can exist physically or conceptually. Imagining something only tells us for certain that it exists as a concept.

I've already said, and the Christian viewpoint is, that we are all real, and that this world is real. There is evidence for such a belief, though I would say that the premise is unproven/unprovable.

Well, tell me one finite thing that wasn't caused.

I'm not trying to say there is a God, we all know there is a God, but what we dispute is the nature of that God. Is He only a concept - does he only exist conceptually - or is He also physically existent, as we are physically existent?

My argument only demonstrates that not everything can be 'caused', therefore something must be 'uncaused'. Modern cosmologists say the universe was uncaused, I say God was uncaused. The concept of 'uncaused' is a valid one.

No, it couldn't. Think about it. If everything was 'book-shaped', how would we know it was shaped like a 'book'. To us, it would be shaped like 'everything', or being everything would have no shape at all.

You define books because you exist outside of them, and for that reason you cannot define the universe as you do not exist outside of it. Being inside the universe, you are a part of it, and a part cannot define the whole.

God does need definition and to be meaningful, as we do and we are made in the image of God. This is to be entirely consistent. And, look at the names used: 'Father' and 'Son' - those are relational names, the 'father' can only be such by relationship to a 'son' and vice-versa.

It's not for me to say whether Paganism is irrational and unreasoned, though you as a Pagan say it is, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. But I do not agree that Christianity is irrational and unreasoned.

Which leads us very nicely to Jesus Christ, God's self-revelation to Man. Let me see...

1. Jesus existed as a historical person
2. Jesus had a controversial ministry in Israel
3. Jesus was executed by crucifixion for blasphemy
4. His followers claimed he was resurrected and ascended
5. The N.T contains writing on his life, work, death and claims...

Are we all in basic agreement on the above?

Danielius

keyser_soze

Do you suppose that if this lasts another 20 pages that it can go from just mindnumbingly pathetic to potentially lethal to rational beings? Danielus, you have by far got to have the highest potential for fallacious output of anyone I've ever seen. At least magus doesn't pretend to ensconse his bs in logic...Reading this, physically gave me a headache. The entire time I pondered at how low the educational systems of the world are declining.

emotional

Well said, JTVrocher!

emotional

He is physically existent, but there's no rational way to prove that. Every theistic argument has already been rebutted, especially here on the Secular Web.

This life is the Lowest Kingdom, the Kingdom of Naturalism, where everything runs according to strict natural law, and the existence of God is hidden. The existence of God is clear to everyone after they die, but this, you will agree, is unprovable. Near-death experiences may be a glimpse of God's Light, but they're not proof either, because they could be a trick of the brain (a possibility I refuse to consider).



That's your private reasoning, not reasoning of the man in the street. My reasoning is that God is self-sufficient. God doesn't need definition to be meaningful, because God is definition, God is meaning.



You will agree when the atheists here rebut all your arguments for Christianity's "reasonability"



No evidence for that.



No evidence for that.



No evidence for that.



So what? Followers of every charismatic guru make wild claims about him. Proves nothing.



Ditto, proves nothing. Nothing more than the Book of Mormon proves, and you don't believe the Book of Mormon.

For my part, I do believe Jesus was a historical figure, though by virtue of speculation and not evidence. I disbelieve, however, in all the extraordinary claims. The way a historical figure can be made a Messiah and deified by his followers is outlined in my article Habad - Genesis of a New Christianity, which brings a good analogy from a well-known modern-day Jewish sect.

AJ113

More semantics. You say "exist as a concept." I say "figment of imagination." So to clarify: If an object or being "exists" only in someone's mind, it does not exist, and to use the word "exist" in connection with the imagined being or object is both misleading and fallacious, leading to ridiculous assertions such as:

I'm not trying to say there is a God, we all know there is a God, but what we dispute is the nature of that God. Is He only a concept - does he only exist conceptually - or is He also physically existent, as we are physically existent?

See?

You define books because you exist outside of them, and for that reason you cannot define the universe as you do not exist outside of it. Being inside the universe, you are a part of it, and a part cannot define the whole.

Come now, Daniellus, this is clearly bollocks. Am I disqualified from defining my family because I am part of it?

God does need definition and to be meaningful, as we do and we are made in the image of God.

Sigh. Prove it.

1. Jesus existed as a historical person
2. Jesus had a controversial ministry in Israel
3. Jesus was executed by crucifixion for blasphemy
4. His followers claimed he was resurrected and ascended
5. The N.T contains writing on his life, work, death and claims...

Are we all in basic agreement on the above?

I seriously doubt it.
1. Insufficient evidence.
2 - 4. Only in the fictional book described in #5
5. Yes, it's a story that carries less credence than a Harry Potter book.

danielius

I trust you do not find numbers to be a 'figment of the imagination'?

Yes. Content requires context, but context - by definition - does not require content. You define your family's content, but not its meaningful, contextual definition/identity.

I will limit my comments to those of Jeffery Jay Lowder, a skeptic atheist, who in an online chapter at the Infidels.org site says:

And...

And...

Parts of the above are disputed by some scholars, though Lowder - the skeptic writing for the Infidels.org site - concludes:

Lowder concludes his article:

Source for above quotes: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ury/chap5.html


I'll repeat what the skeptic Lowder writes at the Infidels-org site:

This would include evidence of his ministry and death.

Danielius

HRG

Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists which absolutely refutes the instantiation of the God concept in reality.

Quantum theory disagrees with you.
Non-sequitur. The universe is not a thing, but a collection of things which in general don't all exist simultaneously. Even if every thing within the universe was caused, to conclude that the universe itself is caused is the fallacv of composition.
As defined by whom ? BTW, my cats also play, laugh, explore and (probably) dream.
Can you actually support this claim ?
Come on. The belief is reasonable only if one already believes.
WHat basis do you have for concluding that the creator of A and the creator of B are identical ?

Regards,
HRG.