Sans Dieu Rien

O feelie me boni belli, dominos for bisco, Benny sellie allis dominos.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Thanks for the reply.

[b] All human beings eventually reach the point of "god" consciousness.

As a trivial example, a lot of human beings die before even reaching an age where they are capable of entertaining such conceptions. So this claim is blatantly false on the face of it. But, I guess what you are trying to say is rather that theistic co God. That sounds rather absurd. Could you please clarify this statement of yours?[/b]

Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise and fall by reason of obedience to and/or disregard of His precepts. He's a gentleman and does not coerce or interfer with human free will. His Integrity (Justice and Righteousness) is exceedingly patient and fair. This is why children who die before reaching the age of accountability are also the beneficiaries of his Grace Gift of Eternal Salvation. Their names are also written in the Lamb's Book of Life. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are supernatural spirit being real persons. Until that #101 is concept is grasped there is no frame of reference whatever for further breakthrough in understanding.

gb (aka, LimeJello)

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, of course God is a thing (if He exists). Persons are things too.

We must have different definitions of 'thing' in mind. No matter, since this discussion does not hinge on such wordsmithing. Look, the matter here is simple: if GB is implying that God created everything that exists; then that seems rather absurd, since this would seem to entail ...[text shortened]... y asking GB if this is what he is implying; or if we are talking past each other. Understand?

That is not logical. God is the creator, not a creature. The Holy Bible
defines God as spirit and consisting of three persons, God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. What dictionary are you using
that defines person as a thing or thing as a person? Is it a special
atheists dictionary?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise and fall by reason of obedience to and/or disrega ...[text shortened]... frame of reference whatever for further breakthrough in understanding.

gb (aka, LimeJello)

Well, those are some substantial claims that, in order to get by, would require some considered argument on your part.

At any rate, I do not think this addresses my questions. I'm just curious. Do you think it is logically possible that God could not exist? Are you committed to the idea that God created Himself?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not logical. God is the creator, not a creature. The Holy Bible
defines God as spirit and consisting of three persons, God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. What dictionary are you using
that defines person as a thing or thing as a person? Is it a special
atheists dictionary?

Yep, it is a special atheists dictionary. How did you know?

What do you not understand about the logic here?

P1: God exists.
P2: God created all things that exist.

As far as I can tell, the conjunction of P1 & P2 entails P3:

P3: God created God.

Do you have some other take on it?

Your earlier objection seemed to be that P3 does not follow since it is false that God is a thing. But I think God is a thing, supposing He exists (at least according to my atheists dictionary). I was hoping "LimeJello" would take the time to clarify what he meant, but he has not thus far.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Your sentiments and opinions are solely your sentiments and opinions, nothing less and nothing more. Your emotional protestations regarding irrefutable absolute truth weigh nothing. Though some well intentioned crusaders might wish your frozen shut eyes could thaw and slowly open, only an ill-mannered fool would disrespect your free will by attempting to convince you otherwise.

Bobby

You stated that "All human beings eventually reach the point of "god" consciousness"

This statement is wrong if even 1 human doesn't.

I don't. (and there are many many others)

Thus your point is refuted.

Also for us to consider your point valid, you would have to prove it's true, which is impossible.

You are thus making statements of fact for which you have no evidence (let alone proof), no
way of proving your statements, and evidence that refutes them.

Thus you are objectively, logically, empirically wrong.

This isn't emotion, it's logic.

And I don't claim absolute truth, you do.

What I am doing is disputing that you have such a thing, or that it's even possible to have such a thing.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
O feelie me boni belli, dominos for bisco, Benny sellie allis dominos.

Feelie me Oh, good of war, for bisco masters, Benny sellie other masters.....


Google translate lets me down... :-(

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yep, it is a special atheists dictionary. How did you know?

What do you not understand about the logic here?

P1: God exists.
P2: God created all things that exist.

As far as I can tell, the conjunction of P1 & P2 entails P3:

P3: God created God.

Do you have some other take on it?

Your earlier objection seemed to be that P3 does not f ...[text shortened]... was hoping "LimeJello" would take the time to clarify what he meant, but he has not thus far.

I think there take on it is as follows. (as far as I understand it)

P1: God has always existed.

P2: God created all things that exist that are not God.


Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not to simply have the universe (in some form or another) exist forever,
thus removing the need for a first cause.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal God is the ultimate supreme being, the unmoved mover and first cause. All things created were created by Him and for the purpose of fulfilling His perfect plan. He alone controls history, sometimes by his expressed will and at others by His permissive will. Nations rise and fall by reason of obedience to and/or disrega ...[text shortened]... frame of reference whatever for further breakthrough in understanding.

gb (aka, LimeJello)

You state this as fact.

Facts require proof.

Without proof you have no facts.

Prove that this is true.

Or admit that you only believe this is true because you have blind faith that it is so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think there take on it is as follows. (as far as I understand it)

P1: God has always existed.

P2: God created all things that exist that are not God.


Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not ...[text shortened]... e universe (in some form or another) exist forever,
thus removing the need for a first cause.

I'm still waiting for LimeJello to clarify.

Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not to simply have the universe (in some form or another) exist forever,

Yep, you have correctly pointed out one reason why this argument is not compelling: there is a dialectic symmetry such that if the theist is going to stipulate that God has always existed, one may as well just stipulate that the universe has always existed. Of course, there are other even much worse problems with this argument as you have stated it: if one postulates that everything must have a cause....and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever; well, then, he has simply thereby contradicted himself. So this argument, as is, is just incoherent nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That would be easy if you were a reasonable person.

Then assume there exists at least one reasonable person who is not me observing this thread (no this shouldn't mean they unquestionably take the Bible to be the inspired word of "God" ) and go prove to them that Thor didn't create everything.

Hint: If you make appeals to the Bible they can simply rebut your 'argument' by appealing to the Chronicles of Thor (and they can be as creative as they like within the bounds of logic to interpret or draw inferences from said Chronicles)

Originally posted by Agerg
Then assume there exists at least one reasonable person who is not me observing this thread (no this shouldn't mean they unquestionably take the Bible to be the inspired word of "God" ) and go prove to them that Thor didn't create everything.

Hint: If you make appeals to the Bible they can simply rebut your 'argument' by appealing to the Chronicles of Thor ...[text shortened]... they like within the bounds of logic to interpret or draw inferences from said Chronicles)

But Thor is not honest. 😕

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm still waiting for LimeJello to clarify.

[b]Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not to simply have the universe (in some form or another) exist forever,

Yep, you have correctly pointed ou s simply thereby contradicted himself. So this argument, as is, is just incoherent nonsense.[/b]

Logically, of course, I agree with you and googlefudge (as I indicated; and you are both better logicians than I). But, ironically, this is not even really an atheist-versus-theist debate.

The Spanish philosopher Unamuno conceded that there is no sustainable argument for a logically necessary God; and yet he was a Christian theist, who, so far as I recall, simply stood on what seemed to be a sort of Kierkegaardian “existential leap”.* Unamuno freely said that such a stance was influenced by emotion (the “passions”, the “heart”—which generally means something more than the emotions ), and ends up with a kind of Quixote-esque aesthetic-existentialist theism (Unamuno was also a poet, and steeped in Cervantes). Now, this kind of radical existential decision is not—so far as I can tell—“belief”, in any kind of epistemological understanding of that word (which, originally, was not an epistemological concept, and thus an okay, if also somewhat poetic, rendering of pistis as it is used in the New testament).**

That does not remove the question from being the subject of theological debate among theist Christians (or theists generally) themselves; many would object to Unamuno’s stance. Now, as a pragmatic matter, such a non-epistemological faith can not only be richly aesthetic (depending on the rest of its terms), but can also be therapeutic—e.g., I would never try to talk one of my AA (or other twelve-step) friends out of their reliance on 2nd & 3rd step commitments; and, if I did, they would likely reject my attempt, not on epistemic but pragmatic (therapeutic) grounds; and perhaps aesthetic ones as well.

Since my own life is lived as much on aesthetic and pragmatic grounds as epistemological ones (perhaps more so), I can appreciate the view—I just don’t want to conflate and confuse my aesthetics with my epistemology.

EDIT: Actually, I think that Unamuno's stance needs to be combined with (and maybe was) the kind of "intuitional theism" that FMF once talked about.

________________________________________________

* As you know, I am well aware of Camus’ critique. 🙂

** Today, I think it has become a terrible translation, leading to an “epistemological confidence” (I want to say an “epistemological confidence game” ) that becomes, essentially, a “think right and be saved” message. Lucifershammer once said to me something to the effect that the Western Church (he meant specifically his own RCC, but I think it is more than readily extended to the Protestant West as well) tried to turn faith into a syllogism, whereas the Eastern Church tried to make it a beauty contest. Of course, he was intentionally exaggerating, but the point was well-taken. I tend toward the Eastern view…no surprise there.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
But Thor is not honest. 😕

Nor is it necessary that "God" should be honest - even if the Bible says it is. We could even assume the Bible is the word of "God", conjoin this with the statement "God" cannot lie, and you still couldn't conclude (validly) that "God" is honest.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm still waiting for LimeJello to clarify.

[b]Of course if you postulate that everything must have a cause, and that the first cause is god,
and that god doesn't need a cause because god has existed for ever.
Then there is no reason not to simply have the universe (in some form or another) exist forever,

Yep, you have correctly pointed ou ...[text shortened]... s simply thereby contradicted himself. So this argument, as is, is just incoherent nonsense.[/b]

I would point out that the point I made was made far more eloquently by Carl Sagan.
(and I'm sure he wasn't the first either)

YouTube