Furion
Well-known member
The Jews of Christ's day also created a god of their imagining. Christ corrected them, said and demonstrated...God, and what God wants. Unless you are an imbecile, the message came through to you, 2000 years later.
I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
- Thread starter yrger
- Start date
rossum
Well-known member
I agree, however, there is an interesting wrinkle to this definition. Let p = "Time exists". If p does not hold then there is no time in existence, hence time does not have a beginning. There was no time when time did not exist and hence time did not have a beginning.
1. Do you believe in a disembodied sentient will that commands things into creation that you call God or do you simply believe God is nature and has no will of its own - it's just causal?
My answer: Let you and me concur that there is the existence of the process of causation.
2. If you tell us that, then we can get down to the real discussion about whether the "nature" of the god you believe in has merit.
My answer: Let us concur on God as first cause and last cause of everything with a beginning.
Here is my concept of God:
"God in concept is the creator of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
What is your concept of God, God with the G in upper case?
.....................
Off topic
If anyone knows how to activate the preview function of this forum, please let me know, thanks.
You state: "My answer: Let us concur on God as first cause and last cause of everything with a beginning."
I don't care what you call your first and last causal agent. I care what the nature of that first and last causal agent is.
Is the nature of that which you call God (the first and last causal agent.) a disembodied sentient will that commands things into creation or do you simply believe God is causal nature and has no will of its own?
Whatsisface
Well-known member
What a moronic, content free statement. No wonder you believe this nonsense if you think like you do.
Well, let you define what is nature and give examples from daily life, not from mental speculation.
But what is your end objective at all?
I am not mentally speculating on what nature is. The dictionary definition of nature, which is a definition we share, is good enough. If you define nature differently than that, then that is something WE need to know about you and not something you need to know about those of us that already accept the common definition.
My end objective is to assess whether the characteristics of what you call God are a sentient disembodied will containing agency or whether you are merely a pantheist that believes that the reality of existence we find in nature, as nature is commonly defined, is your definition of a causal God.
That is the end game of the entire post, not just mine, and I'd rather get there than wander through pages of a potential syllogism. We both know that is where this is leading.... so let's go there and then deconstruct a potential syllogism from the end goal.
Last edited:
Your concept doesn't have enough conceptual form to address a specific negation. If you answer the question, you will have provided enough form to your argument as to anchor a negation. If you answer the question, I will certainly offer my negation:
Again: Is the nature of that which you call God (the first and last causal agent.) a disembodied sentient will that commands things into creation or do you simply believe God is causal nature and has no will of its own?
Do you have any concept of God at all, God with the G in upper case, since your position is that God does not exist.
I tell you already time and again that God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
So, as you want to argue that no God exists, then you will miss my God if you keep on and on and on with your nature this and nature that and disembodied sentient, etc etc etc.
Furion
Well-known member
What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
I don't think you comprehend how incoherent your question to me is:
To paraphrase you - "Do I have a concept of God that I think does not exist?"
Yeah, I have a lot of those. Guess what? You have a lot of those too. I'd rather focus on one though - the one you think actually exists, but I don't have enough information.
Now look at my question to you, It is clear and well defined and can be answered yes or no:
Is this "creator cause" you are ranting on about a sentient willful agent or not?
Last edited:
If you can't understand my concept of God, namely, God is in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, you are of course free to deny the existence of God according to your nature this and nature that and also disembodied sentient etc etc etc kind of a God whatever.
I will just tell you, your God is reminiscent of the flying spaghetti monster of current militant atheists, who learned from one demised Bertrand Russell comparing God to an orbiting teapot in space.
I will just tell you, your God is reminiscent of the flying spaghetti monster of current militant atheists, who learned from one demised Bertrand Russell comparing God to an orbiting teapot in space.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
I carefully worded the definition so that it will apply to both beginnings in time and beginnings of time.I agree, however, there is an interesting wrinkle to this definition. Let p = "Time exists". If p does not hold then there is no time in existence, hence time does not have a beginning. There was no time when time did not exist and hence time did not have a beginning.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Thank you. Yrger, please indicate whether or not you concur with me on the following two definitions:
There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.
Once you do this, I will then answer your next question.
I honestly did not follow any of that. I have no concept of some sentient tea-pot god that I already don't believe in that you could call a flying spaghetti monster.
You are acting small and cornered. Be brave instead. Here's the simple question again:
Is this "creator cause" you are ranting on about a sentient willful agent or not?
Simple yes or no will get this interchange off the ground. But right now, you are prattling on about some ambiguous concept of some "creator cause" thing (actually I don't even know if you think it is a thing), that you gave the arbitrary label of God. That just sounds like pantheism.
Last edited:
rossum
Well-known member
Does something like the cosmologists' multiverse -- the cause of the Big Bang -- meet your definition of God? If not, then what properties of God is the multiverse lacking?
Mr Laurier
Well-known member
So your concept of God is an infantile attempt to condense all of reality into a form that fits your limited grasp of reality.
Man is caused by woman.
The universe is caused by reality.
Novels have a beginning. And most are caused by authors (plural)
rossum
Well-known member
Unless they are called "Finnegans Wake".
Please, dear Nouveau, you have not yet determined to concur or not with my latest request for concurrence, see text within " " in my post reproduced below.
So, do you or don't you concur with me that you and I we have a beginning to our existence?
.....................
Off topic
If this post does not come out as I expect it to come out according to my formatting specs, I will call it back and edit it.