9 ms·

Sorry, my main point was: If you press a believer on why there must be a god in order to explain things, they will always point to the necessity of a god, that

Sorry, my main point was: If you press a believer on why there must be a god in order to explain things, they will always point to the necessity of a god, that things had to come from somewhere. But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course, the definition of "god" is different than "things that are not god". The point is the intellectual dishonesty of arguing that their definition of the nature of god necessitates the existence of their defined god.

jedimind 6y ago
> they will always point to the necessity of a god, that things had to come from somewhere. But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course people will and should point to the necessity of an entity that had to be the starting point of a chain of events, this is just common sense, ex nihilo nihil fit. > But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course, the definition of "god" is different than "things that are not god". The point is the intellectual dishonesty of arguing that their definition of the nature of god necessitates the existence of their defined god. As explained several times, the reason for that is quite simple, because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion. Are you going to infinitely regurgitate and paraphrase your same misunderstanding of the fundamental arguments? If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it.
- adwn 6y ago
  > [...] because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion. It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible". > If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it. Please don't be a jerk.
  - jedimind 6y ago
    > It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible". False. It's neither an assumption nor an axiom, it's a proof by contradiction. > Please don't be a jerk. If gently pushing back against deceptive rhetoric derailing the discussion by repeatedly ignoring arguments is classified as being a "jerk' while the offending behavior is not, then it's clearly the judgment that is biased and applied unevenly.
- cowb0yl0gic 6y ago
  (Sorry, I replied to the other response before I read this one.) "natural logical conclusion" and "common sense": the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". You don't seem to understand that you are inside this bottle, which is why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods". "principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun.
  - jedimind 6y ago
    > the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. Nitpicking semantics is not a substitute for an argument and making such ignorant assertions doesn't help your case. > People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. People generally agree on the fundamentals and argue on edge issues, but even if that were true for argument's sake, it still doesn't invalidate the argument in the very least, because it's independent of religion and is used by theists from a wide spectrum and philosophers alike. > I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". That's a petty distortion and a non argument. It describes your own behavior better than anyone else's, a classic case of projection. > Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods" You just made an assertion without any argument or evidence. Not that I made that argument to begin with, but it still reveals a lot about your mindset. >"principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? No, where did I ever make such a claim or put it that way? That's just your usual misrepresentation of the argument, I explained it many times, not going to paraphrase it for the nth time, just scroll up and read it with intellectual honesty. > Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun. Criticizing obviously deceptive rhetoric is not being arrogant, it's a verifiable claim and is necessary in order to prevent the discussion from being derailed and manipulated.

jedimind 6y ago

> they will always point to the necessity of a god, that things had to come from somewhere. But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course people will and should point to the necessity of an entity that had to be the starting point of a chain of events, this is just common sense, ex nihilo nihil fit. > But there is never any necessity for god to come from somewhere. Of course, the definition of "god" is different than "things that are not god". The point is the intellectual dishonesty of arguing that their definition of the nature of god necessitates the existence of their defined god. As explained several times, the reason for that is quite simple, because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion. Are you going to infinitely regurgitate and paraphrase your same misunderstanding of the fundamental arguments? If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it.

adwn 6y ago
> [...] because of the principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress, it's the natural logical conclusion. It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible". > If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it. Please don't be a jerk.
- jedimind 6y ago
  > It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible". False. It's neither an assumption nor an axiom, it's a proof by contradiction. > Please don't be a jerk. If gently pushing back against deceptive rhetoric derailing the discussion by repeatedly ignoring arguments is classified as being a "jerk' while the offending behavior is not, then it's clearly the judgment that is biased and applied unevenly.
cowb0yl0gic 6y ago
(Sorry, I replied to the other response before I read this one.) "natural logical conclusion" and "common sense": the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". You don't seem to understand that you are inside this bottle, which is why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods". "principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun.
- jedimind 6y ago
  > the words "natural", "logical" and "conclusion" (and certainly the phrase "common sense") have no meaning in a theological context. Nitpicking semantics is not a substitute for an argument and making such ignorant assertions doesn't help your case. > People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in. People generally agree on the fundamentals and argue on edge issues, but even if that were true for argument's sake, it still doesn't invalidate the argument in the very least, because it's independent of religion and is used by theists from a wide spectrum and philosophers alike. > I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be". That's a petty distortion and a non argument. It describes your own behavior better than anyone else's, a classic case of projection. > Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods" You just made an assertion without any argument or evidence. Not that I made that argument to begin with, but it still reveals a lot about your mindset. >"principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe? No, where did I ever make such a claim or put it that way? That's just your usual misrepresentation of the argument, I explained it many times, not going to paraphrase it for the nth time, just scroll up and read it with intellectual honesty. > Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun. Criticizing obviously deceptive rhetoric is not being arrogant, it's a verifiable claim and is necessary in order to prevent the discussion from being derailed and manipulated.