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.

[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.

[EduChris]

From Post 12 here

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?

[Goat]

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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

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?

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?

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.

[nejisan]

From Post 12 here

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

The claim will be true for those who view the world through theistic lenses.

I'm so happy for 'em I could bust.

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.

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.

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.

[Autodidact]

From Post 12 here

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.

[EduChris]

...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.

...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.

...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.

[EduChris]

...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.

[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.