God Created The World

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

God Created The World

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 12 here:
AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #3

Post by bjs »

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

4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.
5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.

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

This does not tell us much about God – only that God is the cause of the world. Other reasons and revelations inform us more about the nature of God.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: God Created The World

Post #4

Post by EduChris »

JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 here
AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.

We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life. The theistic lens allows us to believe that our inner mental lives are valid and true. 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.

If the theistic lens provides true vision, then we have hope that our minds can truly know things. If the non-theistic lens provides true vision, then--in a very literal sense--who cares?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #5

Post by Goat »

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

4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.
5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.

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

This does not tell us much about God – only that God is the cause of the world. Other reasons and revelations inform us more about the nature of God.
OF course, declaring this 'likely first cause' to be God is merely defining God into place. If the forces that were the 'cause' were just natural forces, nonsentient , without any intention then why call it God?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #6

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 2:
bjs wrote: 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.

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

4. Everything which we know of that has a beginning has a cause.
5. The world most likely has a beginning (see 3).
Therefore,
6. The world most likely has a cause.

That cause, whatever it may be, can rightly be called God.
Then what caused this god?
bjs wrote: This does not tell us much about God – only that God is the cause of the world.
If a god exists, then by your deal there this god must have a cause.

What caused it?
bjs wrote: Other reasons and revelations inform us more about the nature of God.
I contend these reasons and revelations are that we place within the god concept all that which we do not know.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

nejisan
Apprentice
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: God Created The World

Post #7

Post by nejisan »

EduChris wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 here
AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.

We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life. The theistic lens allows us to believe that our inner mental lives are valid and true. 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.

If the theistic lens provides true vision, then we have hope that our minds can truly know things. If the non-theistic lens provides true vision, then--in a very literal sense--who cares?
I find this intriguing. Exactly why is it that one can "know" things if they examine them through a theistic lens. Yet through the lens of the opposing worldview, well, nothing?

It seems this doesn't address the point of the OP at all as it doesn't support the claim in question, but rather, defends it based on the grounds that people see things differently. This is true, but when claims are made they should be supported. If they can't be shown to be at least evidenced they should be retracted.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #8

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 3:
EduChris wrote: The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses.
I'm so happy for 'em I could bust.
EduChris wrote: The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.
And here's your chance to show that "theistic lens" is better'n any of the other'ns.
EduChris wrote: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.
You seek to "justify" belief.

I seek to confirm truth.
EduChris wrote: We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life.
Sounds like a problem for the claimant.

I won't further bother with excuses as to why the claim presented in the OP can't be shown to be truth.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Re: God Created The World

Post #9

Post by Autodidact »

EduChris wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 12 here
AquinasD wrote: God created the world.
For debate:

I challenge folks to show the above claim is true.
The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses. The claim will be false or undetermined for those who view the world through some other lens.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other major world theisms are justified in using theistic lenses to the extent that they provide a more satisfactory way of living and making sense of their lives.

We all view the world through some sort of intepretive lens. The only thing we can know directly is our own inner mental life. The theistic lens allows us to believe that our inner mental lives are valid and true. 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.

If the theistic lens provides true vision, then we have hope that our minds can truly know things. If the non-theistic lens provides true vision, then--in a very literal sense--who cares?
So no hope of actually determining the truth then?

btw, I find it usually works better to ask people what they believe, rather than tell them. I'm an atheist, and I don't believe my thoughts are an illusory froth.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: God Created The World

Post #10

Post by EduChris »

nejisan wrote:...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.

nejisan wrote:...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. 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. 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.

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

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: God Created The World

Post #11

Post by EduChris »

Autodidact wrote:...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. Since atheists have multiple views on the specifics of their respective non-theisms, does it thereby follow that they must be wrong regarding the common core of their respective non-theisms?

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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #12

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 9:
EduChris wrote: 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.
EduChris wrote: 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?
EduChris wrote: 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.
EduChris wrote: 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.
EduChris wrote: 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply