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.

[spayne]

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

Do you take the Christians on this board to be a bunch of fools? It seems that nearly every time a believer in Jesus Christ puts forth evidence for his or her faith, you respond with some kind of disparaging, condescending, offensive comment. You appear to have little concern for actually engaging in the conversation, and seem to be more content with poking fun of Christian beliefs. It's a bit ironic that you would get so bent out of shape that a Christian didn't answer your question in the right way. Please forgive me if I am offbase here but I think other Christians who have experienced your ridicule of their beliefs would probably agree with me.

Why all of a sudden do you want evidence that God created the world if you don't believe in God? Do you sincerely want to know or are you just trying to stir up the pot again? And what about Kalam's argument for the existence of God? It would seem to have all of the necessary ingredients for a great debate. ie. it is a rational, philosophical approach, it doesn't quote Bible verses, and it isn't even overtly Christian for that matter.

[Abraxas]

Obviously no one can prove anything in an ultimate sense. However, a basic argument could be:

1. Everything which we know of that exists has a beginning.

That isn't accurate. If we accept, as physics does, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state into another, and that time as we know it started with the big bang, then nothing that exists has a beginning, indeed, it has existed for all time in one form or another.

2. The world exists.
Therefore,
3. The world most likely has a beginning.

The pattern we think of as the world, yes, the material components that make up the world, no.

4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.

Virtual particle pairs, atomic decay.

5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.

Probably, but based on what we know of stellar formation, that cause is gravity.

That cause, whatever it may be, can rightly be called God.

Other than being all pervasive, gravity has nothing in common with what is commonly called God and so cannot rightfully be called that.

The non-theistic lens tells us that our inner mental lives are illusory froth on the churning waves of unobservable quarks and gluons in one of an infinitude of other unobservable universes.

Except not. Firstly, to point out the obvious, not every atheistic worldview is based around science. Buddhism, for example, holds none of what you try to shovel as a universal belief onto all who do not accept the existence of God. Secondly, your incorrectly assume that reduction of mental phenomena to physical phenomena makes them illusory when you have no justification for doing so. The idea that something existing in the physical world makes it less real is patently absurd, but yet that is what your argument requires us to accept. Thirdly, many of the models for multiple universes rely on mathematical models we can test in this one. That we can't see it directly (yet), does not imply (as you do), firstly, that we never will, and secondly, that we can't infer their existence from observations of our own universe.

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.

Nobody is making that claim, nor, to my knowledge, have they ever. The argument you are attacking is effectively that "if theists don't agree on anything they must be wrong about everything". Please provide a single instance of anyone claiming that as from here it looks like a strawman.

[EduChris]

...can you in some way support your statement with an argument?...Whose bizarre worldview is this? Not mine, a non-theist...You have yet to support your bogus claims with a shred of argument, evidence, logic or truth.

I have debated these issues ad nauseam elsewhere. Your argument is not with me, but rather with non-theists ThatGirlAgain and Adamoriens and others if you wish to assert that your inner mental life--consciousness, reason, and volition (CRV)--is real rather than illusory. If you could demonstrate this on non-theistic grounds, that would only serve to support my argument.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

1) The world is contingent

Fair 'nuff.

2) The world exists

Best I can tell.

3) God exists

Please offer some means to confirm this claim is true.

I leave the remainder of the post as it's predicated on the above unevidenced claim.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 19:

1) The world is contingent

Fair 'nuff.

2) The world exists

Best I can tell.

3) God exists

Please offer some means to confirm this claim is true.

I leave the remainder of the post as it's predicated on the above unevidenced claim.

If one defines God as the non-contingent reason for contingent existence, the argument is pretty good. The alternatives are infinite regress, which is sufficiently suspicious to ask for evidence, or to deny contingency, ditto.

The trick of course is to connect "the non-contingent reason for contingent existence" with any God that anyone worships. Good luck with that one.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

...
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.

TIL Joey is God!

I reject bjs' argument, at least in part, because it fails to offer any means to confirm the claim presented in the OP.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Do you take the Christians on this board to be a bunch of fools?

Considering what the bible has to say about non-believers, do you really want me to answer that'n?

It seems that nearly every time a believer in Jesus Christ puts forth evidence for his or her faith, you respond with some kind of disparaging, condescending, offensive comment.

I tend to exagerate to prove a point, and if I crossed a line I 'pologize to you individually and the forum at large. It was not my intention to be offensive. Disparaging and condescending though, I mighta been on purpose but see no need to 'pologize for that.

I propose that if the Christians in this thread would quit telling us what they believe and why, or what atheists believe and instead focus on the OP, any disparaging and condescending wouldn't be near as important.

You appear to have little concern for actually engaging in the conversation...

Hello, I'm the one that presented the OP. Look through the thread, I've been busy as all get out.

and seem to be more content with poking fun of Christian beliefs.

I, nor the OP, give two hoots about Christian beliefs.

I seek to confirm the veracity of the claim in the OP but all I've gotten are Christians telling my all about their beliefs.

Can you, spayne, support the claim in the OP? Can you do it?

It's a bit ironic that you would get so bent out of shape that a Christian didn't answer your question in the right way.

As I said, I like to exaggerate to prove my points. Perhaps my intent failed.

But I will say this, notice that in your post you presented no means of confirming the claim in the OP, but went off on Mr Hawking for reasons unknown.

Please forgive me if I am offbase here but I think other Christians who have experienced your ridicule of their beliefs would probably agree with me.

I don't doubt, nor care, that they would.

I find often folks who make unsupportable claims get just upset as heck when ya call 'em on 'em.

Why all of a sudden do you want evidence that God created the world if you don't believe in God?

Are you unaware that you're on a debate site?

Do you sincerely want to know or are you just trying to stir up the pot again?

Perhaps a bit of both.

I seek to show that Christian claims of knowing the properties of a god can not be shown to be true. Thus far in this thread I think I'm doing pretty good.

And what about Kalam's argument for the existence of God?

When Kalam goes to making claims in this thread, I'll challenge any of 'em I deem needing to challenge.

It would seem to have all of the necessary ingredients for a great debate. ie. it is a rational, philosophical approach, it doesn't quote Bible verses, and it isn't even overtly Christian for that matter.

So tell Kalam to sign up and have at 'er.

Or, you can present the argument instead of just telling us how great a one it is.

[Goat]

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.

Why, because it starts off with an unprovable premise, and then upon reaching the 'conclusion', that there is a 'first cause'.. something that you can't test (nor can you test for the premises), it then makes the leap of logic this 'first cause' is the Christian God, without any valid steps in between.

[EduChris]

...If one defines God as the non-contingent reason for contingent existence, the argument is pretty good...

Precisely. The "non-contingent ground of all contingent existence, which is unhindered by arbitrary limitations" is the "God of the Philosophers," and as such people may reasonably believe in this God with or without the addition of specific revelation.

...The trick of course is to connect "the non-contingent reason for contingent existence" with any God that anyone worships...

Everyone in today's major world theisms worships this God. The trick is to determine which, if any, of the proposed "self-disclosures or revelations or Divine actions in history" provide additional true details about this God. This question is logically distinct from the prior question of God, and it depends on such factors as: 1) explanatory scope, 2) internal coherence, and 3) general congruence with other scholarly disciplines. Item #3 seems, at first glance, to be a problem; but if the God of the Philosophers is granted--as it should be, since there is a "pretty good" argument for such God--then item #3 automatically becomes unproblematic (and this is the real reason that Fuzzy Dunlop doesn't want me to break up argument in this way; it isn't that he doesn't understand my argument, it's that he understands all too well where it leads).

[ThatGirlAgain]

...If one defines God as the non-contingent reason for contingent existence, the argument is pretty good...

Precisely. The "non-contingent ground of all contingent existence, which is unhindered by arbitrary limitations" is the "God of the Philosophers," and as such people may reasonably believe in this God with or without the addition of specific revelation.

O course we have very different interpretations of what is meant by "unhindered by arbitrary limitations". But that is a different thread. Let's not go there today.

...The trick of course is to connect "the non-contingent reason for contingent existence" with any God that anyone worships...

Everyone in today's major world theisms worships this God. The trick is to determine which, if any, of the proposed "self-disclosures or revelations or Divine actions in history" provide additional true details about this God. This question is logically distinct from the prior question of God, and it depends on such factors as: 1) explanatory scope, 2) internal coherence, and 3) general congruence with other scholarly disciplines. Item #3 seems, at first glance, to be a problem--but if the God of the Philosophers is granted--as it should be, since there is a "pretty good" argument for such God--then item #3 becomes unproblematic.

I still fail to see where the idea of worship comes from. Even granting conscious volition (which I do not) it seems incomprehensible that the non-contingent reason for contingent existence of this vast, ancient, complex and utterly inhuman universe would have any interest in the antics of one very recent species on one planet. And as far as revelation goes, the NT does not cut it for me. Read it honestly without preconceptions and you can see how and why the story grew and changed.