What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider
Religion
Philosophy
logic

Posts

Total: 436
#121
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
That is not true.
It is true and there is no real proof.....And you also, shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.
Sure, there is. History verifies the biblical writings through prophecy as one example. Prophecy is a reasonable proof. The internal consistency of these 66 writings is another. Names, places, events is another when compared to external writings of the time. 

I would not wish to deny you or any other denomination of theist the right to believe in fantastical hypotheses....I'm simply not prepared to run with them myself.
Suggsting the hypothetical or fanciful is just a ploy/game played by atheists and non-believers to control the narrative. I can do the same by assertion also --> It is the non-believers worldview that is fanciful. Back up your claims (not with copy and paste).

Though, based upon your level of evidence requirements, I would expect you to accept that every other religious concept is also absolutely correct.....Is this not a reasonable expectation?
No, you don't find the same level of evidence with other ancient manuscripts. 
#122
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So wherein lies my fantasy?


#123
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
So wherein lies my fantasy?
Your denial of the biblical God and what you replace Him with.

#124
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.
Where did I mention that your demonstration necessitated the use of "my" mind. I challenged you to demonstrate and confirm physicality without the use of "your" mind. And while I can conceptualize notions of physicality independent of your mind, I cannot demonstrate physicality independent of my mind. Being able to communicate and rationalize a standard which, for lack of a better term, "unites" our subjective experiences doesn't inform an experience independent of our subjectivity--far from it. In other words, amassing subjective experiences and rationalizing a logical consistency doesn't create objectivity. [Consensus neither informs nor creates objectivity.] Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience.

I'm not "overthinking" it. I'm demonstrating an understanding of concepts like physicality, the values we ascribe them, and the role the mind plays in all of it.
Missed this post. Sorry. 

I never said that my demonstration necessitated the use of your mind. You are twisting my meaning, the intent of what I wrote and meant. Let me reword to clear up your misunderstanding. I said that for ME to demonstrate physicality to MYSELF your mind is not necessary. Thus, it is not the necessary mind for there to be physicality. It exists regardless of whether you do. I realize you cannot demonstrate it without the use of your mind but what I'm saying is that it would exist without your mind because it would exist for me, thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. And from your perspective, my mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. So, since neither your mind, nor my mind, are necessary for its existence, we are not the necessary mind as to why it exists.

Although our experience is from a subjective viewpoint, that does not necessarily equate to there being no objectivity available to us. God is the necessary mind for us to rightly think about origins from an objective standpoint. Without Him, I would agree with your thinking. Thus, if a personal, revealing God did not exist I would be in the same boat without a paddle that you find yourself in. 

When you say,
"Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience."

To an extent we can, granting the existence of the biblical God. In Him we get an objective perspective. We have to correctly think His thoughts after Him, or rightly interpret His written revelation to us. Just as I can understand you and get your intended meaning so can I His.  Thus your words, when well written and correctly interpreted, do convey objective meaning, an intended meaning so that I can understand you. If everything was subjective I would just take your word conveyance and make it mean whatever I wanted it to mean. Thus, the chance of understanding what you said would be virtually nil. If every exchange of ideas was then a subjective communication between two people it would be very challenging, if not impossible. I could just construct my meaning out of everything you said as a relativist does with the Bible way too often. Instead of looking for the authors meaning I could say that "this is what the author meant" when in fact it was nothing like what He meant.

If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.
Once again, my nonexistence is irrational, just like that of any other. You're confusing death with nonexistence. And what is pain? What is a contusion or laceration even without your mind? What value do you ascribe the image of either? And how do you differentiate without the concept of differentiation, which is informed by your mind? How does one control for the difference between observation and conception?
Your non-existence is irrational to you, but if you were never conceived you could not proceed to death and the afterlife. If you were never conceived and I was I would still perceive the physical world from my mind and I would still feel my body (which is physical) bumping into it. 

Are you separating the mind from the body in the sense that you deny physicality? Do you recognize there is a difference between your mind and your body or other physical items/things? I know my mind is necessary in perceiving them but I also know that they exist apart from me, just like you exist apart from me, or are we back to either you or I do not exist, one of us is nothing more that a projection that the real one is creating. Is that what you believe, or will you give the other (me) acknowledgement as also existing. Actually, you did in a previous post. Thus, it boils down to more than just your own mind in being the necessary mind for the physical and other minds existing. They exist apart from yours and they too are not the necessary mind for the physical reality. 

You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.
Seem is not an argument; I'm suggesting that any ontological analysis outside of the mind's information is epistemolgically insignificant.
While this is true, your mind it not necessary for others to have this analysis. Thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for such an analysis to take place. I would still be analyzing without you, and you without me, and others without us. So, neither of us are that necessary mind. 

Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?
The answer to this question is one which you must substantiate without appealing to your own incredulity and ignorance. You're creating a false dichotomy while skipping the steps on how it's necessary--as you allege--that a necessary mind creates other limited mindful beings. The floor is yours: substantiate.
I have already explained how. Others before me, before my conception and beginning, have contemplated their own existence and have acknowledged others existed before them. My parents have told me of their life before I was born. I have seen others before they had a child. Not only this, but I have witnessed others dying. They are no longer here, in the physical.

Sometimes when I sleep I am aware of nothing. It is like I did not exist, yet I awaken and am again aware. Once I lost consciousness in a car accident. It was like I never existed during that time. Somehow I got from the African bush to an African hospital where I was revived. It seemed to me that others still existed and cared for me while I was out cold. My life was not in my hands during that time to my knowledge. It was as if I had never existed in between the bush accident and the hospital (except for a brief period of time in which I was revived and felt the pain during the drive then went unconscious again). 

I also see beings that have had a beginning create other beings that have had a beginning. Personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings. But how did the first personal being come to be? It was either from a necessary Being (eternal and unchanging) or blind chance happenstance; from a logical, intelligent, reasoning Mind, or blind indifferent chance; from an intentional, purposeful, mindful Being or by pure chance. So, what is the more likely scenario? What is the more logical and rational explanation? There is no reason, no rational explanation from pure chance happenstance. There is no purpose, no meaning, no value from blind indifferent chance. Thus, God is the reasonable and logical explanation. Then, on top of that I have the biblical revelation that makes sense. I have what is necessary for my existence and for the existence of the physical universe, a Creator who stands apart from His creation, a personal Being just like I am, a thinking and intelligent Being, just like I am, a Being with purpose, meaning and love just like I have who has revealed so I can know!

Now, even though I use my mind to fathom this complexity of "being" I know the most reasonable and logical explanation lies outside myself for I do not understand all the complexities of the universe and don't know how I would be able to create it all by my self. If I created everything I would expect to know how everything works and how I put it together, but I don't. I'm ignorant of so, so much. Thus, I look to a necessary Mind, a mind that is greater than mine for the explanation. That mind is another personal Being, just like I am personal, but to an infinitely greater extent than me and my limited awareness. 


#125
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.
I have twice. Your rejection is irrelevant.

Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.
The sake of this debate and its relevance is determined by both me and PGA2.0 since we're the ones having it.

Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.
Who determined that there was no resolution? I argue the resolution is the acknowledgment that the mind is chief in determining "reality." You seek metaphysical objectivity; I don't because it's epsitemologically insignificant and irrational. 

Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
Always do.
#126
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
#127
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias

That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.
What are these findings? And where can they be found?
A fine tuned universe, mathematical equations (mindfulness) that express the function and working of aspects of the universe, information in the physical universe, the anthropic principle. These things we did not invent, but discover. They operated and were present before we came on the scene. 

Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?
Non sequitur. You are projecting and misusing a context of "objectivity" while I'm not. My mind is necessary, once again, for my own subjective experience--including any conceptualization of physicality, just as your mind is necessary for your subjective experience. Communicating a standard "between minds"--as far as one can tell--does not necessarily constitute an "objective" physical reality. Even if I were dead, it would not make your experience, or that of any other less subjective.
I am reasoning, a useful tool in coming to decisions. I am not sure what exactly you mean by your underlined statement. I'll tackle it anyway. I'm convinced you are under the fallacy that just because we are subjective beings we can have no objectivity in our thinking. How would we know anything without some objectivity? Now, with origins we need an objective perspective since we are not doing repeatable and verifiable science. 

Again, although my mind is necessary for MY experience it is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe in the sense that it would still exist without my mind. The difference is I would not be aware of it. The question is, would the physical universe exist without mindfulness? What say you? That is the fundamental issue at hand. 

No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.
The error in your reasoning here is that even we were to entertain "the veracity of your second statement, my argument would still hold. Because if the mindful being "no longer existed," his or her mind would no longer exist. Thus, it would not "count" as part of "all minds." But this indulgence is irrational because neither you nor I can perceive or appreciate nonexistence.
This concept you have of "all minds" is a concept related to your Confucius worldview, not mine. This Nirvana or cosmic consciousness is not what I consider a personal Being, like you and I. How you get a mind devoid of personhood is beyond my comprehension. Please explain such a concept if you believe it. By "no longer exist" I am speaking of no longer existing in this physical realm. Now, I could also argue from an atheistic perspective about whether a mind exists once a person is dead (they all too often do not have a mind body disctinction, but that is not something I believe. So, there are other possibilities, although I do not think they are as easily rationally defended. I say that because it involves explaining the intangible, abstract, non-physical solely by the physical (the is/ough fallacy). From the physical how do you get the intangibles and abstracts like twoness, logic, meaning?

Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.
Whose "physiology"?
The physiology of the physical universe (or other physical beings for that matter). 

Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.
How?
When you don't worship God as He is you create false ideas of Him. IOW's, you create an idol, something you manufacture that replaces the real God for your imaginary substitute. 

Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.
I worship no one. I acknowledge and accept God's being; I do not worship it.
What do you mean by worship? Define your term? 

Christians believe that honour, respect and awe are due our Creator who is wiser and more knowledgable than any being He has created and sustains through His power at work and understood (by some) in the universe. 

You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.
I have not.
Then why do you label yourself a Confucist? You identify with his writings as representing God. You have an eastern concept of God. If you did not you may be a Christian. The two systems of thought are largely unrelatable. 

Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.
Demonstrate how all three are applicable to the argument for God's existence at the exclusion of all other gods.
The Bible reveals God has said He is the only living and true God. Thus, for that to be true all other gods are false or imaginary gods.

Thus, the law of non-contradiction is at play that states that two opposing beliefs about the same thing (in this case God) cannot both be true at the same time. The law of identity states that X=X. X has a specific identity for it to be known. Thus, X =/= Y. X=X. The law of middle exclusion states that a thing is either true or it is false. It cannot be what both true and not true at the same time. These are self evidence principles. By denying them you do not have what is necessary to make sense of anything and in denying them you use them, thus denying them is self-refuting.  


He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.
Once again: what does that have to do with logical necessity?
God is unchanging. Thus, He is always logical, always good, always just. God is omniscient, thus, He has what is necessary to create and sustain all things. God is omnipresent, thus He sees all things. God is omnibenevolent, thus, He has a purpose for man choosing to do evil and He rightly judges wrong since He is the best, the final reference point for what goodness is. God is eternal, thus He has no beginning and no end, unlike us. 

So, in all these things God is our highest reference point and final court of appeal. Either that or you have subjective human beings acting in that capacity. It is an important point. What is your highest authority and how do you know?

How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?
Non sequitur. I never claimed Confucius wasn't subjective.
Then how can you trust his writings as true to God? Your "mandate of heaven" is something he wrote about. Why is Confucius right on this? Why is he right on his concept of God? Does Confucius claim that God revealed to him the truth? And what is there to verify Confucius' claims from his writings (the internal consistency) as compared to other writings  and the way the world and universe, let alone our minds work (the external consistency)? 

Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.
Still doesn't register. I have not once excluded God. I haven't disputed God's existence. Are you arguing against the belief that God is not the only "god"? That's your prerogative, I suppose.
Haven't you? Which god/God? 

No, neither of us dispute God's existence! We have that in common. The question is who is God?

I am arguing against the belief that God is not your god. I am asking you to show me how the two are the same or that yours is the true God. 

As I said before, each perception is different.
Redundant.
No when you have the wrong God. 

My understanding of God is different than yours.
Redundant.
Only if my understanding or your understanding is not true to who/what God is. 



#128
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias


One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.
It is of no consequence how one's sees God. I've argued that God exists. This has little to do with how you or I "understand" God's description. Either way, it wouldn't change that God exists.
You assert there is no consequence. Perhaps, if your god really existed there would be no consequence. 

Yes, you argue God exists but you have not argued why your concept of God is true to the God who is real. 

If God has described Himself in various ways it has everything to do with your or my understanding as to how we think of God.

At least that is a start, acknowledging His existence! 

Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?
Non sequitur. Never stated that he was "infallible."
I know you never did. It is another way, a round-about way, of asking why we should trust his thinking about God.

Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?
The number of men is not significant. And I don't argue that Confucius should be believed.
It has a great deal to do with the consistency and unity, thus the trustworthiness. We have more than one person writing about God.

People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?
Such as? As for "internal" pieces of evidence, Confucius' relays are sufficient.
Pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.

How is his relay sufficient? Because you think so or because he says so, or because you like what he says?

There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.
Obviously.

You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.
And I've given it to you. You reject it.
Sum it up other than "The Mandate of Heaven," or his writings. How is it verified as true?

The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.
And how does the number of authors or the number of "1st-hand witnesses" qualify or quantify its truth? You're imputing an ad numerum fallacy.
Another confirmation that Jesus existed and different accounts of His teaching and how they related to the OT and those prophecies. 

How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?
Doesn't matter. The number of  1st hand witnesses contrary to the popular belief cultivated by commonwealth legal systems doesn't necessarily inform truth.
In a court of law credible eyewitness accounts play a big part in verifying testimony. 

The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.
66 writings is evidence of 66 writings. The number, once again, is insignificant.
The internal consistency and themes recounted all relate, plus these authors all convey pieces in the puzzle of prophecy regarding the specific people - the Jews and their relationship and judgment by God, as well as God's plan for these people and us also. 

What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.
We were contrasting and comparing Tien and God, and you're asking "Is Tien a person"? I would presume you know that which I mean when I state that Tien is deity especially since in another response, you demonstrated an understanding.
It has been about thirty to forty years since I familiarized myself with and read Confucius.

State what you believe about Tien as a personal being as opposed to a cosmic idea and consciousness (the all encompassing consciousness/mind, whatever that means). 

Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.
That is for you to answer rather than shift the burden to satisfy your appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is, you must substantiate how personhood does not come from the impersonal; that consciousness does not come from that which is devoid of it; that agency does not come from that which is devoid of intent. The floor is yours, again.
For one, personal experience and witness. For another, the means as to how something personal and mindful can come from that which is devoid of either. How do you get intent and purpose from something devoid of it? Do you have any answers? 

Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you. 
Once again, "my" doesn't register. I do not possess Tien. And I already know that you're arguing that "I'm wrong." This is based on an irrational presumption of objectivity which would necessitate the acquisition and processing of information independent of your subjective proclivities. And you've insinuated that consensus somehow remedies this. Subjective + Subjective = Subjective.
"My" most certainly does. You are of the opinion that describing or encountering an elephant because someone touches a trunk and another a foot makes an elephant whatever you want to compare it too rather than what it is. It has a specific identity. 


That means nothing. It is a tautology.
If you know it's tautological, then why are you still asking questions about it?
Just pointing out that you have said nothing meaningful and I want you to (if you are capable) concerning what you identify as "God."

#129
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
Thank you for your consideration!
#130
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Hardly fantasy when compared with biblical tales.

Though I do not deny the validity of any hypothesis that attempts to resolve the unresolvable.

But "him".....A misogynist god created in your own image...as ever.

And what do I "replace him with".

I replace him with with a vague hypothesis, a tenuous possibility of a GOD principle that affords everything purpose.....No more, no less.....No tablets of stone and unsubstantiated meetings up mountains or floods and impossibly big boats  or wise men out of the east and blokes nailed to crosses and resurrection.

Ha!....And you have the arrogance to say that I fantasise. 
#131
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I have twice.
You would only need to prove it once.


And I would argue that the mind can only determine the mind....And can only assume what it cannot directly perceive. 

And over egging the narrative custard is simply that....And in fairness that is what you are good at.....Nonetheless it does not prove the unprovable.

So where's this god bloke then?
#132
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Hardly fantasy when compared with biblical tales.
100% more plausible that the fantastic fairy-tale without God... "Once upon a time, a long l o n g time ago nothing caused something, without reason, intent, or agency, and continues to sustain this complexity that has no purpose, no meaning, no value."

Though I do not deny the validity of any hypothesis that attempts to resolve the unresolvable.

But "him".....A misogynist god created in your own image...as ever.

And what do I "replace him with".

I replace him with with a vague hypothesis, a tenuous possibility of a GOD principle that affords everything purpose.....No more, no less.....No tablets of stone and unsubstantiated meetings up mountains or floods and impossibly big boats  or wise men out of the east and blokes nailed to crosses and resurrection.
Immediately you replace and discount the SUPERnatural with the natural.

Ha!....And you have the arrogance to say that I fantasise. 

Just one big delusional fantasy. You're not doing that bad! Watch out for that dead-end! 

Try examining your starting points, the thing everything else rests upon and what you build your worldview from, your core presuppositions - blind indifferent chance happenstance, if you discount a Creator. How does that do anything?
#133
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.
How am I capable of confirming "nothing?"


Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves.  Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void. 
Where are you getting this from? This is the reason I always mention "seem" is not an argument. Quote me verbatim and demonstrate how your recent "reference" compares with mine.

How is it not logical. Please back up your thinking instead of just asserting. 
Because nonexistence is irrational. If something does not exist, one would not know it does not exist because it does not exist. It is imperceptible. We are only capable of perceiving that which does exist because the existent provides information to be perceived. As the absence of existence, nonexistence can therefore provide no information to be perceived. Any ontological analysis other than sustaining nonexistence as the logical placeholder for the negation of the argument for existence is irrational. In other words, and this tautology should suffice: Nonexistence does not exist.

Are you saying that you will still exist in the physical or earthly realm when you die, other than being dust or ashes?
Non sequitur. You're projecting your conflation of nonexistence and death onto my argument.

Did you always exist then in this physical realm? You have said previously that you had a beginning. I would argue that you had a beginning, that you began to exist.
No, you presumably perceived a period where you did not acknowledge my being. But if I didn't exist, then you would never know, rendering your argument insubstantial. I said earlier that my sentience had a beginning.

Will you always exist in this physical realm? If so, give me evidence of this.
Non sequitur. I never argued my existence in relation to my physicality.

My mind is not the necessary mind for the existence of the universe, only for my perception of it.
The second clause informs the first clause, making the entire statement contradictory. Once again, how would you know?

Common, meaning specific meaning is necessary, and words in context convey specific meaning. There is a standard that you cross and confuse. Thus, a home is different from a factory although sometimes a home can house or include a factory and visa versa. 
What? This has nothing to do with that which I've said. We were discussing the mind's role in existence. Why are you bring up definitions of home and factory?

Yes, confirmed through the coming into existence of others makes it logical to believe. It is most reasonable to believe. If you think not, are you being reasonable? Explain.

I confirm it by conversing with you. You exist apart from me, or are you confirming and saying you are a figment of my imagination and that you do not exist as anything separate from my mind? If so, my mind is necessary and you are not. I think I will create a new imaginary character. I will also eliminate any physical record that my conversation with you existed since this conversation thread is just my imagination working overtime. Bye!

The impossibility of the contrary or the unlikehood of the contrary is sufficient reason. 
How is your conversing with me not informed by your mind? You're reading the words that I'm typing right? You understand the language in which I communicate, right? How is any of that independent of your mind? What have you confirmed?

Then try stepping in front of a speeding bus and not suffer any physical harm or hurt since it is all perception. I think you will find that the physical bus is more than just a perception but it actually exists. And not only you perceive it. 
How do you feel a bus hitting you? Somatosensation, right? Is that not within the umbrella of perception? How do you calculate and place a value on pain and non-pain without the concept of differentiation? You'd feel "something" but it's not rational until you apply a concept to it, right? Whose to say that you're in "pain" or "hurt"? You may argue that it's merely a indentification to a physical phenomena, but even the most extensive research into neurology hasn't demonstrated a consistent intersubjective standard of pain. Case in point: I once sustained blunt force trauma to my head, and I didn't feel any pain at all even before the anesthetic. I suffered numerous, yet minor lacerations over random parts of my body--including one resulting from the blunt force trauma I spoke of earlier--and endured "different" sensations of pain with the others. So what does example actually demonstrate other than the hyperbole of your presumptions?


Am I speaking to THE necessary being here? Are you it? I know I am not. My conscious experience began. I became aware of my being. 

And did you confirm my "nonexistence" or my "beginning" from the time when your conscious began to the current state in which you allege conscious awareness is now?

Can you confirm this?
Yes I can. Because I'm the subject of my own experience, I must necessarily experience my own sentience including its beginning.

You have confirmed it, yourself, so your previous paragraph is answered by your present one. 
Yes, about my experience not your observing my experience which you've yet to substantiate.

I guessed as much about your profile since 1930 and your mental acumen at that age (90) was unreasonable. I surmise you are fairly young in relation to my age although I was not aware that you made up the whole thing.
I didn't make up the whole thing; just most of it (I was born in French Polynesia, and I do speak French.) I don't take profiles seriously. And one of the reasons is behavior you yourself have exhibited. It's been my experience that people tend to "profile" others and their philosophical positions before getting to know anything substantial about them. They take these snapshots and tidbits of information and form their conclusions. So an exaggerated profile is my way of lampooning all those who rush to my profile page in some contrarian fervor in an attempt gain some "inside information." Not to mention, I thought it was funny. Had you merely asked me, and not exhibited the behavior I just mentioned, you would've learned the truth sooner--I'm always forthcoming about it when asked directly. But indulging the whole "my god is better than your god" dynamic was bordering on regressive, so I'm now letting you know. (Those whom I've argued before usually catch on and can automatically identify the exaggeration, while others don't I suppose.)

It seems to be a common thread in our conversation, your invention or creation. 
Seem is not an argument.

Then you are not necessary for its existence as has been my contention from the start. I was offering a scenario based on you as the creator of your own universe since you seemed to be suggesting you are necessary for the physical universe. It took a lot of effort to hear differently. 
Seem is not an argument. And quote me verbatim. I do not presume objectivity. And thus, I've repeated that my mind is necessary for my subjective experience. My belief that there are those who experience existence independent of my mind is still subjective. Because I cannot exist in an experience where I am not the subject.

I was following through on your comments that seemed to imply you created the physical universe via your mind. 
This is the reason "seem" is not an argument. It is not a correct assessment of my argument.

I'm not being mean. I am just investigating your thought process and trying to understand what you believe by candid questions and following through with the implications. I am not going to defend myself further. I initiated the conversation because I thought your position was inconsistent. If you do not believe I am here in good faith then it is your problem, not mine.  
Once again, you're projecting. I never suggested that you were being "mean." I informed you that my emotional state is neither relevant, nor your concern. That's all that needs to be said on that matter.

It is being argued that A mind is necessary but that mind is not your mind or mine.
No. I mentioned frequently that my mind is necessary for my own subjective experience just as your mind is necessary for your own subjective experience. All experiences are subjective--whether it's individual or rationalized through a common standard--i.e. logic. You are arguing that God's mind is necessary and objective, and all minds are derivative of this divine progenitor. When asked to substantiate how this information is not informed by your subjective experience, you impute consensus fallacies (i.e. 66 writings) and appeals to ignorance and incredulity (How does consciousness stem from that which is devoid of it?)

You turned it into your mind being that necessary mind for the existence of the physical universe. 
Quote me.

While this is true, it does not equate to there is no physical universe without your mind existing. 
There would be no "my experiencing" a physical universe without my mind. This is consistent among every individual. I cannot experience anything indepedent of my mind, and therefore, any rationalizations of that which can be experienced independent of one's mind, is epistemologically insignificant, and irrational.

If I buy one dog, then buy another dog, that does not mean I bought three dogs. The concept of oneness exists without your mind thinking it.
No it does not. Your statement is a contradiction. Look up and define "concept."

. It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning, unless you can point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality. 
This argument makes no sense. (E.g. requiring "mindfulness" yet "separate" of the mind.) This is just a roundabout proposition that "God" is responsible for Math and physics. And once again, you're appealing to ignorance. I don't have to "point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality"; you have to substantiate, "It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning" because it's your argument.
#134
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I am showing what happens when you just invent meaning such as saying a house is a factory (house = factory) without qualification. 

All three laws, contradiction, identity, and middle inclusion. 

House = factory stated without qualification and clarification is contravening these laws. 

Quote where I stated that a house=factory. Or was my argument not that the descriptions do not exclude either from the other?

And the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle don't apply to vocabulary. Because, for example, "mine" does not always equal "mine."

You confuse my subjective mind with objective knowledge. It is still possible for my subjective mind to understand objectively or else communication would be impossible.
No, you're confusing "intersubjective" with "objective." It is not possible for the subjective mind to understand anything "objectively" because it would have to be done independent of the mind. We are fundamentally subjective (i.e. experiences where we are the sole subjects.) Communication is possible because we've conceived and cultivated a logical standard that, for lack of a better term, "translates" our experiences to a "universal" code.

Are you saying that when someone communicates something it is not possible to be the authors meaning?
I'm stating that when someone communicates anything to you, it is automatically "translated" by your mind.

It follows that if your mind is the necessary mind in the physical universe existing, then you are creating what is necessary from your mind. 
The mind is necessary and inform the experience of physicality; thus, it creates/conceives that which is necessary to rationalize said experience.

I am following through on the consequences of your stated belief system as you have conveyed it, and trying to make sense of it. I question to find out more of what you believe. I am discovering contradictions and implausibility then highlighting them.
The contradiction and implausibilities are a manifestation of your projection. You assume that I'm making this argument based on objectivity. I am not. Far from it. And that's the point. The metaphysical objectivity which you've referenced and based your arguments on, is epistemologically insignificant and irrational.

I can go back to our OP and subsequent posts again to qualify my concerns, as you stated them, if you like.  
Please do.


#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.
How am I capable of confirming "nothing?"
Pardon the misspelling (anything). (^8

What I am saying is that even if I did not exist (thus, I would not be capable of confirming anything) you in your existence would still confirm things. Thus, I am not necessary for the physical universe existing. 


Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves.  Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void. 
Where are you getting this from? This is the reason I always mention "seem" is not an argument. Quote me verbatim and demonstrate how your recent "reference" compares with mine.
"Seem" is a way of giving you a chance to explain any misconceptions on my part, if you feel I am misrepresenting you.

Our conversation starts with Post 45 (page 2).

Post 56: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"

They are independent of your existence in that they existed before you existed, thus your mind is not necessary for their existence. Thus, a necessary mind is required since your mind is not that mind.

Post 69: "You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this?"

Again, you misrepresent what I said, "They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know." I never contended they are independent of a mind (your misrepresentation - one of many as you create a whole paragraph of misrepresentation), just not your mind or mine. You did not pt these principles into being. Neither did I. I don't have to think them for them to be true. Thus, my mind is not necessary for their truth. Neither is yours.

What I am establishing is that your mind is not necessary for their existence. I contend that God's mind is for His mind is the necessary mind. Then I go on to explain why and how your mind cannot be the necessary mind for such truths. You continually argue that your mind is necessary, thus I question whether your mind is the only mind because I contend that my mind is not necessary for these things to exist or be true. They exist with or without your mind thinking them yet you continue to argue that your mind is necessary for their existence.

Either you or I are wrong. 

Post 69: I contend, "Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling..."

Again, you immediately misrepresent me:

You: "Without the mind, physicality would be irrational."

I'm not arguing for without the mind, I'm arguing for without your mind or my mind as the necessary mind. for the existence of these concepts and truths.

Post 76: Me, "I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind? You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence? I say they will exist if you do not. " 

"Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary. I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself. 

If only you exist you will address yourself. Here you go, "I am delusional!" There, you have stated this since only you exist.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself? Are you lonely? Just create a fictitious being to converse with. Oh, you are, or should you say, "I have!" 
Since I have created this conversation with myself, I win! My ultra-ego, who I am talking to, is wrong! That ultra-ego is insane, therefore...(fill in the rest)"

"What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality."

Post 102: Me, "I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?"

You: "Yes, your mind."

Again, I argue my mind is not the necessary mind, that they would exist apart from my mind existing.

Me: "You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?"

You: "All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary."

Again, I show all minds are not necessary for their existence and your mind is not necessary either. I do this by establishing that if your mind did not exist these physical things would still be here. Thus, your mind is not necessary, only necessary for you thinking and perceiving them.

Me: "I say they will exist if you do not."

You: "I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival."

Another smoke-screen. There was a time when you did not exist. Did they exist before you? Again, your statement brings to mind if you think that these things would not be so if you did not exist, if you were never conceived of and born. That is the question. I'm not questioning the difference between existence and survival. I'm questioning whether you believe they exist apart from you and if they do then you are not necessary for their existence. If they do not exist apart from you then I question whether you are the only mind in existence because I understand that they existed before other minds existed and they will still exist after they die. I cite my parents as an example. 

That is why I question what you believe, whether you believe whether you are the only one in existence. You confirm later that you are not yet you still suggest that your mind is necessary for their existence. If your mind did not exist as the necessary mind how could they exist, which brings into question whether I exist to your mind or are you having a conversation with yourself. I point out that such thinking would be lunacy.

Me: "If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence."

You: "Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is. This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization."

Yes, what? Are you admitting that if I did not exist the physical universe would not exist because my mind is necessary for its existence?

I have argued my mind is not the necessary mind, but you continually insist your mind is. Thus, I ask, is your mind necessary for the existence of the physical universe? (I.e., would it exist or not if you did not?) I argue that one of us is wrong because I question that your mind is the necessary mind. You can't have it both ways. Either the physical existence existed before you did or your mind is necessary for its existence. 

Me: "Yet, there was a time when you did not (exist)."

You: "Can you confirm this?"

Can you confirm you have always existed? I believe I have a better and more logical argument. But, again, I do not believe I always existed, so we are in conflict to what is the truth. You already admitted that there was a time when you were not.

You: "My sentience had a beginning."

Me: "Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)?"

You: "Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me."

Again, your thoughts are in conflict. There is an inconsistency in them that speaks of faulty thinking. 

Again, this shows that your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe, what I have argued all along.  I have argued my mind is not necessary also. What mind is necessary? You say all??? But you just showed otherwise. Can you prove that you were here when the physical universe originated if all minds are necessary for its existence? Or do you believe the universe is eternal? Do you believe the universe is physical, that there is something outside our minds?

You continue to dismiss much of what I say with a non-sequitur (it does not follow) or change what I have said to fit your narrative. It is just another way for, IMO, a relativist, to avoid accountability. IMO, you want to control the narrative and direct it where you want it to go. 

This questioning of the word "seems" or "factory = house" suggests as much to me. You are constructing a narrative that favours your interpretation while ignoring many of my questions. Thus, I request that when you charge me with a fallacy that you prove your charge specifically, not just assert it.

 
#136
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
Definitely the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).

From here, you compare:

Atheism: Universe began, unknown cause (that will likely never be identified in any convincing manner)

Theism: Universe began, God was the uncaused first cause.




#137
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@MisterChris
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).

You see the problem here, right? Your conclusion not only assumes there's something outside of time and space, but your first premise says everything has a cause and therefore cannot logically lead to a conclusion hinged on something having no cause. It's contradictory. And even if it were right, there's no connective tissue between this 'something' and any specific god. 
#138
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).

You see the problem here, right? Your conclusion not only assumes there's something outside of time and space, but your first premise says everything has a cause and therefore cannot logically lead to a conclusion hinged on something having no cause. It's contradictory. And even if it were right, there's no connective tissue between this 'something' and any specific god. 
The conclusion is valid and sound. You are begging the question that there is nothing outside of time and space.

The scientific evidence is in favour of a beginning. Opposite this is the problem of an eternal universe. And if you want to ask the question of meaning why plays an important part. Why does anything exist? Why looks for a reason. In solving the problem of the universe you too look for meaning. When you assume everything has an explanation within the universe your scope is limited to what is inside the universe, inside the box, inside the room. By interpreting everything from a natural perspective, inside the universe, your mind is closed to anything outside the universe, but from looking from inside the universe is there sufficient evidence to suggest everything comes from inside the room? If you are speaking of the universe having a beginning the answer is no. The reason is that you would then be speaking of self-creation (something that does not exist creating itself from nothing). Thus, self-creation is a self-refuting principle.  

In addition there is the problem of an explanation for everything that exists. Leibniz's thinking goes like this:
1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence God (a necessary Being) is the explanation.
3. The universe exists. 
4. The universe also has an explanation for its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Premise 1, IMO, is the weakness in that it brings up the question of whether everything that begins to exist has an explanation, or are there "brute facts." Are there things that have no explanation? Thus, the question is are there brute facts? Van Til argues that there are not. Premise 2 places that explanation in God. We know the universe exists. Thus, granting there are no brute facts, the conclusion follows, even if you don't like it. 

#139
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
OK, then please demonstrate conclusively something eists outside of space and time. Then demonstrate that something is the god of the bible. It shouldn't be hard. I didn't make any argument at all. I'm just saying that "Everything that exists has a cause, except this one thing that exists outside of space and time" is not a sound argument. It's special pleading and undemonstrated. 

Leibing's thinking jumps to a specific conclusion from premise 1 that is entirely unearned: a specific character. What is the explanation for the existence of this being? It is "it didn't have a beginning"? Why doesn't this same exception potentially apply to the universe itself, exclusive of god or gods?

Let me guess, is it because "math works," because "these books say so," or "because how else would it work?"  

Why does anything exist?
You know very well I have answered this: I don't know and I'm not sure it matters. You're the one who claims all the answers with the "makes sense of the universe" baloney, which you never show actually making sense in any way that I understand the phrase.
#140
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@ludofl3x
Under Occam's Razer, I think it is much more likely for the universe to have a creator than for the universe to have created itself. Can it be proven? No. But it's reasonable. There are other happenstances that I think point towards a creator as well. For example, the moral code that humans follow, as well as the thirst for justice innate in our species. Consider biogenesis, it is unable to happen in our most advanced of labs yet we expect it happened on its own naturally? 

There is an amusing quote that puts it in perspective.
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." - New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 on page 527

The assertion of a creator is a valid one, whether you believe it or not. 


#141
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@MisterChris
 For example, the moral code that humans follow, 
Is different by society, by era, and by geographical location. This variation does not suggest any single "source." Why would it change at all?

as well as the thirst for justice innate in our species.
The desire to be treated fairly is not exclusive to humans. Why would a god put this desire in monkeys or dogs, exactly? 

 Consider biogenesis,
Your quote is arguing from incredulity it seems to me. It also doesn't support any single one character. Can you advance the ball on how abiogenesis happened without invoking magic or special pleading? My answer to how it happened is I don't know, I don't really care. All I know is I can see life developing in unimaginable numbers of forms, most of which are not mentioned in any holy text, I can see evidence of life forms becoming MORE complex not less (a good design is the opposite: from complex to simple, any engineer will tell you that and it's part of why Apple is the biggest company on earth). I cannot see similar evidence of a timeless superbeing that somehow didn't need a beginning. Certainly not any specific entity, either. Adding this being to the mix without demonstrating it's there at all countermands Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation does not include magic unseeable superpower, I'm sorry. You're getting to the part where you sensibly go, "I don't know," then you're saying "but it's probably this" for no reason you've included, other than "well how ELSE would it have happened?" which you support with your quote and some fuzzy math. I get it, it's highly improbable for it to have happened, but it only needs to have happened ONCE in 14 billion years (which is a number that is impossible to comprehend) on a playing field that is literally UNIMAGINABLY large. 
#142
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@ludofl3x
This is getting into territory where I'd have to whip out CS Lewis and some science textbooks to progress the discussion further and I am much too lazy 
#143
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no known starting point.

You fantasise and create a fantastic starting point

And nature is nature and super nature is fantasy.

And what creates the creator?....It's the unavoidable question that theists always avoid....Or should I say ignore.

Simply saying that the creator does not need to be created is admitting ignorance.

Nonetheless, If something does not require creation then there is no need for a creator anyway.  Thereby, an infinite god negates itself.
#144
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, If something does not require creation then there is no need for a creator anyway. Thereby, an infinite God negates itself.
This may depend on what you actually mean, but the necessity of God's existence, and the existence of God as a person are 2 different arguments.

Are you and I necessary? I can safely say that I'm not ultimately necessary. If I'm gone tomorrow, the world will go on without any significant change. But, I do exist. My existence doesn't seem to depend on how necessary I am to the world surrounding me.

Or, are you implying something else?

#145
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well, there are certainly a plethora of arguments and variations of the GOD principle.
Though I was referring directly to the biblical god and it's various derivations, nonetheless the necessity for non-causation applies to all models, as nothing,  and more so something from nothing is seemingly inconceivable.... I was therefore simply extrapolating from the basic premise of non-causation, the unnecessity of a tangible, myth based god. Because if one thing can exist without cause then everything can exist without cause.
That is not to say that  material development and the evolution of things thereof should not be referred to as a GOD principle. It is the  mythological god hypotheses that accompany human development that I take issue with..... Gods created in our own image....Naive solutions to an inconceivable beginning.
#146
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
OK, then please demonstrate conclusively something eists outside of space and time.
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own. It boils down to what you will accept as an authority (Hebrews 11:6) or evidence. There is the most reasonable evidence for my belief.

Then demonstrate that something is the god of the bible.
I do not follow? God is not a something but a Someone. I don't believe something is a reasonable deduction. Something lacks agency, intent, purpose, meaning, intelligence. 

It shouldn't be hard. I didn't make any argument at all. I'm just saying that "Everything that exists has a cause, except this one thing that exists outside of space and time" is not a sound argument. It's special pleading and undemonstrated.
Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?

The God of the Bible is demonstratable through reason in many given ways. The Bible claims to be His revelation. You guys never stay with the prophetic argument once I present it. I believe that is because, generally speaking and it has been my experience, your biblical understanding as tied in with history is poor.
I have yet to see anyone give a solid explanation for morality apart from God. There are any number of reasonable arguments I could present and have presented in the past as to my reason. 

Not believing in God is irrational. It leaves no ultimate reason for your existence. 

Leibing's thinking jumps to a specific conclusion from premise 1 that is entirely unearned: a specific character. What is the explanation for the existence of this being? 
Is the premise reasonable to believe?

The explanation? God is a necessary Being and necessary to make sense of existence. You are not necessary. I can make sense of it without your presence. (^8

The premise in question:

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence?  The problem without God, it becomes speculation. God is necessary for the knowledge of such things as beginnings (and ultimately anything).

It is "it didn't have a beginning"? Why doesn't this same exception potentially apply to the universe itself, exclusive of god or gods?
God is not an "it." Pantheism or panentheism makes little sense.

Why? Scientists look for causes in explaining physical events (law of causality). God, as a spiritual being, is not a physical event but a Person. He exists outside of space/time continuum.  
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716

Why? We gather that the universe had a beginning. That is reasonable to believe. One of the current models is the Big Bang. Some indications of the BB (or an origin) are background radiation, the universe is expanding, it is running out of usable energy (2nd law of thermodynamics). 

We go back in history to the beginning of events, but an infinite number of days have no beginning or end, yet today is an end of history to date. Therefore there is not an endless number of days before today. There is no future yet. (^8  

If there were an infinite number of days before today, how would you get today, the present? (Only in theory [...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...], not practically) Everything would be the eternal now. Yet we are here in this present day, and we know there were past days. We have not experienced future days. The future does not exist for us yet we can speak of it as something that will one day be our present.

You can't speak of time without a beginning, and you can't add to something infinite. Thus, for us, at least, there seems to be a beginning.

Explain how it (exceptional potential) can apply to the universe also. What are the means that a random chance universe has of sustaining itself? Chance is willy-nilly. There is no reason behind chance, no agency, no intent and purpose, no value, no meaning.

When you speak of time, you talk about a beginning.

 When we speak of physicality, are you saying the physical always existed or are you opening it up to a possibility? 

Now, if something came into being, what is the cause of that beginning? What are the means or agency involved? If you are speaking of something from nothing or self-creation, explain how this is possible???

***

If the box begins to exist (an analogy for the universe), something outside it must have created it. If the physical universe (the box) had a beginning, its existence must be accredited to something beyond this physical, temporal framework since self-creation is illogical.

***

Is that a reasonable statement? If not, explain why. If not, then give another explanation.

Please do not talk past my questions. I am trying to discover how consistent your worldview is in making sense of the universe and your existence.

Let me guess, is it because "math works," because "these books say so," or "because how else would it work?" 
I would say that it is a reasonable deduction. Mathematics is a mental process. It requires a mind to conceptualize. The problem is these formulas we use to describe functions of the universe are principles we discover. We don't invent them. They function in a specific manner regardless of how we feel about them. Your existence does not depend on them existing. 
  
Why does anything exist?
You know very well I have answered this: I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.
It seems to matter very much to you. Is there a reason and purpose for your life, or are humanity and organic life just a biological accident? 
I think you are very inconsistent with your comment. If there is no reason for life, then what does it matter what we do? You continually show it matters by your values and even with your criticism of God. Why would you care about a fictitious God as unjust? Why do you care that others believe in this God? I care about what you believe. After all, I believe it ultimately matters and that you will be accountable for your life because I think this life is not all there is to existence. 

You're the one who claims all the answers with the "makes sense of the universe" baloney, which you never show actually making sense in any way that I understand the phrase.
I never claimed I have all the answers. That is a misrepresentation. I claim God has the answers, and I can know inasmuch as He has revealed, provided I correctly interpret His revelation.

It requires minds to make sense of anything. The question is which minds are necessary since there is much conflict in regards to origins. Who is right? Which view is correct? What means do you, a subjective being, have in determining this?

Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:

"I don't know and I'm not sure it matters."

These are the answers you give in making sense of things. That reassures me of your incompetents in making sense of and explaining origins adequately. To you, you are not sure it even matters. Somehow you exist, and you are not sure it matters. Then why exist (to be or not to be, that is the question)? I would say you live very inconsistently regarding what you say (you're not sure it matters) and what you do. You take much care every day to make things matter, to guard your life - for what? And you treat God as if He matters since you quibble over whether He is good. With a worldview without God, ultimately, there is no reason. Ultimately, nothing matters.
#147
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own. 
I know. The rest of it is all dissembling totry and avoid this point: you cannot do it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. The rest of your wall of text is kind of moot from there. 

Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?
Do you know hat special pleading is? I know I've explained it to you before. "Everything that begins to exist has a beginning, except this one thing."  The bold is special pleading and really the central pillar to your argument. How do I do this, analogous to what you think I believe? Where is the "except" that would denote special pleading?

He exists outside of space/time continuum.  
Please show me how. Alternatively, show me something ELSE that exists outside of the space time continuum. No one even heard of Jesus until 2000 years ago, and God maybe 3000 or 4000 years prior to that, using even the most generous of the dating techniques and assuming all the writings were fact (like that global flood!). How's that support this theory that they exist outside of space and time? 

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.

Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence?
This is a shift in the burden of proof. I'm not making the claim that everything that exists (why is the parenthetical there, is that yours or his?) has an explanation for its existence. That's your problem. I'd say cool, now let's see something that exists but somehow never began to exist and we'll talk! 

Then why exist 
What's your answer? Is it Jesus? That doesn't make any sense either. I don't know "why"I exist, but I know I'm going to die someday and I want to leave the world a better place for the people who come after me, in some small way, even if I'm not remembered in fifty years. It's pretty straightforward. 

Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:
You've repeatedly demonstrated you can't either, except I'm not hte one saying "I can make sense of this unsolvable problem, just by saying Jesus did it this way and therefore it makes sense." 

I'm happy to converse but you can keep the walls of text, they're boring and I don't have all that time. 
#148
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own. 
I know. The rest of it is all dissembling to try and avoid this point: you cannot do it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. The rest of your wall of text is kind of moot from there.
No, I can do it to lots of peoples satisfaction because they are open to the discussion. I have learned when someone is not open they will find ways to shut down the discussion and be skeptical of every point. Even though evidence exists they refuse to look upon it as evidence because it does not meet their worldview parameters. 

Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?
Do you know hat special pleading is? I know I've explained it to you before. "Everything that begins to exist has a beginning, except this one thing."  The bold is special pleading and really the central pillar to your argument. How do I do this, analogous to what you think I believe? Where is the "except" that would denote special pleading?
Yes, I do. I have probably twenty to thirty books on logic and/or fallacies but even that does not make me an expert but still a novice.

I never included God in everything that began to exist since the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that.  Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.

1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.  

Where do you see "except this one thing?"

If the tables were turned and you are made aware of your inconsistencies would you still claim your exception? Your exception is that the universe exists apart from a creator, solely by natural causes, which is the automatic default once God is denied.

 Wiley Blackwell, Bad Argumentation,  p. 220:

"SP involves breaking rules of fair play, usually in a way that benefits the ruler-breaker, and hence can be thought of as a form of argumentative cheating by applying a double standard."

You work exclusively from nature as the answer once you deny God. Thus, believing a naturalistic explanation as the only explanation (no other exception) or working entirely from such a belief (begging the question) creates doubt to a belief in God. Naturalism can also bring other fallacies into play such as the Naturalistic Fallacy or the Either/Or Fallacy. From our previous discussions you have appealed to ignorance, poisoned the well, created red herrings, and used a variety of other fallacies that I failed to mention. You continually beg the question in your arguments against God, but then that is the nature of claims without explanation.

One establishes whether a claim is true or false, reasonable or unreasonable with evidence. Evidence can be of a direct, sensory kind, or through the testimony of others who are trustworthy.

Then there is the logical and coherency test. Does the claim fit this qualification?

Does it fit the correspondence test of truth? 

Can your argument be reduced to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum)?

Can something be inferred? 

How do the premises hold out and does the conclusion follow? Is the argument sound and valid? 

Is the argument deductive or inductive?

Is the argument a formal or informal fallacy?

Is the logic categorical or propositional?

#149
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@Athias
aye ur active again its been awhile man 
#150
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@skittlez09
the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that.  Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.
Your addition of (begins to exist) implies that you don't think god began to exist and therefore doesn't need an explanation according to the premise itself. You mean to tell me you didn't put this in here as a way to keep the door ajar for an eternal something? Maybe I misread. But I didn't, because you then say "the bible says god's eternal." As usual, claim as evidence. "The bible says this" doesn't support that being true, you know that already.