A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#571
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x

I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."
(IFF) god is "magnum mysterium" or "ein sof" (THEN) you should never-ever attempt to describe or explain it to anyone ever.
Interesting. I wonder if that would lead then to "if I can't describe it to anyone, and they can't describe it to me, even if we agree, what are we even talking about, how would I know anything at all about this idea."
The Christian God can be described and made sense of in regards to what He has revealed of Himself to humanity through His Spirit and Word, and by what He has made, the creation.


Which brings us right back to deism at best. And as I believe you pointed out already, if your deism is one where a god does not interact in any way with the material world in any way that makes its presence plain, and this god totally defies description, then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism. 

No, the Judea-Christian God has interacted with His creation and created beings. Thus, He is a specific and personal God, not just any deity.  
#572
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian God can be described and made sense of in regards to what He has revealed of Himself to humanity through His Spirit and Word, and by what He has made, the creation. the Judea-Christian God has interacted with His creation and created beings. Thus, He is a specific and personal God, not just any deity.

Can these things not also be said of the flying spaghetti monster?
#573
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
But it's not as pithy, and less open to emotional attacks like "Should we then kill all of the people who have birth defects?!?!" which no one thinks. "Survival of the fittest" some people think means "survival of the animal in the best physical shape" when it literally means "most fit to survive."  
I believe it means those who survive are considered the fittest.

It's quite important to note that 'survival of the fittest' is a statement of what occurred in the past to produce the world as it is today.  What it is not is a statement of how things should be because science doesn't deal with 'should' questions - that is the job of philosophers and politicians.   

Very well said!

David Hume said you can't get an ought from an is (and vice-versa). Another way of saying that is that science is descriptive. It describes what is, whereas morality is prescriptive. Morality describes what ought to be. I do not believe something purely physical that lacks consciousness is good or bad because it lacks intent. 

#574
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not believe something purely physical that lacks consciousness is good or bad because it lacks intent. 

That depends greatly on how you are using these very subjective terms. Example: a knife without a blade is a bad knife or any landing you can walk away from is a good one.
#575
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not. 

"God is not" is your claim, now prove it.
All gods are contingent on humans without whom there would be no gods.
#576
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not believe something purely physical that lacks consciousness is good or bad because it lacks intent. 

That depends greatly on how you are using these very subjective terms. Example: a knife without a blade is a bad knife or any landing you can walk away from is a good one.


I don't think its always matter of 'good' and 'bad' being subjective; sometimes its because the meaning of good and bad varies with context.  Using more precise terms makes the problem much less:

i wonder if you would have posted:

"I do not believe something purely physical that lacks consciousness is 'morally good' or 'morally bad' because it lacks intent."

"That depends greatly on how you are using these very subjective terms. Example: a knife without a blade is a morally bad knife or any landing you can walk away from is a morally good one."

or

"I do not believe something purely physical that lacks consciousness is virtuous or evil because it lacks intent."

"That depends greatly on how you are using these very subjective terms. Example: a knife without a blade is an evil knife or any landing you can walk away from is a virtuous one."


#577
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Thank you for the correction Keith. That is a better distinction and you are right it is more a semantics distinction than a subjectivity distinction. PGA and I might differ on our standards of measure of what is good/morally right/virtuous but we tend to mean the same thing and that is what actions we should take/avoid if we want to uphold our individual personal standard. On many points our morality likely aligns due to the prevailing morality of our society. For example I would wager we both would generally agree that killing and slavery are immoral but might not agree (citation needed) on whether the activities of consenting adults in private can be immoral. I'm glad I have you here to keep me honest Keith 
#578
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
whether the activities of consenting adults in private can be immoral.
I'm sure you would both consider two people making a car bomb in private to be immoral!   Fortunately I know what you meant, but it's really hard to write anything that covers all the bases against a really determined pedant!





#579
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
I'm still picturing little leafy blowing on down to, where was it again? 
Awesome.
That's mine now.

Also, This whole thinking about "free will" you are doing. 
STOP IT ALRIGHT.
just, Stop it.
I'm sure that's what your brain says.

Nice posts man.
Good game.






#580
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'd make up these things called morals, but only for every person out of my then eyesight.
As I want everyone to be kind to each other anddddddddddd because I can then take advantage of that. 

Actually, I might invent a system of sorts called morals so people out of my then eyesight are not doing things that I'm unaware of and miss out on.  As i dont want to be shocked.


#581
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Odd we have discussed the Quran before and I do not recall your ever meeting your burden of proof of the existence of any god(s) let alone Allah specifically.
- I don't recall providing any. Never too late, we can make that our debate resolution.


Do you Yassine know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language?
- I assume you have a point...?
#582
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
- Bigfoot is a contingent being indeed.
#583
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Yes your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.
#584
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Bigfoot is a contingent being indeed.
What is to stop someone from defining Bigfoot as a necessary being? That would be prescriptive. Under those circumstances no unnecessary being can be Bigfoot. Any unnecessary being must necessarily be something else by the stated definition.

#585
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say the OP is about the identity of the Creator.   Would you say the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same entity?  if so one possible answer to the question 'Which one created the universe?' could be 'all of them'.

- I would say there is One God, & it is the God of Judaism & Christianity & Islam, & all heavenly religions. Christians define God differently, so do Jews, or Hindus... though all talk about the same God, the Creator. Muslims define God as the Quran defines Him, & to justify their belief in God they prove His existence as thus defined. 
#586
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Funny, I would argue (and have) the same attributes (1-4) for the God of Christianity
- Almost, but not quite. Christianity adds an extra couple things, Intelligent Omnibenevolent God, which the Quran does not decree.


yet the teaching of the Qu'ran and the Bible differ in many respects so do you think we are speaking of the same God or that one of us is not worshiping God as He truly is?
- I believe we are worshipping the same God, of course in different terms. Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah as well, just like Muslims: "To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)


What we have in common is what we as Christians call the OT. Both religions acknowledge the OT yet the teachings of both religions contradict each other many times. 
- That is true. Of course we don't believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), in his crucifixion or resurrection ; though we believe he is the Messiah & of virgin birth. 


As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was influenced by Christianity but here again the teachings differ from the NT teaching in what is contained in the Qu'ran. 
- The thing about Islam is that it does not deny in other religion. On the contrary, it approves of all God's religions, Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism...etc. We believe these are actually all one religion, that is Islam, with slightly different paths, though most have not been perfectly preserved.
#587
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.
- No. A definition is a definition, by definition. Definition is Identity, it's basically saying A = A, a thing is itself.


What is to stop someone from defining Bigfoot as a necessary being? That would be prescriptive. Under those circumstances no unnecessary being can be Bigfoot. Any unnecessary being must necessarily be something else by the stated definition.
- Yes. Or you can identify the One necessary being with 'pink unicorn' or simply '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)'... In this case, 'pink unicorn' & '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)' & 'Bigfoot' refer to literally the same thing, because you identified them to the same thing. It's just a label, a title...

- Defining God as the Singular Absolute Necessary & Transcendent being, is simply identifying God to said being. Once such being is proven to exist, that's what we refer to as God.

#588
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Once such being is proven to exist, 

This is the part you skipped. Having a term referring to what a thing would be (Bigfoot/pink unicorn, '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)/god(s)/Allah specifically) is different from demonstrating Bigfoot/pink unicorn/ '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)/god(s)/Allah specifically actually exist. This sort of tautoligical definition does not make anything more likely to be real it only tells us what we are looking for. I for one have no idea how to independently confirm the existence of a being who has the qualities you assign prescriptively to your hypothetical conception of some god(s). If something exists outside of space and time it is by definition unobservable.
#589
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
- As I said, "once proven", entailing it requires demonstration. Demonstration is not what the OP is about. The OP assumes the existence of a 'Creator God' & inquires about its relation to the 'Specific God', to which I answered, it's a relation of identity, as far as Islam is concerned. 

- If demonstration is what you seek, we can debate the resolution. Or, here is a layout of what a demonstration may look like: 

Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being.

Argument:
1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself.
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- being.
5. Contingent beings solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent being.
6. This cause must include a necessary being.
7. Therefore, a Necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) Exists.
8. Two necessary distinct beings exist. [ Assumption ]
9. A difference between the distinct necessary beings exists.
10. This difference is either necessary or contingent.
11. If the difference is necessary, then three necessary beings exist. [ Absurd! ]
12. If the difference is contingent (has a cause or an explanation for its existence), then at least one of the two necessary beings is contingent (has a cause or explanation for its/their existence). [ Absurd! ]
13. Therefore, a necessary being is one (i.e. unique). [ & similarly, a necessary being is simple (does not have parts) ]
14. Therefore, the necessary being is Singular (i.e. unique & simple).
15. The sum of all contingent beings is not singular.
16. Therefore, the sum of all contingent beings is Distinct from the necessary being.
17. The sum of all contingent beings is contingent (not necessary, i.e. not identical to the necessary being).
18. The necessary being is the sole cause of the existence of the sum of all contingent beings.
19. The attribute to cause the sum of all contingent being exists (Will).
20. The Will is Absolutely Free. [ all contingent beings are equally non-existent prior to existence ]
C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined ]

#590
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Contingent upon what?
#591
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
- These are philosophical terms relating to Sufficient Causation. That is, a thing can either exist necessarily (never failing to exist), otherwise exist contingently (with possibility of failing to exist). In another sense, a thing may either have a cause or explanation for its existence, thus is contingent on that cause or explanation, or not, thus not contingent, hence necessary.
#592
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Prove that bigfoot is contingent on anything. I'm unconcerned by your cakeshop philosophy.
#593
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Prove that bigfoot is contingent on anything.
- If you mean by bigfoot that bigfoot we all know, then yeah. Contingent means its existence is in the realm of possibility, as it may or may not exist. If it does exist, it must have an explanation for its existence. If it doesn't then it doesn't -which it doesn't, no explanation needed. 

I'm unconcerned by your cakeshop philosophy.
- You may wanna take up a course or two on Philosophy...
#594
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
If you mean by god that god people claim to know, then yeah. Contingent means its existence is in the realm of possibility, as it may or may not exist. If it does exist, it must have an explanation for its existence. If it doesn't then it doesn't -which it doesn't, no explanation needed. 


#595
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
1. A contingent thing (a thing such that if it exists it could have not-existed) exists.
2. This contingent thing has a cause of its existence.
3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself.
4. This cause must either be a contingent or a non-contingent -necessary- thing.
5. Contingent things solely are not sufficient for the existence of a contingent thing.
6. This cause must include a necessary thing.
7. Therefore, a Necessary thing (a thing such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Saying 'thing' rather than 'being' leads to a less impressive-seeming conclusion!

As an atheist i'm easy with the idea that there's some thing underneath it all, waiting to be discovered.  But 'thing' is a lot less loaded than 'being'!  There's no reason to think that the 'thing' is in anyway god-like - it's probably more like a law of nature, such the laws of thermodynamics.  No need to suspect the 'thing' answers prayers or has views on women's clothing.


#596
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Yassine
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
- Wut...?! You don't seem to understand what IFF means. If the necessary being is singular, then all other possible beings must be contingent on this singular being, thus must all be distinct -disjoint- from it.
(IFF) a god is the only thing that exists (AND) this god "made" every "thing" (THEN) such a god MUST have "made" every "thing" out of itself.

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
- What is interact..?
Interact: able to communicate with, influence, or even observe in any conceivable way shape or form.
#597
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
As an atheist i'm easy with the idea that there's some thing underneath it all, waiting to be discovered.  But 'thing' is a lot less loaded than 'being'!  There's no reason to think that the 'thing' is in anyway god-like - it's probably more like a law of nature, such the laws of thermodynamics.  No need to suspect the 'thing' answers prayers or has views on women's clothing.
Well stated.
#598
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
as far as Islam is concerned. 

Ok so demonstrate that Islam is right. Don't just say "this us what Muslims believe" prove it. Why is Allah specifically necessary. Why are Odin and Zeus not necessary. Do you have any have any objective reason to believe or just a prescriptive definition?
#599
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
Example B is somewhat like a pantheistic view of "god" as all and in all and on par with what is (i.e., not transcendent). It would be like saying that a painting is part of the artist instead of created by the artist, or the painting and the artist are one, or the painting is derived from the same substance. A painting does not have the DNA of the artist, does it? Granted, it requires the artist for its existence.
Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
Why? 

God is separate in His nature from the material realm. God is also not created whereas the material realm would be. The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not. 
A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence. 

An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.

A non-interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally indistinguishable from non-existent (it can't see or know us and we can't see or know it).
#600
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical. 
An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".

If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?

How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?