Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Cosmological Argument for Christianity

matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:02:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.
If the universe was created, the complicated, complex and designed are meaningless words, because everything is complicated, complex and designed therefore there is nothing uncomplicated, non complex or undesigned.
These words and many others are replaced by exists. ergo the very simple rock exists and is therefore evidence that god exists.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:07:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Only a god could create something incredibly simple or as non complex as it's possible to be and the fact that some item bears no indication that it was designed is evidence that god exists and designed it. Only the most complex being in the universe could create something so fcking simple.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Right, the cosmological arguments only attempt to get a toehold: *some* god exists. The details of this creator-god are completely disconnected from this argument. Just because, I'm gonna link an old YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:51:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

You know the "talking serpent" is an allegory. If not, then no wonder you wandered into the religion of darkness...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:57:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Those types of arguments, such as a regress of infinite causality lead us to theism.

Biology, physics, chemistry, etc are the study of the natural.

Theism is the study of the supernatural.

So now, do I believe in Hinduism who worship "demon gods" according to the religion itself and is in vast decline giving way to Islam, buddhism which claims no god, or Islam whose infallsable leader claimed he got his revelation from a demon, had a 6 year old wife, and hsd sex with her, and beheaded over 800 Jews...

Or do I believe the only one to mske an actual appearance in history? It's simple math. Come on Matt...you turned awayfrom Christianity to seek out the religion of death and hopelesness? We don't want what you have. Why? You have nothing.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:08:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

I think the most relevant argument for Christianity is Life and Death of Jesus Christ.

I don't think people are saying the universe is too complicated. Just that the universe and how reality seems to work suggests a conscience mind, ephemeral personality, or underlining computer program.

As for "complicated" maybe you are confusing statistics. How many rare occurences have to happen in a row before you suspect intelligent manipulation?

If you tip a box over of 100 dice and all of them land 6 up. Do you go exclaim how anything is possible in the multiverse of infinite outcomes or do you suspect an unfair hand in the matter?


How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

I think that is presumptuous. I personally doubt most creations say "universe so complicated ergo Everything in the Bible is True!"

Do you have an argument of your own or is this just a strawman. See a strawman is where you say "Christian (your opponent) says blah blah..." And then you procede to defeat blah blah.

Where are your points? where are your assertions of this shared reality? where are your premises and your conclusions?


Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.


Oh so a great strawman argument that can be applied to anyone. You might have a position to come from if you could actually provide a citation for a hindu saying that. Or a Pantheon Greek saying that. Or even a Christian saying that.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Atheist need to stop spamming the religion forum with strawman's composed of baseless assertion about theist claims.

Atheist need to make an argument not whine like toddlers and sling the crap in their diapers around.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:13:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:08:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

I think the most relevant argument for Christianity is Life and Death of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, Mormons would say that the most relevant argument for Mormonism is the life of Joseph Smith.

I don't think people are saying the universe is too complicated. Just that the universe and how reality seems to work suggests a conscience mind, ephemeral personality, or underlining computer program.

As for "complicated" maybe you are confusing statistics. How many rare occurences have to happen in a row before you suspect intelligent manipulation?

If you tip a box over of 100 dice and all of them land 6 up. Do you go exclaim how anything is possible in the multiverse of infinite outcomes or do you suspect an unfair hand in the matter?

Never have I said that the complexity of the universe does not implicate a consciousness and/or intelligence outside of our minds. My point of this thread is this:

What does that have to do with Christianity? Why would observations of complexity in the universe lead you to believe that human sacrifice is effective? Where is the connection?


How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

I think that is presumptuous. I personally doubt most creations say "universe so complicated ergo Everything in the Bible is True!"

Do you have an argument of your own or is this just a strawman. See a strawman is where you say "Christian (your opponent) says blah blah..." And then you procede to defeat blah blah.

Where are your points? where are your assertions of this shared reality? where are your premises and your conclusions?

I'm surprised to hear you say that Christians don't use the Cosmological argument to defend Christianity. Actually, its the first argument that Christians default to when someone calls their religion into question. Here are a couple examples:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Look at any debates about the validity of Christianity. Most of them will provide the cosmological argument but never once have I seen anyone connect the two. The forums are the same. Ask any non-theist on this site and I guarantee they will agree with me.


Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.


Oh so a great strawman argument that can be applied to anyone. You might have a position to come from if you could actually provide a citation for a hindu saying that. Or a Pantheon Greek saying that. Or even a Christian saying that.

I already provided some citations of Christians saying that. If I spent a little more time looking, I could find mountains of it because it is the most common argument for Christianity that I have seen on this site. I have also seen Muslims use it when the validity of Islam is questioned.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Atheist need to stop spamming the religion forum with strawman's composed of baseless assertion about theist claims.

I have already provided examples so it obviously is neither a strawman nor baseless. Are you now going to assert they were simply anomalies?


Atheist need to make an argument not whine like toddlers and sling the crap in their diapers around.

I provided sources to back up my assertion so I accept your apology ;)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:22:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 1:51:15 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

You know the "talking serpent" is an allegory. If not, then no wonder you wandered into the religion of darkness...

Is Noah's Ark an allegory?
Is the talking burning bush an allegory?
Is the parting of the red sea an allegory?
Is a man living in a fish for a couple days an allegory?
Is fire shooting from the sky an allegory?
Is the story of Jesus creating food out of thin air an allegory?
Is the story of Jesus walking on the water an allegory?

Don't you think it would be helpful for someone to list the miracles that are deemed allegorical and others that are deemed literal?

How would you know where to draw the line? Do you simply say that Jesus creating food out of thin air is perfectly reasonable yet a talking snake is considered impossible?

I find the mind of a theist to be a fascinating thing but I don't mean that in a complimentary way.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 3:28:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 1:57:48 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Those types of arguments, such as a regress of infinite causality lead us to theism.

Biology, physics, chemistry, etc are the study of the natural.

Theism is the study of the supernatural.

So now, do I believe in Hinduism who worship "demon gods" according to the religion itself and is in vast decline giving way to Islam, buddhism which claims no god, or Islam whose infallsable leader claimed he got his revelation from a demon, had a 6 year old wife, and hsd sex with her, and beheaded over 800 Jews...

Or do I believe the only one to mske an actual appearance in history? It's simple math. Come on Matt...you turned awayfrom Christianity to seek out the religion of death and hopelesness? We don't want what you have. Why? You have nothing.

Again, what does the cosmological argument have to do with Christianity? Please explain the connection between the universe seeming to be too complex to not be created and the validity of the Christian Bible.

Also, how does hope factor into what you deem to be true?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 4:16:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

I agree, the only time I use it is for a Deist debate/argument.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:43:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 5:43:15 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.

I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:56:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

As far as I know, it's only SOME religious Christians that make this claim. The ancient Greeks and the Hindus certainly never have. Nor have the Jews that I am aware of. I don't even think Muslims make such a claim. And I personally know many Christians that do NOT assert complexity as evidence for their God.

My own opinion on it is not that complexity stands as evidence of "God", but that the ORDER inherent within the energy from which all that exists, comes to exist, is what stands as evidence of God.

"God" being the term we humans use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of that order.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 6:42:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Right, the cosmological arguments only attempt to get a toehold: *some* god exists. The details of this creator-god are completely disconnected from this argument. Just because, I'm gonna link an old YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com...

If you'd study these religions you'd see why there is a monopoly. Do you want to serve the demon god Kali ma, as Hinduism is being quickly displaced by Islam, or how about Islam who's infallable leader got his revelation from a demon, according to himself...or the only guy who actually showed up and predicted everything that is happening in the world today. It's not rocket science unless you know nothing about world religion.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:25:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 7:56:43 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.

Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

As far as I know, it's only SOME religious Christians that make this claim. The ancient Greeks and the Hindus certainly never have. Nor have the Jews that I am aware of. I don't even think Muslims make such a claim. And I personally know many Christians that do NOT assert complexity as evidence for their God.

I realize that not all Christians make that claim but judging by observation on this forum, it would seem that most do when secularists question the validity of their religion. I have observed Muslims use it also but there isn't many on here. I was being facetious when I referenced Native Americans and Hindus. Regardless, it is certainly not an anomaly for a Christian to use the argument in defense of Christianity. When I inform them that is simply an argument for Deism, the difference doesn't seem to register and they keep repeating it whenever someone questions Christianity. This is my observation of what is typical.

My own opinion on it is not that complexity stands as evidence of "God", but that the ORDER inherent within the energy from which all that exists, comes to exist, is what stands as evidence of God.

"God" being the term we humans use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of that order.

Is your definition of god one that defines it/he as one that intervenes in the lives of humans and judges them? If so, how do you connect the cosmological argument to that?
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 8:25:41 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:56:43 PM, PureX wrote:
As far as I know, it's only SOME religious Christians that make this claim. The ancient Greeks and the Hindus certainly never have. Nor have the Jews that I am aware of. I don't even think Muslims make such a claim. And I personally know many Christians that do NOT assert complexity as evidence for their God.

I realize that not all Christians make that claim but judging by observation on this forum, it would seem that most do when secularists question the validity of their religion. I have observed Muslims use it also but there isn't many on here. I was being facetious when I referenced Native Americans and Hindus. Regardless, it is certainly not an anomaly for a Christian to use the argument in defense of Christianity. When I inform them that is simply an argument for Deism, the difference doesn't seem to register and they keep repeating it whenever someone questions Christianity. This is my observation of what is typical.

My own opinion on it is not that complexity stands as evidence of "God", but that the ORDER inherent within the energy from which all that exists, comes to exist, is what stands as evidence of God.

"God" being the term we humans use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of that order.

Is your definition of god one that defines it/he as one that intervenes in the lives of humans and judges them? If so, how do you connect the cosmological argument to that?

I doubt that God consciously intervenes in the course of existence beyond having set the parameters by which it occurs, or beyond the effect of OUR consciousness within it. But that's a tricky question considering that we are participants within the whole.

As to judgments, the Bible states that, "a man is punished through that with which he sins". And that has been my experience in life. What punishment we humans endure, mostly seems to be brought on by our own misbehavior. Where it gets difficult and confusing is that such reciprocity seems to be collective, rather than individual. As it's not the man who sins that pays the price, most often, but the men all around him.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:53:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 8:44:43 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:25:41 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:56:43 PM, PureX wrote:
As far as I know, it's only SOME religious Christians that make this claim. The ancient Greeks and the Hindus certainly never have. Nor have the Jews that I am aware of. I don't even think Muslims make such a claim. And I personally know many Christians that do NOT assert complexity as evidence for their God.

I realize that not all Christians make that claim but judging by observation on this forum, it would seem that most do when secularists question the validity of their religion. I have observed Muslims use it also but there isn't many on here. I was being facetious when I referenced Native Americans and Hindus. Regardless, it is certainly not an anomaly for a Christian to use the argument in defense of Christianity. When I inform them that is simply an argument for Deism, the difference doesn't seem to register and they keep repeating it whenever someone questions Christianity. This is my observation of what is typical.

My own opinion on it is not that complexity stands as evidence of "God", but that the ORDER inherent within the energy from which all that exists, comes to exist, is what stands as evidence of God.

"God" being the term we humans use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of that order.

Is your definition of god one that defines it/he as one that intervenes in the lives of humans and judges them? If so, how do you connect the cosmological argument to that?

I doubt that God consciously intervenes in the course of existence beyond having set the parameters by which it occurs, or beyond the effect of OUR consciousness within it. But that's a tricky question considering that we are participants within the whole.

As to judgments, the Bible states that, "a man is punished through that with which he sins". And that has been my experience in life. What punishment we humans endure, mostly seems to be brought on by our own misbehavior. Where it gets difficult and confusing is that such reciprocity seems to be collective, rather than individual. As it's not the man who sins that pays the price, most often, but the men all around him.

We may actually agree on more than we disagree on however I don't usually quote the bible for the same reason I don't quote the quran. I do regularly quote the "judge the tree by the fruit on it" verse but only as a valid truth without giving credit to biblical validity.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 9:13:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:43:15 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.

I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

I've been on this forum for enough years to know not to spit out a cosmological argument and hope for the best. My point here was to show that theistic philosophers of the past argued directly from the cosmological argument towards a being of ultimate perfection, who would necessarily retain an intellect and will. Those two powers (collectively referred to as "rationality") were traditionally understood to be the source of personhood. If those arguments work, then a personal God exists, and it's purely a matter of revelation towards Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other religion which admits God in the metaphysically provable way.

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...

You're hearing this word 'consciousness' in a way that some theists would not accept. If you take this word 'consciousness' as the chemical reactions of the brain, which are reducible to physical laws, then sure, consciousness could simply have emerged from the universe. But if you take this word 'consciousness' in a holistic, immaterial, non-physical way, then consciousness the way we experience it cannot be even a very complex physical reaction, and must be the product of some exterior immaterial reality.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 9:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Quantum mechanics and Super Symmetry tells us there is no material world.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 9:57:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 3:13:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:08:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2016 5:48:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
The most common argument I see from Christians to support their belief in Christianity is the argument that the universe is too complicated to not have been created by an intelligent creator.

I think the most relevant argument for Christianity is Life and Death of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, Mormons would say that the most relevant argument for Mormonism is the life of Joseph Smith.

I don't think people are saying the universe is too complicated. Just that the universe and how reality seems to work suggests a conscience mind, ephemeral personality, or underlining computer program.

As for "complicated" maybe you are confusing statistics. How many rare occurences have to happen in a row before you suspect intelligent manipulation?

If you tip a box over of 100 dice and all of them land 6 up. Do you go exclaim how anything is possible in the multiverse of infinite outcomes or do you suspect an unfair hand in the matter?

Never have I said that the complexity of the universe does not implicate a consciousness and/or intelligence outside of our minds. My point of this thread is this:

What does that have to do with Christianity? Why would observations of complexity in the universe lead you to believe that human sacrifice is effective? Where is the connection?


How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

I think that is presumptuous. I personally doubt most creations say "universe so complicated ergo Everything in the Bible is True!"

Do you have an argument of your own or is this just a strawman. See a strawman is where you say "Christian (your opponent) says blah blah..." And then you procede to defeat blah blah.

Where are your points? where are your assertions of this shared reality? where are your premises and your conclusions?

I'm surprised to hear you say that Christians don't use the Cosmological argument to defend Christianity. Actually, its the first argument that Christians default to when someone calls their religion into question. Here are a couple examples:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Look at any debates about the validity of Christianity. Most of them will provide the cosmological argument but never once have I seen anyone connect the two. The forums are the same. Ask any non-theist on this site and I guarantee they will agree with me.

You take the position that there is NO reason to believe in any God or gods. the cosmological argument is the first argument presented in a series, because if you see no reason to accept some God, then there is no point to have any discussion on why Yahweh is that god.

Are you aware progress in a discussion has to start on mutually agreed upon ground and continue from there.



Other religions make the same claims:

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Islam is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Hinduism is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Greek mythology is true.

The universe is too complicated to not have been created therefore Native American religions are true.

Etc, etc.


Oh so a great strawman argument that can be applied to anyone. You might have a position to come from if you could actually provide a citation for a hindu saying that. Or a Pantheon Greek saying that. Or even a Christian saying that.

I already provided some citations of Christians saying that. If I spent a little more time looking, I could find mountains of it because it is the most common argument for Christianity that I have seen on this site. I have also seen Muslims use it when the validity of Islam is questioned.

The cosmological argument is to illustrate the universe had a cause. It's a different argument to state that cause is the God of the Bible.


Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Atheist need to stop spamming the religion forum with strawman's composed of baseless assertion about theist claims.

I have already provided examples so it obviously is neither a strawman nor baseless. Are you now going to assert they were simply anomalies?

It's still strawman. You haven't accurately expressed the argument those Christians have made. And even if you did those Christians don't represent all Christians. And even if they did you still would be running away like a coward from you presenting an argument.



Atheist need to make an argument not whine like toddlers and sling the crap in their diapers around.

I provided sources to back up my assertion so I accept your apology ;)

Very good of you. now can you make an argument for some conclusion you have about God, so that the rest of us can examine your logic, rationale, and premises?

Or do you just want to continue to say "Christians say X and X is so wrong". Seriously you haven't even made a statement that would illustrate why the cosmological argument DOES NOT infer the Christina God. you just asserted so with no backing to why such an inference is illogical.

I agree the cosmological argument doesn't ONLY infer the Christina God. It is one stone towards such a conclusion. So it is not hard to explain why your assertion is correct. You chose not to because you think being an atheist makes you smart and that when you say "rubbish" then it invariably is so.

I say you are rubbish, and the stupidity you emanate and attempt to pass off as genius is rubbish.

You know just because you are posting on a debate website, does not mean everything you post is a debate.

Just do us all a favor. Post an Argument that concludes about what you think about God, or some religion related topic and Let the rest of us question and rebuttal in examination of your reasoning,

Please, like Chloe and others just stop posting what you think theist say about God, and how sooo much better you are. If you were really looking to raise the forum and encourage intellectual thought you may have started the thread like "The Cause concluded at the end of the cosmological argument could be something other than god..."

but no, you followed the format of an atheist straw-man. Those in opposition to me say "x" and "x" is sooo stupid. In my genius I say "x" is dumb. therefore my opposition is dumb and not as smart as me.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:14:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 9:13:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:43:15 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.

I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

I've been on this forum for enough years to know not to spit out a cosmological argument and hope for the best. My point here was to show that theistic philosophers of the past argued directly from the cosmological argument towards a being of ultimate perfection, who would necessarily retain an intellect and will. Those two powers (collectively referred to as "rationality") were traditionally understood to be the source of personhood. If those arguments work, then a personal God exists, and it's purely a matter of revelation towards Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other religion which admits God in the metaphysically provable way.

That argument attributes "personhood" (noun) to a sentient being. 'Personal' (adjective), as in 'personal god', refers to a human's relationship in conjunction to that god, typically in terms of intervention. Even if there was a god that could be attributed with personhood, that does not necessarily mean that it/he is a personal god.

Even if it could be established that an interventionist god exists, that still brings up the original question on how you connect that to a specific religion. Is there any evidence that is not mere hearsay in the technical sense?

If one was arguing for the validity of the Christian Bible, how would they resolve the fact that the bible was communicated by a perfect god in such a confusing, imperfect way?
If you were to write down life wisdom to pass down to your kids after you are gone, would you be clear with what you write or would you purposely write in a manner to confuse them as to what you are saying?
If you wrote in a confusing way not on purpose, wouldn't that render you imperfect?
How do you know the authors of the New Testament, who wrote down accounts on third party hearsay, were correct but Joseph Smith was wrong?

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...

You're hearing this word 'consciousness' in a way that some theists would not accept. If you take this word 'consciousness' as the chemical reactions of the brain, which are reducible to physical laws, then sure, consciousness could simply have emerged from the universe. But if you take this word 'consciousness' in a holistic, immaterial, non-physical way, then consciousness the way we experience it cannot be even a very complex physical reaction, and must be the product of some exterior immaterial reality.

My concept of consciousness might be considered metaphysical-esque by other atheists. I believe it is possible that consciousness is more than chemical reactions in the brain. Furthermore, because of some of the reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and a few near death experience accounts, I might even be convinced that consciousness survives death. With that said, I cant be convinced of an all powerful, merciful god that could provide unquestionable evidence, chooses not to and then decides to burn and torture people that cannot know that which there was no evidence provided for in the first place.

The fact that we are debating this means no unquestionable evidence has been provided. After all, we don't debate things that are proven empirically. If the best he could do is pass along his most important message via ancient hearsay, he is an incompetent communicator at best. Wouldn't an all-knowing god know English? Cant an all-powerful god speak it?

What evidence is there that any claims of divine revelations are correct? Don't you find it a suspicious coincidence that people usually argue for the same religion that they were brought up in? Many theists would say that, although the geography of their birth originally chose their religion, their logic and reason confirmed that <insert name of religion here> is the one and only correct divine revelation.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 10:58:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 9:57:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/29/2016 3:13:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Never have I said that the complexity of the universe does not implicate a consciousness and/or intelligence outside of our minds. My point of this thread is this:

What does that have to do with Christianity? Why would observations of complexity in the universe lead you to believe that human sacrifice is effective? Where is the connection?


How does a Christian connect that idea with evidence of Christianity? To me it sounds like they are saying that the universe is too complicated to not be created therefore that is proof to support claims of talking snakes and the efficacy of human sacrifice.

I think that is presumptuous. I personally doubt most creations say "universe so complicated ergo Everything in the Bible is True!"

Do you have an argument of your own or is this just a strawman. See a strawman is where you say "Christian (your opponent) says blah blah..." And then you procede to defeat blah blah.

Where are your points? where are your assertions of this shared reality? where are your premises and your conclusions?

I'm surprised to hear you say that Christians don't use the Cosmological argument to defend Christianity. Actually, its the first argument that Christians default to when someone calls their religion into question. Here are a couple examples:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Look at any debates about the validity of Christianity. Most of them will provide the cosmological argument but never once have I seen anyone connect the two. The forums are the same. Ask any non-theist on this site and I guarantee they will agree with me.

You take the position that there is NO reason to believe in any God or gods. the cosmological argument is the first argument presented in a series, because if you see no reason to accept some God, then there is no point to have any discussion on why Yahweh is that god.

Are you aware progress in a discussion has to start on mutually agreed upon ground and continue from there.

Specifically, I do not own a belief in a god that intervenes in humans lives because there is no evidence of intervention. What is an interventionist god that doesn't intervene? If you argue that he intervenes in ways we cannot see, how would you know the difference?

I have already stated that I can see how one may argue that there is some intelligence and/or consciousness as an inherent property of the universe. There is no way to connect that to the existence of one of the ancient gods named Yahweh however, which is my original point.



The cosmological argument is to illustrate the universe had a cause. It's a different argument to state that cause is the God of the Bible.

I agree. There is no connection between the two arguments.


Theists need to stop using the cosmological argument to try to support their religion. All they are arguing for is Deism and Deists typically believe claims of divine revelation to be childish.

Atheist need to stop spamming the religion forum with strawman's composed of baseless assertion about theist claims.

I have already provided examples so it obviously is neither a strawman nor baseless. Are you now going to assert they were simply anomalies?

It's still strawman. You haven't accurately expressed the argument those Christians have made. And even if you did those Christians don't represent all Christians.

Have I ever said that all Christians use the cosmological argument when their religion is questioned? I have stated that when many do and I stand by that. I can submit more examples if, upon doing so, you admit I am right and you are wrong on this point. If I provide those statements by Christians and you still deny their existence, whats the point in me spending time to provide more of them?

I have questioned Christians on their specific religion and they invariably bring up the cosmological argument. Why would they do that when I never questioned the validity of the CA? That is the very definition of a strawman. Even when I point this out, they keep going back to it as if I had never said it.

And even if they did you still would be running away like a coward from you presenting an argument.

Incoherent. Please rephrase.

Atheist need to make an argument not whine like toddlers and sling the crap in their diapers around.

I provided sources to back up my assertion so I accept your apology ;)

Very good of you. now can you make an argument for some conclusion you have about God, so that the rest of us can examine your logic, rationale, and premises?

I do not produce conclusions on subjects that have no evidence. There is no data to conclude. Similarly, you have no data to conclude - you just don't know it apparently.

Or do you just want to continue to say "Christians say X and X is so wrong". Seriously you haven't even made a statement that would illustrate why the cosmological argument DOES NOT infer the Christina God. you just asserted so with no backing to why such an inference is illogical.

How can I refute something that nobody has ever provided an argument for? Make the argument about how the cosmological argument specifically proves Christianity and I will refute it. Go ahead...lets see you try it.

I agree the cosmological argument doesn't ONLY infer the Christina God. It is one stone towards such a conclusion. So it is not hard to explain why your assertion is correct. You chose not to because you think being an atheist makes you smart and that when you say "rubbish" then it invariably is so.

Every other religion could make the same statement that the cosmological argument is a stone in the conclusion that their specific religion is correct, which was my original point. How is Christianity unique in this way?

I say you are rubbish, and the stupidity you emanate and attempt to pass off as genius is rubbish.

Sticks and stones ;)

You know just because you are posting on a debate website, does not mean everything you post is a debate.

Just do us all a favor. Post an Argument that concludes about what you think about God, or some religion related topic and Let the rest of us question and rebuttal in examination of your reasoning,

Please, like Chloe and others just stop posting what you think theist say about God, and how sooo much better you are. If you were really looking to raise the forum and encourage intellectual thought you may have started the thread like "The Cause concluded at the end of the cosmological argument could be something other than god..."

I did not state that the universe was not created. I just said the CA gives no reason to believe the angry, jealous, spiteful, petty, genital-obsessed Christian god as described by the bible created it and more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

but no, you followed the format of an atheist straw-man. Those in opposition to me say "x" and "x" is sooo stupid. In my genius I say "x" is dumb. therefore my opposition is dumb and not as smart as me.

Sooo.....are you saying that Christians never bring up the cosmological argument when the irreligious question the validity of Christianity?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:03:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 10:14:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 9:13:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

I've been on this forum for enough years to know not to spit out a cosmological argument and hope for the best. My point here was to show that theistic philosophers of the past argued directly from the cosmological argument towards a being of ultimate perfection, who would necessarily retain an intellect and will. Those two powers (collectively referred to as "rationality") were traditionally understood to be the source of personhood. If those arguments work, then a personal God exists, and it's purely a matter of revelation towards Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other religion which admits God in the metaphysically provable way.

That argument attributes "personhood" (noun) to a sentient being. 'Personal' (adjective), as in 'personal god', refers to a human's relationship in conjunction to that god, typically in terms of intervention. Even if there was a god that could be attributed with personhood, that does not necessarily mean that it/he is a personal god.

lmao, ok, now we're on the same page. I had no idea you were using the term 'personal' to mean something like 'intimate.' I thought you simply meant it as 'amounting to a person' or something like that.

Even if it could be established that an interventionist god exists, that still brings up the original question on how you connect that to a specific religion. Is there any evidence that is not mere hearsay in the technical sense?

While it's been taught that God's existence can be proven by the light of natural reason, generally, the idea that God did this or that action in mankind's past is considered a matter of faith. That is, beyond attempts in archaeology and history and the like to show historical evidence from the Bible or Koran.

If one was arguing for the validity of the Christian Bible, how would they resolve the fact that the bible was communicated by a perfect god in such a confusing, imperfect way?
If you were to write down life wisdom to pass down to your kids after you are gone, would you be clear with what you write or would you purposely write in a manner to confuse them as to what you are saying?
If you wrote in a confusing way not on purpose, wouldn't that render you imperfect?
How do you know the authors of the New Testament, who wrote down accounts on third party hearsay, were correct but Joseph Smith was wrong?

Again, I've learned enough about DDO to stay on-topic on a specific thread. Generally, they devolve into vicious arguments about God's existence or about God's character. I can see this one is headed towards the latter. If you'd like to discuss God's chosen method of transmission, make a thread about it.

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...

You're hearing this word 'consciousness' in a way that some theists would not accept. If you take this word 'consciousness' as the chemical reactions of the brain, which are reducible to physical laws, then sure, consciousness could simply have emerged from the universe. But if you take this word 'consciousness' in a holistic, immaterial, non-physical way, then consciousness the way we experience it cannot be even a very complex physical reaction, and must be the product of some exterior immaterial reality.

My concept of consciousness might be considered metaphysical-esque by other atheists. I believe it is possible that consciousness is more than chemical reactions in the brain. Furthermore, because of some of the reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and a few near death experience accounts, I might even be convinced that consciousness survives death. With that said, I cant be convinced of an all powerful, merciful god that could provide unquestionable evidence, chooses not to and then decides to burn and torture people that cannot know that which there was no evidence provided for in the first place.

Aaaaand we're at some sort of problem-of-evil discussion. These kind of debates are known to burn hundreds of forum posts a piece. I applaud your belief in the immortality of consciousness, but I hope you'll understand that I wish to stay on-topic.

The fact that we are debating this means no unquestionable evidence has been provided. After all, we don't debate things that are proven empirically. If the best he could do is pass along his most important message via ancient hearsay, he is an incompetent communicator at best. Wouldn't an all-knowing god know English? Cant an all-powerful god speak it?

I don't put it past people, particularly the kind of people to sign-up for a website like this, to argue against empirical evidence. I'm sure you've heard of the Flat Earth Society.

Of course God can speak english, that's theologically trivial. There have been a variety of theories proposed to explain these sort of questions about divine revelation. They typically revolve around the fact that this method forces man to move himself towards God; that is, it forces humans to work for a supernatural end, thus transforming us into divine instruments. Again, I do not wish this conversation to derail any further than it already has.

What evidence is there that any claims of divine revelations are correct? Don't you find it a suspicious coincidence that people usually argue for the same religion that they were brought up in? Many theists would say that, although the geography of their birth originally chose their religion, their logic and reason confirmed that <insert name of religion here> is the one and only correct divine revelation.

See above w/r/t the necessity of faith for claims like these. I don't even claim to have evidence that this God delivered His people from pharaoh. Or that He revealed Himself to the prophets. Or that He became man as Christ. Those are claims that, while objectively true, rest on the accessibility of grace.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:09:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 8:53:15 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:44:43 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:25:41 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:56:43 PM, PureX wrote:
As far as I know, it's only SOME religious Christians that make this claim. The ancient Greeks and the Hindus certainly never have. Nor have the Jews that I am aware of. I don't even think Muslims make such a claim. And I personally know many Christians that do NOT assert complexity as evidence for their God.

I realize that not all Christians make that claim but judging by observation on this forum, it would seem that most do when secularists question the validity of their religion. I have observed Muslims use it also but there isn't many on here. I was being facetious when I referenced Native Americans and Hindus. Regardless, it is certainly not an anomaly for a Christian to use the argument in defense of Christianity. When I inform them that is simply an argument for Deism, the difference doesn't seem to register and they keep repeating it whenever someone questions Christianity. This is my observation of what is typical.

My own opinion on it is not that complexity stands as evidence of "God", but that the ORDER inherent within the energy from which all that exists, comes to exist, is what stands as evidence of God.

"God" being the term we humans use to refer to the mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of that order.

Is your definition of god one that defines it/he as one that intervenes in the lives of humans and judges them? If so, how do you connect the cosmological argument to that?

I doubt that God consciously intervenes in the course of existence beyond having set the parameters by which it occurs, or beyond the effect of OUR consciousness within it. But that's a tricky question considering that we are participants within the whole.

As to judgments, the Bible states that, "a man is punished through that with which he sins". And that has been my experience in life. What punishment we humans endure, mostly seems to be brought on by our own misbehavior. Where it gets difficult and confusing is that such reciprocity seems to be collective, rather than individual. As it's not the man who sins that pays the price, most often, but the men all around him.

We may actually agree on more than we disagree on however I don't usually quote the bible for the same reason I don't quote the quran. I do regularly quote the "judge the tree by the fruit on it" verse but only as a valid truth without giving credit to biblical validity.

Well, the quote I offered can only be found in the old Catholic Bibles, in the 'Book of Wisdom'. So it's not well known, at all, but it presents the consequence of sin as a kind of natural law, as opposed to it being the result of some angry, judgmental God throwing thunderbolts at us for our willful disobedience, as the religious authoritarians so love to depict their gods, doing.

I equate "God" more with the natural expressions of existence, rather than with man's religious fantasies of supernatural feats or events. I think the world really does tend to punish us when we live in enmity with it, just as our fellow humans will. It's a kind of 'natural moral law'. The physics of karma, one might say.