[Jabberwock]

It is hard to comprehend how existence came from non-existence

On your view God just exists, there is no reason or explanation for his existence. How exactly is that view superior?
The same goes for all the other things you have mentioned: if God is personal, or life etc. then personal, life, etc. do not have an explanation (otherwise you are saying that God is his own explanation, which is obviously circular). You are equally unable to explain WHY God exists, you just assert that he does.

[Flompy Doo]

Well, you could make an argument that there is a necessary entity. Which means its explanation is the fact that it is necessary. But it’s certainly not necessarily something comes from nothing.

[Levi]

Jabberwock: “On your view God just exists, there is no reason or explanation for his existence.”

Why would a timeless, spaceless, God, who had no beginning, need an explanation?

[Jabberwock]

What exactly has timelessness to do with the need for explanation? Suppose there is a timeless book – does that mean it no longer needs an author?

[Levi]

“What exactly has timelessness to do with the need for explanation?
Suppose there is a timeless book – does that mean it no longer needs an
author?”

A book is a finite thing; you can’t use that as an analogy. God is not a book; but a being. He didn’t have a beginning, so he doesn’t need a cause. He also created time, so a “beginning” attribution to God is absurd.

[Jabberwock]

So an infinite book would not need an explanation?

[Levi]

“So an infinite book would not need an explanation?”

First, you can’t prove an infinite book. Can you give me evidence for such a thing.

Second, the idea of God is rational and many people have argued for him. So let’s focus on him, not a book.

[Jabberwock]

I am just exploring the entailment of your claims. So:

1. Anything that is infinite does not need a cause, reason or explanation.

2. Infinite book does not need a cause, reason or explanation.
3. Therefore, an infinite book does not need an author.

Do you agree with the conclusion? Can authorless books exist?

[Levi]

“I am just exploring the entailment of your claims. So:

1. Anything that is infinite does not need a cause, reason or explanation.

2. Infinite book does not need a cause, reason or explanation.
3. Therefore, an infinite book does not need an author.

Do you agree with the conclusion? Can authorless books exist?”

1. Anything that is infinite does not need a cause, reason, or explanation.

2. A book cannot be infinite.

3. Therefore, an infinite book can’t exist.

A book cannot be infinite. Can you prove that?

[Jabberwock]

Why exactly a book cannot be infinite? And why think a mind can be infinite?

[Levi]

“Why exactly a book cannot be infinite?”

Because a book has to be written. Books come from a finite earth, so they must be finite. How in the world can there be an infinite book? Can you think of a better example?

“And why think a mind can be infinite?”

Why do you think that mind cannot be infinite?

[Jabberwock]

But then your refutal of an infinite book is simply circular… ‘A book cannot be inifite, because it is written and it has to be written, because it is not inifnite’.

Every mind we know from our experience has to be ‘written’ – they gradually develop from non-consciousness to consciousness, they have to develop by interacting with the world around them. Every single mind we know has gained knowledge by learning some facts from the outside world. Positing uncaused knowledge in a mind is exactly the same as positing an uncaused (unwritten) content in a book.

[Levi]

What do we mean by “infinite” anyway? Actually, I believe God is timeless, maybe not “infinite”, depending on how we characterize it.

[Jabberwock]

Lol… We were talking about timelessenss and I have specifically asked:

Suppose there is a timeless book – does that mean it no longer needs an author?

to which you have replied:

A book is a finite thing; you can’t use that as an analogy.

So this whole ‘infinite’ thing is your own making.

[Levi]

Jabberwock, why would you make a book infinite? A book is something we can see, feel, and break. It cannot be infinite. A mind is invisible, a mind cannot be felt, it cannot be broken.

[Jabberwock]

Is your mind infinite? I do not think mine is.

Besides, you have just concluded that ‘inifinity’ has nothing to do with our discussion. So, again: does a timeless book need an author?

[Levi]

“Is your mind infinite? I do not think mine is.”

I feel a little bit weird here, but I say yes to that question; well, maybe. I believe we are either going to hell or heaven at some point. When that happens, my body will go away but my mind and my spirit will be with God.

[Jabberwock]

But that is just your speculation; we have no more evidence of infinite minds than we have of inifnite books.

[Levi]

Why?

[Jabberwock]

Why what? What evidence do you have of infinite minds?

[Levi]

The Bible. Plain and Simple. It is God’s word.

This may not be enough for you, though. Should I prove something?

[Jabberwock]

Yes, it is not much. Quite a few holy books out there, you know.

[Levi]

There are many “holy books”. That is something to deal with.

There is something peculiar about the Bible. Many have vowed to destroy it, to destroy the “religion” it possesses. Yet it has stood throughout time. Somehow it is a prime target for atheists; while the others aren’t. Do you agree? Is there something special about this particular book?

[Jabberwock]

Not really, it is targeted by atheists in the countries where Christianity is dominant, in Muslim countries atheists are targeting Quran. By the way, Quran has also not only survived, but is prospering as Islam in on track to become the largest religion in the world. The number of Christians also rises, but they cannot even keep up with the population increase rate.

[Levi]

Is there a website or something…so I can see for myself if your claim is true? Thank you.

[James]

These books ought to persist because they are important, historically. The reason these books persist as anything else is because people are taught to assume by faith that they are divinely inspired. People then interpret and rationalise the text around that faith based assumption and end up with an unfalsifiable position (if they have made a mistake, they have no way of finding out). The inability of others to disprove the position is then mistaken by those holding to it, as evidence in its favour. At least, that’s what seems to be happening. It’s exactly the reason why some people mistake the impossibility of disproving hard solipsism with a possibility that it could actually be true.

The belief (that it is the infallible word of God) isn’t derived from the Bible. How could it be? Firstly, the Bible does not claim that it is the infallible word of God. There is a verse saying that all scripture is God breathed but at the time this was being written, the Bible did not exist as a recognised or established canon so it cannot be assumed that the writer is referencing the Bible when making that claim. To assume they are talking about the Bible, one would have to assume foreknowledge of the author that the author themselves is not claiming to have in context. In addition, even if it does happen to be true that it is all divinely inspired, this in and of itself does not entail that those being inspired would be incapable of incorrectly handling the inspired material (that what we ended up with, is infallible). And how would God achieve this, without violating human free will? Not only would he need to prevent errors when the claims were being written, but also during the prior stage of oral transmission! There is evil because God won’t violate free will, but he will violate free will to prevent errors from entering a book?

As such, the faith based belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God is an extra-Biblical assumption that people are taught to believe by people who are not God and who are not the Biblical authors. When forming this belief, those forming it haven’t even read the Bible all the way through so haven’t even bothered to fact-check what they are being instructed to believe (and neither would many know how to start going about it). When they do start to read and interpret the passages, they are already interpreting around the initial assumption they formed and prior to reading it. It is all grounded in circular reasoning.

And this further exposes a double standard. Why be so mistrusting of what anonymous people on the internet are saying (demanding verification for everything they say) yet believe everything said by the (mostly) anonymous authors of the Biblical books? Why would one assume that something based on numerous copies and written by many different humans on the basis of prior oral transmission involving many individuals from well over 2000 years ago (and who didn’t have the benefit of many of the discoveries we’ve made today), not be capable of getting anything wrong?

If people start to apply the same standards of rigour that they apply to online content (to protect themselves from being scammed) to the Bible and Quran too … I wonder what will happen?

[Levi]

“These books ought to persist because they are important, historically. The reason these books persist as anything else is because people are taught to assume by faith that they are divinely inspired…The belief (that it is the infallible word of God) isn’t derived from the Bible. How could it be?”

The Bible doesn’t say it is inerrant, but we can derive so. Here are a few verses:

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” -Numbers 23:19.

“in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,” -Titus 1:2

“that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.” -Hebrews 6:18

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” -2 Timothy 3:16

It is from these verses that we can deduct that the Bible isn’t false.

[James]

None of that warrants a conclusion that the Bible is infallible.

For the initial verses, they all claim that God cannot lie. Even if we concede this is true, people can lie and it was people who wrote the Biblical texts. Most of them do not name themselves and none of them claims to be divinely inspired.

As for the author of the Timothy passage, he is claiming that all scripture is God breathed. What he is writing wasn’t part of the Bible (or part of any established canon) when he was writing it and while it was initially being received and neither were the other books of the New Testament. Therefore and in context, he is not claiming that his own letter or the other books of the New Testament are scripture (at best, he is only claiming it of works other than his own, and those being one of the two versions of the old testament canon, available at the time) and neither is he claiming to be divinely inspired himself. And that author is a human and despite it being true that God cannot lie, humans can lie (or more likely, just be mistaken for less nefarious reasons). So his claim that all scripture is God breathed could be mistaken. Even if what God communicates is infallible, how people process and communicate that information is not necessarily infallible. People can misunderstand God’s communication and this can be reflected in what they write etc.

If we apply to the Bible, the same standards that we should be applying to claims that we find online, it does not stand up for a second. None of the claims in it can reliably be fact checked, most of the authors are anonymous, there are reasons to think that some of the authors are not who they claim to be (letters attributed to Paul) and some of them claim that God is telling them to do things that, in any other situation we would use the evidence of what they do to conclude that they were not hearing from God (and even if they claim to be).

[Levi]

“For the initial verses, they all claim that God cannot lie. Even if we concede this is true, people can lie and it was people who wrote the Biblical texts.”

Your response is “James-breathed”. You technically didn’t write it–your device did. But you told it what to write. It is the same when talking about the Bible. God is not going to come down to earth and write a whole book for us; you can’t come down into the software and write stuff with the electricity. But you can tell it what to do, and it obeys. If the computer made a mistake that you didn’t, are you going to let it pass? I hope not.

“As for the author of the Timothy passage, he is claiming that all scripture is God breathed. What he is writing wasn’t part of the Bible….Therefore and in context, he is not claiming that his own letter or the other books of the New Testament are scripture…and neither is he claiming to be divinely inspired himself…Even if what God communicates is infallible, how people process and communicate that information is not necessarily infallible. People can misunderstand God’s communication and this can be reflected in what they write etc.”

You made two new points:

1. The author of Timothy doesn’t claim his passage is inspired.

2. People can misunderstand what God said.

Paul was the author of Timothy, FYI. Let’s see. Does Paul not claim he is inspired? Well, we’ll see about that:

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), -Galatians 1:1

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. -1 Thessalonians 2:13 (Emphasis mine)

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. -Galatians 1:11

Notice Paul isn’t just claiming it for himself. He claims it for the other apostles.

The next point claims people can misunderstand what God said. Does that detract from the idea of Biblical inerrancy?

[James]

Your response is “James-breathed”. You technically didn’t write it–your device did.

Why are you comparing the actions of people, to something that cannot act or think for itself? This is where your analogy fails. Clearly that is not true because my device cannot type anything without my input. And even when it has my input, it is not free to change what I type. The device is a tool that is more analogous to a pen.

Even if some of the Biblical text are divinely inspired (which is something you are still just assuming and cannot demonstrate), Christians do not believe that God takes control of the writers in the same way that I control a keyboard. The authors are still free to type what they want and in the way that they want and this opens up the possibility of error.

Add to this that authors such as Paul were not even writing it directly themselves but using the services of an amanuensis and because the texts were being written in Greek by this person, they were not even in Paul’s first language. We then add that we are dealing with copies of the originals, not the originals and that none of the originals exist as far as we know. That the originals no longer exist is direct evidence that they were afforded no special, divine protection.

But you can tell it what to do, and it obeys.

These are just all faith based assumptions you are making. There is nothing in the text to indicate this. Those writing the texts do not claim that God is dictating to them. The author of Luke (for example), states that his Gospel is based on research and similar to many other examples where people have attempted to create a record of events. In some verses, the author denies that their instructions are coming from the Lord!

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

1 Corinthians 7:12

Paul was the author of Timothy, FYI.

This is something you take on faith and not the widely accepted view.

Unfortunately, it is widely viewed as “common knowledge” that the historical apostle Paul was not the real author of 1–2 Timothy and Titus and that these letters embody pseudepigraphal works. The basis for the arguments against Pauline authorship range from differences in language to a theology (or theological focus) that doesn’t appear in his other writings. Some historical points are put forward to argue that the Church appears too developed at this juncture for the letters to have been written in Paul’s lifetime.

2 Timothy | Commentary | Paul Jeon | TGCBC (thegospelcoalition.org)

When it comes to the idea that these texts were afforded any special, divine protection, all of the most reliable evidence points against that idea.

Let’s see. Does Paul not claim he is inspired?

I was somewhat inaccurate in what I put earlier in that I should have placed a caveat in what I stated. There you go, humans make mistakes when writing things down! I should have said, the authors do not claim that everything they are writing is divinely inspired.

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), -Galatians 1:1

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. -1 Thessalonians 2:13 (Emphasis mine)

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. -Galatians 1:11

All you have here is someone’s claim that God has influenced them. Even if we grant that, somebody believing and claiming that God has inspired them does not entail that he did. The person could be mistaken. Even if we grant what Paul says, it applies to what he spoke and not to what is written (and certainly not to copies written many years later).

The Galatians passage is extremely problematic for several reasons. Paul denies getting his Gospel from men and to even being taught it. This is a denial that his version of the Gospel came via oral tradition and he seems to be suggesting that he was given it via some sort of spiritual experience that he then brags about failing to fact check (he openly boasts about failing to fact check the nature of his experience with those who had actually been with Jesus). Yes, I know he mentions the visits to Peter etc, but his version of the Gospel was already in circulation long before these visits took place, it was being circulated in Greek (not the first language of either Paul or the other apostles so much, much harder to fact check what was being transmitted) and we only have Paul’s version of what was said and done during those encounters.

The next point claims people can misunderstand what God said. Does that detract from the idea of Biblical inerrancy?

It is something you assume by faith and it is likely something you were encouraged to believe, even before you had started properly reading the Bible. Consequently, your reading of the Bible has likely been fit around that assumption, rather than being derived from the text itself. This must be the case because nowhere in the Bible is it claimed that the Bible is inerrant nor that everything written in it is divinely inspired. Even if we grant some divine inspiration (and we cannot really do that, because we only have claims of inspiration even where it is alleged to have taken place and a claim of divine inspiration does not entail that it was divinely inspired because people can make mistakes), authors such as Paul clearly admit to “seeing imperfectly” and “in a glass darkly”, (despite all the alleged revelations etc). He admits to “knowing in part”. By definition, this entails that what people are currently in possession of, is thought of as imperfect by them even where they themselves believe that it has come from God. In one passage,

thegospelcoalition.org

2 Timothy | Commentary | Paul Jeon | TGCBC

Explore 2 Timothy as Paul encourages Timothy and all believers to persevere in their calling until they have completed the task entrusted to them in this TGC Bible Commentary by Paul Jeon.

[James]

More info on NT document authorship.

Proof Paul Didn’t Write 1, 2 Timothy And Titus! | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman (youtube.com)

[Mammal]

Atheists and naturalists don’t consider these to be miracles requiring a supernatural explanation. They are perfectly content with natural explanations, where such explanations are actually required.

[Levi]

“Atheists and naturalists don’t consider these to be miracles requiring a supernatural explanation.”

That’s because they are assuming Naturalism and Uniformitarianism, both are unproven.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Levi.

[Fred]

“That’s because they are assuming Naturalism and Uniformitarianism, both are unproven”

They are also not disproven. However, they are the best explanation for all the known facts of the world.

[Levi]

“They are also not disproven. However, they are the best explanation for all the known facts of the world.”

Actually, it’s a worldview that looks at the facts, not proven by the facts.

[Fred]

You make a series of theistic assumption and then proclaim them to entail miracles:

1. Existence comes from non existence

That’s an absurdity. Existence could not have been preceded by non-existence. A finite past entails an initital state of affairs, not a prior state of non-existence.

2. order comes from chaos

This is vague because “chaos” is undefined. It it means a state of low entropy, then it’s simply wrong and suggests a misunderstanding of entropy. If you mean something else, then explain.

3. life comes
from non life 4. personal comes from non personal 5. reason comes from non
reason 6. morality comes from matter.

There’s no rational basis to believe abiogenesis is impossible, that beings with a view of self-identity cannot evolve, that beings with the ability to reason can’t evolve, nor that morality is somehow inconsistent with evolution.

[Bob]

“When we look at such miracles with the idea that
the miracle worker is God, the proof becomes overwhelmingly clear.”

When we consider that science has taught us countless facts about reality, and the world’s religions haven’t, it’s clear which horse to back.

[Quaesitor]

It seems to me that your argument is as follows:

1. Science has taught us many facts about reality.
2. The world’s religions have not taught us many facts about reality.
3. (Science gives us more facts about reality than the world’s religions have.) (1, 2 Conj)
4. (We should only follow the worldview(?) that gives us more facts about reality.)
5. We should follow science. (3, 4 MP)

I certainly agree with (1), and I’m almost willing to concede (2), but I’m not sure that it necessarily follows that we ought to follow science over religion. For one, it would seem that, in at least one case, science actually emerged from religion, and insofar as science gives us facts about reality, it would seem that religion has given the gift of finding out the most facts about reality. But it seems that you may also be limiting your argument to something like quantifiable or verifiable observations or predications; but these too would not seem to give us the most facts about reality. For one, it would seem that the way one chose to live their life would be important, but I am not sure that any purely “scientific” fact would actually help one know how to live their life. Sure, it might inform them of how to accomplish this or that in the best way, but I don’t know that it would actually prompt any suggestion as to whether this or that ought to be accomplished at all.

This is all to say that I’m not so sure that there is any point in backing a horse at all that is only based in “science.” It may not even be running on the right track! You may say that there is in fact no track, and you were indeed speaking only metaphorically to emphasize the fact that ultimately it comes down to something of a bet for you; but it seems to me that by saying this you think there is something to be gained. But under an atheistic assumption, I’m not sure that anything is there to be gained, so I remain somewhat baffled as to what one might gain by backing that horse; for if we are in the final analysis unable to use science to live well–––in the fullest meaning of the term–––I’m not sure why it’s helpful to back it over anything else.

I hope you can tell I’m having a bit of fun here, but I would like to see how you respond, regardless!

[Simon (Christian)]

Well said, Quaesitor!

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Simon (Christian). Reason: Clarify recipient of praise

knowwhyyoubelieve.org

Page not found – Equip

Page not found – Equip

[Mammal]

I don’t find @Quaesitor ‘s point very convincing. Our best scientific explanation for behaviour is that it results from an interaction between our genes and our environment. Religion is an environmental factor, just one of many that influence religious people’s “way of living” in what has become a secular multi-cultural blended environment. Religious people probably only show religious ways of living with their own ilk, otherwise most western people regardless of their beliefs live their lives pretty much in a similar manner. In fact, a too religiously inclined (fundamentalist) manner of living tends to be frowned upon and has its own drawbacks.

So really all it adds is a belief that life has some divine purpose.

[Simon (Christian)]

Thanks for your input, Mammal.

[Poul]

“How can we know what is good and evil if there is no definition giver of good and evil?”

People from all cultures tend to agree what is good and evil without any reference to a definition-giver. Even animals. If you disagree, try lifting a cat by the tail.

[Quaesitor]

Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as follows?

1. Peoples create their own definitions for good and evil.
2. If a definition-giver of good and evil existed, peoples would not create their own definitions for good and evil.
3. (Therefore no definition-giver of good and evil exists.) (1, 2 MT)
4. Animals consider undesired interactions evil.

I’m not really sure what to do with the last one, though I grant that it is unwise to harass felines. If you mean to say that pleasure is somehow a basis for what is good and evil, I’m not sure that such a premise will hold. For anyone would agree that a physician who labors to extract a foreign object from the body may indeed cause much pain; but this pain would be considered to work towards the good of the patient, even though it engendered no pleasure. All the more so, the cat may find no delight in being hoisted by its hindquarters; but if this saves it from some danger, a person would still consider it as working for its good–––though the cat may never see it this way.

As for your larger argument, I’m not sure I agree with (2). People certainly have written about what they hold to be good and evil–––perhaps with some variance, though on the whole seeming to agree–––and that seems to carry on well. But I’m not sure that they would only have made their own definitions if no definition-giver had given them any. For it may be that they knew of this definition-giver’s definitions and rejected it; or–––and this is an interesting prospect–––they did not have a direct knowledge of the definition-giver’s definition, but yet came to equivalent definitions. Why this latter situation may have ensued is undoubtedly beyond us, though perhaps it could be that people are of such a nature as to incline towards such definitions independent of initial instruction. Regardless of the method, premise (2) still looks tenuous, and so the jury’s still out on whether some definition-giver may be lurking out there, unbeknownst to us potential plagiarists.

Let me know what you think!

[Poul]

My opinion on the matter is rather more pragmatic than yours seem to be. In order to agree on anything, including what is good and evil, we need to agree on the arguments. In most cases, we can agree on the arguments where good and evil is concerned. We most certainly cannot agree on many of the moral (and other) laws that are claimed to be dictated by a divine law-giver although they clearly cause all kinds of distress.

The Pope has been strongly against divorce and the use of condoms, in spite of all the arguments in favor. Not to mention views on homosexuality, that have shifted greatly in western culture in the 20th century in spite of the Catholic Church.

Muslims get terribly offended when someone makes a drawing that they perceive to be a depiction of Muhammad. Does that mean that you must not make such drawings, as muslims would argue? No, it just means that you should carefully consider the pros and cons before publishing them.

This is just some examples of why we should not automatically accept the opinion of those who argue that their moral laws are God-given. If I were to say that God has told me knitting is evil, would that keep you from knitting? I think I have argued why the idea of so-called god-given laws is not good.

You shouldn’t lift a cat by the tail because it probably hurts. If in doubt, trust the cat. Sure, you could imagine a situation where you would be saving its life, but that’s rather beside the point, isn’t it. Usually, there are better ways to lift a cat.

[Anika]

Hi Jaylin, as I understand it your argument is as follows,

1. If God exists, then the presence of these 6 “miracles” is easily explained.

2. If God does not exist, then these 6 “miracles” cannot be explained.

3. These 6 “miracles” are present in the world.

4. Therefore, God must exist. (1,3 MP)

I am objecting to premise 2 of this argument. Before I raise my objections to premise 2, I want to point out that it seems somewhat presumptuous to refer to these six things as miracles. In order to label them as “miracles” you would have to show clearly, and beyond doubt that there is no other possible way they could have occurred, if not by some form of supernatural power, and it does not seem that you have done this. In addition, you say that God created us in a certain way and that is why we have attributes such as reason. But again, there is no basis for this statement. An atheist would argue that God had nothing to do with these occurrences. For example, you say that we have an objective morality. However, is it not true that the standards for objective morality have varied significantly over the course of history? There was a time when slavery was not considered immoral, a concept that today is almost impossible to comprehend. It is clear that what people considered good and evil have certainly evolved over time. Therefore, the claim that there must be a moral law giver and that this moral law giver is God is easily refutable. There is no evidence to suggest that the only possible way these occurrences could exist is if God existed. It is also extremely vague and objectionable that you say God created order out of chaos. There is no reason to assume that this is true. It seems that one could just as argue that this is yet another phenomenon that has come to exist in the world as humanity has developed. For these reasons I find your argument to be difficult to understand.

[James]

I’m an atheist and I have no need to explain any of them. Why? Because either I do not believe them to begin with or it is simply the case that I cannot explain it (and I might always be incapable of explaining it, and I’m OK with that). We attempt to find explanations for phenomenon but that does not mean that we can or will explain all the mysteries you highlight.

Assuming the existence of an agent such as God does not explain some of the mysteries you’ve highlighted either. We are simply left with an agent who does things in mysterious ways and the assumed agent is even more inexplicable than the mystery we were trying to explain from the start. We’ve tried to explain a mystery by assuming the existence of an even bigger one!

1. Existence comes from non existence.

I don’t think that existence came from non-existence. I don’t think the idea of existence coming from non-existence is even coherent. Existence did not “come from” anything. If there is no God then the universe (or collection of universes, if is there is one) has simply always existed.

2. order comes from chaos

This makes the assumption that chaos is somehow the default state of reality. I see no reason to think that. Denying it entails no logical contradiction and there is no evidential basis for it.

3. life comes from non life

Yes, this is a mystery at present. Humans will attempt to explain how it happened, but may never succeed. If we do not know how it happened, we cannot say it was a miracle (unless of course, you are using the term “miracle” to refer to our own ignorance of a process, but that raises other issues).

4. personal comes from non personal

Which we observe. For example, human sperm and human ova are not persons as far as we know, yet they produce a person once combined.

5. reason comes from non reason

See above. I don’t know how the brain does it, but my not knowing how the brain does it does not entail the existence of a God.

6. and lastly, morality comes from matter.

This isn’t strictly true. My desk is material and it is incapable of moral action. The only arrangements of matter we know of and that are capable of morally significant actions are human brains. If you are asking how brains are capable of this then I do not know. If I did and could demonstrate it then I would likely be holding a Nobel Prize right now. If the issue is that morality comes from causal factors that are non-moral then we observe that. Human sperm and human ova are not capable of morally significant action for all we know, yet …. [and so on].

These miracles that atheists can’t deny are reasons to prove the existence of God.

We certainly can deny some of them, and we do. As for the others, we simply admit that we don’t know how it happened and neither does the theist. The theist is left saying “I don’t know how this happened, but I know that God did it!” and I see that as inherently contradictory. If you don’t know how it happened, how do you know that a God did it?

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  James.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  James.

[Levi]

“1. Existence comes from non existence.

I don’t think that existence came from non-existence. I don’t think the idea of existence coming from non-existence is even coherent. Existence did not “come from” anything. If there is no God then the universe (or collection of universes, if is there is one) has simply always existed.”

The universe can’t be eternal, if that’s what you are saying. An infinite regress of events is life trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. You don’t know where to start. Can you prove your statement with more evidence please?

“2. order comes from chaos

This makes the assumption that chaos is somehow the default state of reality. I see no reason to think that. Denying it entails no logical contradiction and there is no evidential basis for it.”

Sure chaos was the original state. If there was order, someone had to order it.

“3. life comes from non life

Yes, this is a mystery at present. Humans will attempt to explain how it happened, but may never succeed. If we do not know how it happened, we cannot say it was a miracle (unless of course, you are using the term “miracle” to refer to our own ignorance of a process, but that raises other issues).”

A miracle is something that defies natural explanations. Life cannot come from non-life, that defies natural explanations.

“4. personal comes from non personal

Which we observe. For example, human sperm and human ova are not persons as far as we know, yet they produce a person once combined.”

Personal cannot come from personal, as far as I know. I think God fashioned us in the womb and gave us “personhood”.

“5. reason comes from non reason

See above. I don’t know how the brain does it, but my not knowing how the brain does it does not entail the existence of a God.”

Does your brain reason, or you mind that is in your brain (I think)?

“6. and lastly, morality comes from matter.

This isn’t strictly true. My desk is material and it is incapable of moral action. The only arrangements of matter we know of and that are capable of morally significant actions are human brains. If you are asking how brains are capable of this then I do not know. If I did and could demonstrate it then I would likely be holding a Nobel Prize right now. If the issue is that morality comes from causal factors that are non-moral then we observe that. Human sperm and human ova are not capable of morally significant action for all we know, yet …. [and so on].”

What is “morality”? An objective standard above everyone? What do you mean by that?

[James]

The universe can’t be eternal, if that’s what you are saying. An infinite regress of events is life trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. You don’t know where to start.

All these same problems exist for theism. For example, God went from an eternal state of having never created, to creating (with God being eternally not a creator being the bottomless pit) and so on. Those types of mysteries are not a reason for rejecting an idea though.

Sure chaos was the original state. If there was order, someone had to order it.

That’s not what we witness. Chaos is usually the result of an ordered state being torn apart by a large and very sudden release of energy. If an initial state cannot be ordered then it cannot be an ordered, omniscient mind. Saying that something undesigned but immaterial (eg, God) could be ordered but not a physical state is just special pleading.

A miracle is something that defies natural explanations.

This assumes that there cannot be natural phenomenon that defy explanation. I see no reason to assume that.

Life cannot come from non-life, that defies natural explanations.

This begs the question. If life came from non-life, it doesn’t follow that God did it and just because we cannot explain the process of how it happened.

I’ll pause there for now.

[Levi]

” ‘The universe can’t be eternal, if that’s what you are saying. An infinite regress of events is life trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. You don’t know where to start.’

“All these same problems exist for theism. For example, God went from an eternal state of having never created, to creating (with God being eternally not a creator being the bottomless pit) and so on. Those types of mysteries are not a reason for rejecting an idea though.”

I asked for something different. What evidence do you have that the universe is eternal?

” ‘Sure chaos was the original state. If there was order, someone had to order it.’

That’s not what we witness. Chaos is usually the result of an ordered state being torn apart by a large and very sudden release of energy. If an initial state cannot be ordered then it cannot be an ordered, omniscient mind. Saying that something undesigned but immaterial (eg, God) could be ordered but not a physical state is just special pleading.”

I don’t understand your point here. Chaos can be ordered like a messy bedroom. Can you explain your point?

” ‘A miracle is something that defies natural explanations.’

This assumes that there cannot be natural phenomenon that defy explanation. I see no reason to assume that.”

Why? “Natural” phenomena is “Natural”, as I see it.

” ‘Life cannot come from non-life, that defies natural explanations.’

This begs the question. If life came from non-life, it doesn’t follow that God did it and just because we cannot explain the process of how it happened.”

It also means nothing natural can. Can you elaborate on that?

[Mark (pastor & Cincinnati RF chapter director)]

However Jailyn,

They would claim that what you call six miracles are simply are surgeons. They would reply that to attribute them to a God simply because we do not yet have an understanding of them would be a classic ‘God of the gaps’ move.

They would say that since we do not see God in our microscopes or in our telescopes, therefore he does not exist in the natural world. And since the natural world contains no evidence of any other world, apart from the musings of theoretical physics, therefore he does not exist.

They would say that since we do not see God in our microscopes or in our telescopes, therefore he does not exist in the natural world. And since the natural world contains no evidence of any other world, apart from the musings of theoretical physics, therefore he does not exist.

At least that’s what they would say. therefore your case would not be as strong as you would claim. They would still state, as in the words of Bertrand Russell, ‘show me the evidence!!!

[Levi]

“They would claim that what you call six miracles are simply are (assertions). They would reply that to attribute them to a God simply because we do not yet have an understanding of them would be a classic ‘God of the gaps’ move.”

It defies natural expectations. That would be a miracle.

“They would say that since we do not see God in our microscopes or in our telescopes, therefore he does not exist in the natural world. And since the natural world contains no evidence of any other world, apart from the musings of theoretical physics, therefore he does not exist.”

We cannot use science (a process that measures things in the natural world) to prove an existence of another.

[Mark (pastor & Cincinnati RF chapter director)]

Not ‘Surgeons’ but ‘assertions’

[James]

“Something from nothing” is a classic reification of nothing (treating “nothing” as a thing, that can produce other things). “Nothing” is not a thing by definition but an absence of any things. “X came from nothing” is logically equivalent to “X didn’t come from anything”. In that sense, God came from nothing meaning that he did not come from anything.

A problem that some atheists will have is that God is simply this reification of nothing with the ability to think, create universes and so on, added to it.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  James.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

The existence of an omnipotent God is unprovable. Any stance cannot be proven wrong.

[jayceeii]

The creaturely mind gains metaphysical purchase from self-experience of the soul. At that time the proofs for God are seen, in fact invented de novo from personal experience.

Yet there are proofs in the physical realm too, which intriguingly are beyond human discriminative power to apprehend. Ramakrishna said the journey is to find the Real.

[Levi]

“The existence of an omnipotent God is unprovable.”

Why?

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Levi, an omnipotent God has the power to make itself unprovable.

[Levi]

Is that your reason?

Are you sure that a solid basis? No, because you give possibilities, not proving that they are plausible or probable.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Making one’s self “unprovable” is the choice to hide. Choosing to hide is not blame worthy at all, but neither is failing to believe in the one who has chosen to hide.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).