Entityism vs. Christianity

[Justin108]

Disclaimer: Entityism is not a current existing religion. Entityism is a hypothetical religion used only within the scope of this debate.

Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions.

To clarify, the main difference between Christianity and Entityism is the fact that Entityism makes no assumptions about the nature of this entity other than that which is logically necessary for this being. Contrast this to Christianity which continues to assume that God is male, wrathful, jealous, desires worship, communicated with Abraham and Moses, instructed men to cut off their foreskins, instructed the Jews to kill homosexuals, sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, etc. Entityism is based solely on the belief that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design and that a first cause is needed.

Entityism is not to be confused with Deism, however, as Deism makes the added assumption that god does not interact with man. Entityism, however, makes no assumptions either way. Perhaps the Entity has interacted with intelligent life in the past? Perhaps it will do so in the future? Since there is no evidence either way, Entityism makes no assumptions on the matter.

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 55 by Justin108]

Believe what exactly?

To believe that those things reported by the Biblical writers may indeed be true. If one were to simply report to me that someone rose from the dead, with no other facts surrounding this claim, then there would certainly be room for doubt.

Which specific facts persuaded you that someone actually rose from the dead?

And the thing is, a lot of these facts, are simply natural facts. In other words, a lot of these facts, come from the natural consequences, of the actions of the writers, such as Luke simply writing to a friend.

Natural consequences? You know what the natural consequence of dying is? Staying dead. Do you honestly think that Luke lying or being delusional is somehow more unnatural than someone coming back from the dead?

Have you ever really thought about why it is that the Biblical scholars attempt to cast doubt upon who the Biblical authors may have been, and when they may have been written?

Are you suggesting that Biblical scholars are just out to trick us into doubting the Bible? Do you believe that their questioning the authors of the Bible is unwarranted?

The burden of proof would not be on me to demonstrate they are not true.

Again, this is simply a tired, and worn out argument.

Whether you find this argument tiring or not is irrelevant. It's still perfectly valid. The burden of proof is a law of logic. That you think it is worn out does not change the fact that it is a law of logic.

Well, it would be nice if you had that luxury, but you do not

Yeah I kind of do though.

No, it's a way of pointing out that I have no burden of proof.

As pointed out above, you really do not have that luxury. This is why you will not see me on a debate site, attempting to argue against another religion, because all I would have to offer would be my doubt, and that is simply a very weak argument.

Without the burden of proof, you wouldn't have an argument. If someone said "God is an alien dragon from the Nexus realm" what possible argument could one muster against this other than pointing to the burden of proof? So now we have two options.
1. Use the burden of proof.
2. Don't engage in the discussion at all.

If you opt for option 2. on the grounds that you simply do not like the burden of proof argument, then so be it. I'll go for the tried and true option 1.

So the question is really not, "which would be more rational", but rather, "which is actually true?"

Oh is that the question? Ok. So which is actually true? Christianity? Entityism? Or none of the above? Also how would you suggest we go about proving which is actually true?

Next, what you, and I might think to be rational, would have no bearing upon whether something may be true, or not.

In my experience, things that are most rational often end up being true.

To illustrate: suppose someone believed in pixies. Their justification for their belief in pixies is that if you leave food out, it will go bad because the pixies drain out all the goodness of the food. That is their reason for believing in pixies - that food goes bad if you leave it out. As you can see, this person has a reason to believe in pixies, but it's not a good reason and so their belief is still irrational. Similarly, Christians have a reason to believe in Jesus as the son of God, but in order for it to be more rational than Entityism, you would have to demonstrate that it is indeed a good reason to believe in Christianity.

This is really silly, and deserves no response.

Great way to shut down a conversation. Whether you find it silly or not, it perfectly illustrates my point.

Oh and "that's just silly" is an appeal to ridicule, which is another logical fallacy.

If there are those that believe in pixies because when they leave food out it goes bad, then they are simply dreaming up some sort of answer, because there would be no evidence, other than the food going bad, which has another explanation.

If there are those that believe Luke and Paul when they claimed Jesus rose from the dead, then they are simply dreaming up some sort of answer, because there would be no evidence, other than that Luke and Paul said Jesus came back from the dead and that the tomb was empty, which has other explanations.

Odd that you would demand evidence for the claim that pixies exist. Wait a minute... aren't you using the burden of proof argument? You know... the one you criticized a few paragraphs ago?

You then go on to compare this to Christianity? As if there is no more evidence to believe these things, then there are to believe in pixies?

You are completely missing the point. I am not saying that there is as much evidence for pixies as there is for Christianity, I am saying that having a reason to believe is not the same as having a good reason to believe.

Again, I certainly am sure you wish it were that easy, but again, you do not have that luxury.

I'm seeing a lot of dismissals and no actual arguments.

You need to either, deal with the facts involved...

As already explained in post 55, establishing the likelihood of a given explanation is dealing with the facts.

...give an explanation concerning these facts...

I really don't have to.

because simply continuing to claim you, "have no burden of proof" is a very weak argument indeed

It's a pretty strong argument actually.

...and an attempt to simply avoid the facts involved.

Again, I have already dealt with the facts. Establishing the likelihood of a given explanation is dealing with the facts.

How about, there are no good reasons to believe. OH! Never mind, you do not have the burden, right? All you have to do, is to make the claim.

Did I ever say there are no good reasons to believe? Would you be kind enough to quote me on this?

Why would Luke writing a letter to Theophilus mean that what he is saying is proceeding from genuine facts?

I never said such a thing!

Then why bother bringing it up? Why mention it at all? How is Luke writing to Theophilus relevant? Not only did you find it relevant enough to bring it up, but you did so repeatedly. Why?

How is it relevant that he wrote it to Theophilus as opposed to the general public?

There are a number of reasons. First, since this is the case, Luke cannot be accused of writing, "religious propaganda."

Saying "he cannot be accused of religious propaganda" is just another way of saying "he cannot be accused of lying".

In other words, this would demonstrate that he was not attempting to sway public opinion, since he was writing to one person, and according to Luke himself, he was not even attempting to sway Theophilus, since he was already a believer.

What you're doing here is highlighting Luke's motives. Which is one step away from questioning his feelings, which is something you insisted that you were not doing. So if Luke's feelings are irrelevant, why are his motives relevant all of a sudden? If his motives are not relevant, then why does it matter whether Luke tried to sway public opinion or not?

Next, since it is clear that Luke was not writing to the general public, what would cause someone to be compelled to sit down to write such long a detailed letters to a friend, if he had known it all to be a lie

Aaand we're back to sincerity. And before you throw a tantrum because I used the "s" word again, saying "Luke did not lie" is the exact same as saying he is sincere!

sincere
sɪnˈsɪə/
adjective
free from pretence or deceit

pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

deceit
dɪˈsi�t/
noun
the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.

So as you can see, according to... well... the English language, saying "Luke did not lie" means Luke was sincere.

I don't need to form an argument against your claim. Burden of proof and such.

Okay, then let us see who it is that has the burden? What claims have I made? I have not made the claim that, "Jesus rose from the dead."

You've already used this argument... and I've already dismissed it.

Exactly what claim have I made, that would need strengthening?

I'm not talking about your claim, I am talking about Luke's claim.

Earlier you said, regarding my claim about eating magical dragon eggs, you said "more than likely I would assume you were out of your mind, and move on". Why would you assume I am out of my mind?

Because as I said, I really do not care and would rather not get involved in discovering what you may have had. Therefore, I will simply choose to doubt, and come to the easiest conclusion, since I do not care.

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask "do you care?". I asked "why would you assume I am out of my mind?".

Therefore, I will simply choose to doubt, and come to the easiest conclusion, since I do not care.

What do you mean by "easiest conclusion"?

So then, is this what you do with the Christian claims? Is it that you really do not care, and you come to the easiest conclusion, because you really do not care? I do not believe you can sincerely make that argument, seeing as how you seem to be on this site quite a bit.

No you're the only one I know of who uses their level of caring about something as a factor in establishing how likely it is to be true. To me, the rationality of a claim is utterly irrelevant to my personal stake in the claim.

But would it be a good reason? I am not saying this would demonstrate beyond a possible doubt that this dog is in your back yard, I am asking whether the evidence would be enough to convince you that there is a dog in your back yard?

No, it would not be enough evidence to convince me, because I am not the type of person who believes things easily. We need to get back to the question as to whether or not, I really care? If I really care, then it will take more than simply a picture.

Let's assume you cared a whole darn lot. What would it take to convince you that there's a dog in your back yard?

So you agree that some claims require more evidence than others?

Before I answer this, allow me to ask, are you now retracting the point that, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence?" In other words, is it that it may simply require more evidence, as opposed to extraordinary?

No, I am explaining to you what I mean by extraordinary evidence. I define extraordinary evidence as evidence that either cannot be wrong, are highly unlikely to be wrong, or are so vast that all the evidence combined rationally concludes to this extraordinary claim being true. "Extraordinary evidence" to me is either evidence of great quality, or evidence of great quantity. Or both.

For example, saying "I saw an alien" is poor quality evidence, whereas seeing an alien for yourself is good quality evidence. Furthermore, if I saw the alien, recorded it, reviewed the recorded footage, etc. then the evidence would be extraordinary in that it is both good quality evidence as well as good quantity evidence.

Alternatively, if someone just said "I saw a pigeon today" and the only evidence they had was their claim, then to me their claim would be enough. The evidence is poor quality and poor quantity. However, considering how utterly ordinary and mundane the claim is, I would be satisfied with the poor quality and quantity of the evidence.

So with that clarified, do you agree that some claims require more evidence (in quality and quantity) than others?

The next question is, "some claims require more evidence" FOR WHAT? Do these claims require more evidence in order to be true?

Some claims require more evidence in order to be believable. And in post 42, you seem to agree with me. Your exact words were...

you may require more evidence to believe the alien than the dog, but why would it take, extraordinary evidence.

If there is not enough evidence for you to believe, and this causes you not to believe, does this cause the claims to be false?

No. I never said nor implied this.

Here goes: people do not typically come back from the dead. Ergo, I doubt any claim that someone came back from the dead.

So then, I am correct! You simply doubt because it is hard to believe, and you need nothing further.

And it is hard to believe because it is highly improbable. How is this any different from you finding it "hard to believe" that Luke was lying or delusional?

When did I say anything about them knowing it was false?

Oh? So are you suggesting that they may not have known what they were claiming was false? Can you explain?

They might be under the impression that it is true. Humans have a history of believing absurd and irrational things.

You know what's also extremely difficult? Coming back from the dead.

Exactly! And you are making my point! Do you honestly believe that those who were claiming that Jesus came back to life, did not understand this, just as well as you, and I?

Well clearly you don't understand this because you still think it is more likely that Jesus actually came back from the dead that that people were simply lying or delusional.

Have you really ever thought about this? Do you think they all sat around, and all of a sudden one of them said, "I know! We could take the body, find a place to hide it, and then go around telling everyone, he rose form the dead?" And the rest said, "great idea, that would be something that everyone would easily believe."

So... you find it "hard to believe" that they were lying?

I mean, you act as if this would not have been something they would calculated from the beginning

Can you quote me "acting" this way?

Delusion is defined as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument."

Right, and you have a couple of problems here. First, you end the definition with a period, but this is not where the sentence actually ends. Rather, the sentence ends with, "typically a symptom of mental disorder." The word "typically" means, "usually, or in most cases."

Typically also means "not always" and "there are exceptions". So religion still fits the definition.

Next, we must deal with the word, "idiosyncratic" which is, "characteristic of a specific person", not persons! Of course there is the term, "mass delusion", but it is associated with hysteria, and hysteria would have nothing to do with those associated with those who made the claims concerning Jesus.

Is it typically associated with hysteria? Or always associated with hysteria?

On top of all of this is the fact that it cannot in any way be proven that these folks were suffering in such a way.

Did I say it was a fact that they were delusional?

Therefore, when one looks at all the facts surrounding these claims, delusion would certainly have to be an assumption, in an attempt to explain away the facts.

Still a more likely assumption than someone coming back from the dead.

Except, as mentioned before, listing several possible explanations is not the same as making an assumption. I never said "they were delusional", I only offered it as a possible explanation.

As far as "rational arguments" go, there may be rational arguments that contradict Christian claims, but there are also rational arguments that support it's claims.

Such as?

According to this definition, any religion not based in reality can be defined as a delusion.

Right, and at this point there really is no difference between a person who may be incorrect, mistaken, in error, etc., and a delusional person. So then, whenever you yourself are incorrect concerning a certain thing, then you are delusional.

If I had no rational reason to believe what I believe, then yes... I would be delusional.

With this being the case, when we talk about what may have occurred, and cause the Biblical writers to continue to proclaim such things like, they may have been lying, deceived, mistaken, delusional, or telling the truth, according to this definition, we could narrow it down to, they were either lying, mistaken, or telling the truth, since mistaken, deceived, and delusional, would all be one in the same, except the fact that delusional can entail mental instability, which is what most people think of when they use the word when applying it to the Biblical writers.

Regardless of what you call it, it is still more likely than someone coming back from the dead.

In short, mass delusion happens all the time. It's called religion.

Which again would simply entail, mass deception, without there necessarily being mental instability.

When did I say anything about mental instability...?

If by "odds" you do not mean "likelihood", then what exactly do you mean by "odds"?

As I said, I very seldom use the terms, and when I do, it is simply a figure of speech

A figure of speech for what? If you meant "odds" figuratively, what is your intended literal meaning behind the word?

Establishing the likelihood of a given explanation is dealing with the facts!

To illustrate: Jack's fingerprints are found on a murder scene. The cause of death was a gunshot wound. The wound matches the caliber of a gun Jack owns. Jack denies having killed the victim. He insists someone else must have the exact same fingerprints as he does and that they also have the same gun. The investigators then questions the odds of someone else having the same fingerprints and gun as Jack. The come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely.

Fingerprints and gunshot wounds are the facts. Questioning the likelihood given explanations is dealing with the facts.

None of what you say here is, "dealing with the facts." Rather, it is dealing with the likelihoods, and likelihoods, do not in any way determine truth.

Ok if you were an investigator, how would you deal with the above mentioned facts? How do you define "dealing with the facts"?

So then, while we may all think of what the likelihoods may be, hopefully we are all intelligent enough to understand that likelihoods have nothing whatsoever to do with what may indeed be true.

Ok so we should just stop using DNA and fingerprints at all? Fingerprints don't tell us who is guilty. They just tell us who is most probably guilty. The majority of the justice system is establishing what is most likely true.

What we are doing is to attempt to establish some sort of evidence that they may have been delusional. We have already established that there is evidence concerning one returning to life.

Oh we have? When?

Fact: it was claimed that Jesus came back from the dead.
Fact: people lie.
Fact: it is more likely that someone lied than that someone came back from the dead.

See how I dealt with the facts?

I certainly do see how you, "deal with the facts", and I certainly hope you never find yourself on a jury, and have to make a decision concerning another's life, since you seem to believe that the likelihoods, tell the tale.

And you don't? So unless you personally witnessed a murder take place, you will never believe someone is guilty even if all the evidence points to his guilt?

[William]

[Replying to post 70 by Justin108]

Natural consequences? You know what the natural consequence of dying is?
Staying dead.

That is most definitely the generic atheist position on the matter, but is it the genuine position of Entityism, even the poorly described position the OP offered?

IF
"Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions. "

And;
IF
Entityism is based solely on the belief that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design and that a first cause is needed.

How is that an Entityist argues the assumption that the natural consequence of dying is 'staying dead'?

How does the Entityist know that it isn't a case that the consciousness of the individual does not - for example - return to the CE, from whence it possibly came?

The burden of proof is a law of logic. That you think it is worn out does not change the fact that it is a law of logic.

Regardless of what position anyone takes, the burden of proof is only applicable in relation to claims which can actually be scientifically processed. Any other demands for empirical evidence which fall outside that criteria are simply illogical. Logical fallacies.

As a point, the belief that "there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe and it is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists" is not something which falls under the 'burden of proof' argument - requiring empirical evidence through the process of science to support.

See more detail here;
♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

So which is actually true? Christianity? Entityism? Or none of the above? Also how would you suggest we go about proving which is actually true?

Good question. Do you have an answer?

I am saying that having a reason to believe is not the same as having a good reason to believe.

What is your 'good reason' for believing that your version of Entityism is true?

[Replying to post 67 by Justin108]

Unless additional assumptions about the Entity is logically necessary, Entityism stops at what was described in the OP. Entityism makes no further assumptions about the Entity.

As, perhaps, the only member of this community who could demonstrably fit the description of being a genuine 'Entityist' ( as apposed to you, as an atheist pretending to be an 'Entityist',) I can say with surety that there is a logical necessity to make additional assumptions if one is to make the initial assumption and stand by that. especially in relation to arguments against it, whether these be from other theists or from atheists.

So if you are going to use my theology as your 'example' then it is best that you study up on that before making claims about 'Entityism' and using those claims to make illogical/empty/meaningless challenges to any members of Christendom.

If you want examples on how to interact with Christians as an 'Entityist', feel free to examine the way I do this.

Cheers

William.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 70 by Justin108]

Natural consequences? You know what the natural consequence of dying is?
Staying dead.

That is most definitely the generic atheist position on the matter, but is it the genuine position of Entityism, even the poorly described position the OP offered?

IF
"Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions. "

And;
IF
Entityism is based solely on the belief that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design and that a first cause is needed.

How is that an Entityist argues the assumption that the natural consequence of dying is 'staying dead'?

Because that's what the Entityist has observed time and time again.

How does the Entityist know that it isn't a case that the consciousness of the individual does not - for example - return to the CE, from whence it possibly came?

The Entityist does not "know" anything, strictly speaking. The Entityist can only go with what is most apparent, just like the rest of us. Epistemological, no one "knows" anything.

The burden of proof is a law of logic. That you think it is worn out does not change the fact that it is a law of logic.

Regardless of what position anyone takes, the burden of proof is only applicable in relation to claims which can actually be scientifically processed.

Where in the law of the burden of proof is that adage that this only applies to scientifically processed claims? The law of the burden of proof applies to all claims.

Any other demands for empirical evidence which fall outside that criteria are simply illogical. Logical fallacies.

Is this an established logical fallacy? Or one that you just made up?

As a point, the belief that "there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe and it is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists" is not something which falls under the 'burden of proof' argument

Yes it does.

As, perhaps, the only member of this community who could demonstrably fit the description of being a genuine 'Entityist' ( as apposed to you, as an atheist pretending to be an 'Entityist',) I can say with surety that there is a logical necessity to make additional assumptions if one is to make the initial assumption and stand by that. especially in relation to arguments against it, whether these be from other theists or from atheists.

Which further assumptions should we make and why?

So if you are going to use my theology as your 'example' then it is best that you study up on that before making claims about 'Entityism' and using those claims to make illogical/empty/meaningless challenges to any members of Christendom.

Your theology? The OP specifically states that Entityism (or at least the version I use here) is a made up theology. It does not belong to you. Your "Earth Entity" is not the same as Entityism. According to your member notes, you are a "Panentheist", not an "Entityist".

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by Justin108]

Because that's what the Entityist has observed time and time again.

The Entityist hasn't observed the CT. So why should it be different in regard to death?

The Entityist (and anyone else for that matter) would only observe such a thing through experiencing it.
The Entityist has never observed the CT.

The Entityist does not "know" anything, strictly speaking. The Entityist can only go with what is most apparent, just like the rest of us. Epistemological, no one "knows" anything.

The Entityist believes that the universe exists only because the CT exists and created it.

Where in the law of the burden of proof is that adage that this only applies to scientifically processed claims?

There is no law. Can you show examples where you correct those who demand burden of proof which they specify must be empirical evidence which is able to be processed through scientific method?

What is this evidence which is not empirical evidence that can be processed through scientific method, but nonetheless can be demanded of you?

Please provide examples of such type evidence that you as the Entityist understands shows that the CT exists and is the cause of the universe existing,

Is this an established logical fallacy? Or one that you just made up?

Are you claiming that it isn't logical fallacy or are you simply appealing to what is popular in relation to what is presently accepted and what is so far, rejected?

As a point, the belief that "there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe and it is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists" is not something which falls under the 'burden of proof' argument

Yes it does.

Do you have the evidence to support your claim that an intelligent creator (the Entity) created the universe?

A true Entityist does not make demands upon others that he/she would not make on themselves.

Which further assumptions should we make and why?

You will find detailed answers to this within my Members notes;

Specifically.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

♦ My thoughts on death.

♦ The Earth Entity

Your theology?

Yes. See above links for more about that.

The OP specifically states that Entityism (or at least the version I use here) is a made up theology.

As are all theologies. Generally we get our ideas from what exists. Your version of what you call 'Entityism' is made up of what you assume is enough and there is no requirement to assume anything else. My version is far more aligned with the complexity of existence.

My version includes;

First Source. The origin of all Entities.
♦ Timelessness vs infinite regress argument


It also includes;

The Universal Entity.
Galactic Entities.
Star System Entities.
Earth Entities.
Biological Entities.

It does not belong to you.

Oh - is that what you thought I was saying! No. I was saying that the theology is one I have been sharing and expanding upon on this site, since Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:27 pm.

Your "Earth Entity" is not the same as Entityism.

Specifically, the Earth Entity is an aspect of the Entity Creator, in relation to what you refer to as "Entityism"

(and just to be clear - you probably don't mean that the Earth Entity belongs to me. The Earth Entity definitely does not belong to anyone.)

According to your member notes, you are a "Panentheist", not an "Entityist".

Potato - potato.

Panentheism is not adverse to the theory of Entityism, and is capable of expanding upon that theory.

[Justin108]

Because that's what the Entityist has observed time and time again.

The Entityist hasn't observed the CT. So why should it be different in regard to death?

Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions.

I am well aware that the existence of an intelligent creator is an assumption. The Entityist makes that assumption. He makes no further assumptions, however. To the Entityist, the universe cannot exist without a creator. To the Entityist, intelligent design is a necessity.

The Entityist does not "know" anything, strictly speaking. The Entityist can only go with what is most apparent, just like the rest of us. Epistemological, no one "knows" anything.

The Entityist believes that the universe exists only because the CT exists and created it.

Ok. What's your point?

Where in the law of the burden of proof is that adage that this only applies to scientifically processed claims?

There is no law. Can you show examples where you correct those who demand burden of proof which they specify must be empirical evidence which is able to be processed through scientific method?

Do you know of any proof that is not empirical evidence?

What is this evidence which is not empirical evidence that can be processed through scientific method, but nonetheless can be demanded of you?

I never said such evidence exists. But the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't excuse you from the burden of proof.

Please provide examples of such type evidence that you as the Entityist understands shows that the CT exists and is the cause of the universe existing

Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions.

In other words, the Entityist does not have evidence for the existence of the Entity. He merely assumes he exists. The Entityist, however, makes no further assumptions.

Is this an established logical fallacy? Or one that you just made up?

Are you claiming that it isn't logical fallacy or are you simply appealing to what is popular in relation to what is presently accepted and what is so far, rejected?

I am claiming that it isn't a logical fallacy and that you just made it up. If anything, claiming that this is an exception to the burden of proof is special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. So ironically, by claiming that I am making a logical fallacy, you are in fact making the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Which further assumptions should we make and why?

You will find detailed answers to this within my Members notes

I'm not going to chase links. If you would like to make arguments to support your case, do them here.

Your theology?

Yes. See above links for more about that.

No I am asking what makes you think this is your theology? What makes you think that the religion described in the OP belongs to you?

The OP specifically states that Entityism (or at least the version I use here) is a made up theology.

As are all theologies. Generally we get our ideas from what exists. Your version of what you call 'Entityism' is made up of what you assume is enough and there is no requirement to assume anything else. My version is far more aligned with the complexity of existence.

My version includes...

I don't care about your version. I am discussing my version. Your Earth Entity has nothing to do with this debate.

It does not belong to you.

Oh - is that what you thought I was saying! No. I was saying that the theology is one I have been sharing and expanding upon on this site, since Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:27 pm.

How can you say that the religion I am discussing in the OP is one you have been sharing when it differs significantly from the one you have been sharing...? They are distinctly different.

Your "Earth Entity" is not the same as Entityism.

Specifically, the Earth Entity is an aspect of the Entity Creator, in relation to what you refer to as "Entityism"

Not according to Entityism.

Panentheism is not adverse to the theory of Entityism, and is capable of expanding upon that theory.

Not if it aims to rewrite it and redefine it. Entityism is defined in the OP as a religion in which no other assumption is made other than that an intelligent creator exists and that it created the universe. No other assumptions are made about this Entity. The moment you start making additional assumptions about this Entity that are not logically necessary, you fall outside of the definition of "Entityism". So just as a virgin having sex is no longer a virgin, an Entityist that makes additional assumptions is no longer an Entityist.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

The historical strength of the resurrection of Jesus, in that it has high explanatory power and scope and far fewer ad hoc assumptions that plague all natural attempts to explain it.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

The historical strength of the resurrection of Jesus, in that it has high explanatory power and scope and far fewer ad hoc assumptions that plague all natural attempts to explain it.

Do we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus did in fact come back from the dead?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

The historical strength of the resurrection of Jesus, in that it has high explanatory power and scope and far fewer ad hoc assumptions that plague all natural attempts to explain it.

Do we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus did in fact come back from the dead?

The biggest contradiction I've seen of liamconnor's argument is that bit about ad hoc assumptions. When he tries to argue an historical case for the resurrection of Jesus, he HAS to assume that there exists a God, and also assume that this God has the ability to raise the dead.
At no point is he able to show actual evidence for both.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by Justin108]

I am well aware that the existence of an intelligent creator is an assumption. The Entityist makes that assumption. He makes no further assumptions, however. To the Entityist, the universe cannot exist without a creator. To the Entityist, intelligent design is a necessity.

That is the same argument a deist makes re deism. Are you really not arguing for deism but disguising that by calling it ' Entityism'?

I never said such evidence exists. But the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't excuse you from the burden of proof.

Which further assumptions should we make and why?

You will find detailed answers to this within my Members notes

I'm not going to chase links. If you would like to make arguments to support your case, do them here.

That would be an unnecessary waste of data storage as the data is already available to anyone who is interested.

One can lead a horse to water, but the horse must choose to drink.

Nonetheless, since you ask, I will bring the water to the horse.

[center]What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality[/center]


[center]• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one. [/center]

[center]• The universe is a simulation. [/center]
I use the word simulation because it denotes something happening which has a beginning and is being experienced by consciousness as being real. It is a 'reality membrane' and 'simulated' because it is representative of something from the mind of that which created it. Using the word simulation also suggests that it is not 'real' but can be experienced as real. It is not real, in that it is not the only unvierse which exists as real.

I accept that all things have an intelligent purposeful reason for coming into existence, as can be seen in regard to biological life forms on this planet.
The problem with infinite regress is solved in relation to the question "if GOD exists, who or what created GOD and who or what created that...etc?" 'turtles all the way down'

[center]• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children. [/center]

This is to say that all consciousness is an aspect of First Source and can never be actually separated from First Source.
We are all in that way, connected and separation is as illusion created through the process of consciousness being imbued into individual forms.
We are all essentially aspects of First Source and equal for that. We are Family.

[center]• Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression. [/center]

Evil expression and good expression are the opposing polarities of a spectrum of behavior.
In exploring simulations of both pure evil or pure good, experience is created and understanding is formed.

[center]• Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour. [/center]

and:

[center]• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.
[/center]

This can be observed in the nature of our experience in the universe as well as the nature of the universe itself.
The understanding re the notion of former simulations which enable pure evil and malcontent to be explored by consciousness is based upon the mathematical notion (QP) that multi-universes may well exist.The design of our universe in relation to consciousness clearly shows that both evil and good can coexist and that helps form understanding as to what good is, as evil has opportunity to learn.
This is why morality and ethics are necessary components to successful species development/evolution - the nature of the universe itself dictates the conditions in which consciousness (which is what acts out good and evil) can self evaluate and change course as necessary.


[center]• Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.[/center]

This involves notions of afterlife experience based upon the understanding that consciousness is eternal (as per First Source) and thus can never be destroyed (only transformed) and because one life time cannot ordinarily supply the opportunity for an individual to achieve the state of GOD-Head in relation to self realization and ceasing the support of false idolic symbols of GOD which do not support the reintegration process.

The individual consciousness carries on with the evolution of its own journey even after dying from this experience in this universe. There is no other choice, due to the the eternal nature of consciousness.

Consciousness is life and purposeful.

Brief Model of First Source Reality.

A GOD can change Its mind and still be regarded as a GOD.

Does God cause evil?


Those are some of the further assumptions we should make and if we do not, then we are deists. If your argument is that we shouldn't make further assumptions, then you are arguing for deism and it was unnecessary for you to create a hypothetical religion when deism is an established one already. Your 'hypothetical religion' is indistinguishable from deism.

No I am asking what makes you think this is your theology? What makes you think that the religion described in the OP belongs to you?

You called your hypothetical religion 'Entityism' and my theology speaks in detail about the Entities. Thus my theology is more aligned with any actual thing which can be referred to as 'Entityism' whereas your 'hypothetical religion' is indistinguishable from deism, as it has no theology. A vague theology that an entity was involved in creating the universe hardly counts as a theology, let alone a religion.

A religion without theology is not a religion. Not even hypothetically.

How can you say that the religion I am discussing in the OP is one you have been sharing when it differs significantly from the one you have been sharing...? They are distinctly different.

See my answers above. Main point being, your hypothetical 'religion' cannot be said to be a religion at all, because it has no theology.
On top of that, while my theology incorporates many ideas from religions, I do not think it is a religion in itself even that it does have a theology, although compared with your own hypothetical religion (as described) is far more a candidate for being a religion than yours, even hypothetically speaking.

Panentheism is not adverse to the theory of Entityism, and is capable of expanding upon that theory.

Not if it aims to rewrite it and redefine it.

In essence this is the part of the point I am making. Your hypothetical 'religion' can be regarded as an attempt to 'rewrite and redefine' my own by reducing it to something indistinguishable from deism.

Entityism is defined in the OP as a religion

When it really isn't as the definition is not enough to qualify it as a 'religion' anyway.

As I have previously stated, you create something and claim it is a hypothetical religion and then you challenge Christians to convince you - the 'Entityist' - of the truth of their non hypothetical religion in relation to your hypothetical position which is no different from the position of either atheist or deist.

Thus the Christian is in the same position trying to convince the atheist or deist or any other non hypothetical position of the truth of their beliefs. It seems to be a waste of time even creating a hypothetical position when there are at least two which are so alike as to be pretty much indistinguishable already and certainly not significantly different from your description of Entityism.

As such, it is really nothing more or less than "Atheism vs Christianity" or "Deism vs Christianity". Your 'hypothetical religion' serves no purpose in adding anything different to the challenges already presented by the non hypothetical positions.

[liamconnor]

Disclaimer: Entityism is not a current existing religion. Entityism is a hypothetical religion used only within the scope of this debate.

Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions.

To clarify, the main difference between Christianity and Entityism is the fact that Entityism makes no assumptions about the nature of this entity other than that which is logically necessary for this being. Contrast this to Christianity which continues to assume that God is male, wrathful, jealous, desires worship, communicated with Abraham and Moses, instructed men to cut off their foreskins, instructed the Jews to kill homosexuals, sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, etc. Entityism is based solely on the belief that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design and that a first cause is needed.

Entityism is not to be confused with Deism, however, as Deism makes the added assumption that god does not interact with man. Entityism, however, makes no assumptions either way. Perhaps the Entity has interacted with intelligent life in the past? Perhaps it will do so in the future? Since there is no evidence either way, Entityism makes no assumptions on the matter.

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

"Intervention in history" puts the Jewish/Christian God into the historical sphere; as historical documents claim he has acted in history. Thus we can examine those documents.

Entityism provides no documents (or none that your OP presupposes). Hence, we have nothing to examine against historical criteria. Entityism requires absolute blind faith; Judaism/Christianity does not. Thus even if both are wrong, Judaism/Christianity at least "rise to the dignity of refutation".