God Created The World

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12 here:

God created the world.

For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

The interpretive framework provided by non-theistic lenses very often are blurred, incoherent, and/or unarticulated.

Notice the opposing viewpoint is "blurred", "incoherent", "unarticulated". I contend such terms could only come about because one has a lack of knowledge regarding the proposition in question - whether claimant or challenger. I propose such is based on a lack of confirmable knowledge - right or wrong. Thus, the god concept is introduced.

Notice, there's no explaining why all that is "blurred" and such carryin' on. I propose that it doesn't matter as to the factualness of claims, but that all that which is "blurred" to the individual, all that which is "incoherent" to the individual, all that which is "unarticulated" to the individual is placed into the god concept.

Notice too we are seeing above a justification for belief - no matter how confirmable that justification may be.

But to the extent that the non-theistic interpretive framework is examined, to the extent that its implications are followed through to their logical conclusions, it turns out that our inner mental life is just an illusion.

Our "inner mental life is just an illusion".

But this "god" ain't?

We really don't have minds at all--we just imagine we do, when in fact we are nothing more than the absurd frothings of quarks and gluons which no one has seen or ever can see, within one of a multitude of other universes which no one has seen or ever can see.

I'd prefer to think the combination thereof indicates "here we are", but understand I may sitting here doing anything but.

It depends on what you mean by "evidenced." If you mean empirical observation, then strictly speaking we can't observe the infinity of other universes which are demanded by non-theism, given current scientific knowledge. Similarly, we can't empirically observe God. So logically, all we can do is examine each position and see where it leads. Non-theism leads to the evaporation of the only thing to which we have direct and unmediated access: our inner mental lives.

Typical theistic slander. Notice the unsupported implication that only 'with god' can we access our "inner mental lives". You ever wake up and think you weren't you - barring drugs and such, and on that, I'm here to tell ya I can commiserate.

I propose such slander is typical of those who accept the tenets of a religious text, nay belief, that accuses all in disagreement of being anything but decent folks.

Theism, by contrasts, leads to the conclusion that our minds are not illusory, but real.

Yet 'theism' is utterly incapable of showing the god in question is anything other than illusory.

[spayne]

From Post 12 here:

God created the world.

For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.

I agree with bjs's statement that nobody can completely prove anything.

This is no different than saying that because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing, as Mr Hawking has recently stated. That's a pretty bold statement. Christians will put their faith in God. Those who think science provides all the answers will support things like M-theory.

It's all about your worldview, and all worldviews are defined by specific beliefs that one holds to be true. And beliefs are both evidence based and faith based, regardless of whether you believe in God or not.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

I agree with bjs's statement that nobody can completely prove anything.

Yet your following words indicate you ain't too upset about the claims presented in the OP being expressed.

This is no different than saying that because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing, as Mr Hawking has recently stated. That's a pretty bold statement.

Can we ever have a discussion with Christians that doesn't draw attention away from the claim being challenged?

Please note, NOWHERE has the OP presented the good Mr. Hawking, NOWHERE has the OP presented any claim Mr Hawking may have presented, NOWHERE has the OP done anything but challenge the claim as set forth in the OP.

Are Christians utterly incapable of addressing an OP without trying to side-track it?

Christians will put their faith in God.

While being profoundly incapable of showing the God in question exists to even be worshiped.

Those who think science provides all the answers will support things like M-theory.

There! Right there!

Notice the Christian proponent has now a history of doing anything but addressing the claim presented in the OP.

Dangit man, can we not challenge Christian claims without having Christians make excuses about why their claims can't be shown to be truth?

It's all about your worldview, and all worldviews are defined by specific beliefs that one holds to be true.

It would seem that some of 'em's worldview is "to heck with showing I speak truth, I'm just gonna preach on with the best of 'em".

And beliefs are both evidence based and faith based, regardless of whether you believe in God or not.

Yeah, that clears it up

[Autodidact]

...Exactly why is it that one can "know" things if they examine them through a theistic lens...

The interpretive framework provided by the theistic lens justifies our intuitive sense that our inner mental life is real and not merely an illusion.

I don't think it needs a God for us to know our thoughts are real.

Rather than just asserting this, and many other things, can you in some way support your statement with an argument?

...Yet through the lens of the opposing worldview, well, nothing?...

The interpretive framework provided by non-theistic lenses very often are blurred, incoherent, and/or unarticulated

. Instead of just calling your opponent names, actually make an argument.

But to the extent that the non-theistic interpretive framework is examined, to the extent that its implications are followed through to their logical conclusions, it turns out that our inner mental life is just an illusion

. Justify your false claim with an argument.

We really don't have minds at all--we just imagine we do, when in fact we are nothing more than the absurd frothings of quarks and gluons which no one has seen or ever can see, within one of a multitude of other universes which no one has seen or ever can see.

Whose bizarre worldview is this? Not mine, a non-theist.

Your argument has two parts: a straw man, and an unsupported claim.

...when claims are made they should be supported. If they can't be shown to be at least evidenced they should be retracted.

It depends on what you mean by "evidenced." If you mean empirical observation, then strictly speaking we can't observe the infinity of other universes which are demanded by non-theism, given current scientific knowledge

. Make an argument. You keep telling us what we think, without showing us that we actually think it. I don't think there are an infinity of universes, and I am an atheist.

Similarly, we can't empirically observe God.

Or any measurable effect of God.

So logically, all we can do is examine each position and see where it leads.

So you don't think you need to take reality into account at all?

Non-theism leads to the evaporation of the only thing to which we have direct and unmediated access: our inner mental lives. Theism, by contrasts, leads to the conclusion that our minds are not illusory, but real.

so you keep saying. You have yet to support your bogus claims with a shred of argument, evidence, logic or truth.

[Autodidact]

...I'm an atheist, and I don't believe my thoughts are an illusory froth.

Well, it sounds like atheists can't all agree on whether their inner mental lives are real or not.

First, you haven't shown this to be the case. You keep telling us what atheists believe, rather than asking us.

Since atheists have multiple views on the specifics of their respective non-theisms,

First, you haven't shown this to be the case. Second, even if it is, whether thoughts are "real," whatever that means, is not a specific of non-theism. Unlike theists, all atheists agree on their atheism. None of us thinks there is a God. I find that no two theists agree on the specifics of the God that supposedly exists, so apparently, according to you, they must be wrong.

does it thereby follow that they must be wrong regarding the common core of their respective non-theisms?

Since your argument is based on false premises, it is not useful in establishing your point. On the contrary, there is far more disagreement among the world's theists about the nature, identity, number and name of God than there is among atheists, who all agree there are exactly zero of them. That is the only core of non-theism.

Please note: if you argue that non-theists can disagree on the specifics without thereby vitiating the common core of their non-theisms, then you are admitting that theists might be correct in the essential elements (accepted in common by all of today's major world theisms) despite any disagreement regarding specific matters.

There are not plural non-theisms. Atheists disagree on everything under the sun, but 100% of them agree on the the common core of their non-theism, which is that there is no God. Theists cannot make the same claim.

btw, your logic is lacking. Even if one group disagreed about specifics, and was right, it does not follow that all groups who disagree about specifics are therefore right.

And of course, there is no common set of essential elements accepted in common by all of today's major world theisms. At least, I can't think of any, other than that maybe one or more Gods and or Goddesses had some role in creating the world.

[Autodidact]

Chris: YOu have a tendency to tell us what we must or do believe, without ever making an argument that we do or must. So far, you have not correctly stated a single thing that I, or other atheists, believe, nor have you demonstrated why we do or must believe that. Your argument reads something like this:

If followed to their logical conclusion, all Christians believe that cannibalism is a good thing. Since we atheists do not endorse cannibalism, we are right.

To make that argument, I would first need to explain and persuade that Christians do or must believe that. That's the step you're missing.

[Autodidact]

From Post 12 here:

God created the world.

For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.

I agree with bjs's statement that nobody can completely prove anything.

This is no different than saying that because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing, as Mr Hawking has recently stated. That's a pretty bold statement. Christians will put their faith in God. Those who think science provides all the answers will support things like M-theory.

It's all about your worldview, and all worldviews are defined by specific beliefs that one holds to be true. And beliefs are both evidence based and faith based, regardless of whether you believe in God or not.

again, don't just make an assertion; make an argument. Explain why your assertion is correct.

[TheJackelantern]

test

Sorry, I needed to test..

[AquinasD]

1) The world is contingent

2) The world exists

3) God exists

4) Whatever is contingent that exists, God created

5) Therefore, God created the world

[spayne]

From Post 12 here:

God created the world.

For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.

I agree with bjs's statement that nobody can completely prove anything.

This is no different than saying that because of the law of gravity, the universe created itself from nothing, as Mr Hawking has recently stated. That's a pretty bold statement. Christians will put their faith in God. Those who think science provides all the answers will support things like M-theory.

It's all about your worldview, and all worldviews are defined by specific beliefs that one holds to be true. And beliefs are both evidence based and faith based, regardless of whether you believe in God or not.

again, don't just make an assertion; make an argument. Explain why your assertion is correct.

My argument is that this is not a question about evidence to support a claim. It's a question about worldview. To the Christian (or other theist), evidence that God created the world is everywhere. For the nonbeliever it's all rubbish. Who's correct? And it doesn't take long perusing this board before one sees that nonbelievers are very quick to refute pretty much any of the evidence for God that is put forth.

For me, as a Christian, bjs's use of Kalam's argument for the existence of God was good enough to end the discussion right there. Why is it not enough for Joey? God only knows.