How to argue "God is infinite"

[Nick900]

Usually during a debate (if you can call it thtat) the conversation goes like this:

 

Him: How did the universe begin?

Me: I think _insert any theory_

 

Him: But what created *THAT*

Me: I don't know, nobody does *YET*

Him: Well it must be god

 

Me: what created God?

Him: Gods outside of time, is infinite, and always existed

 

How do you argue this? We currently only have partial information on how the universe began so it leaves it open to the god-dun-it argument ... I know a bunch of logical reasons why this is bs but how can I convince him of that?

[dsayers]

Him: But what created *THAT*

...

Him: Gods outside of time, is infinite, and always existed

How does he know what God is? "How do you know" is one of the most important questions anybody could ask of anything.

 

Also, he's contradicting himself. First he asserts that all that is must have been created with his leading question of "what created that," then he rejects that God had to also be created. He rejects it because it would dismantle his belief. Accepting impossibility because it exists in some fantasy dimension where such an impossibility is possible is not a sound methodology for determining what is true.

 

In your other thread, I recommended Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. In it, he points out that when somebody says God exists, they're making a large number of problematic claims. First of all, they're claiming that consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME). This is not consistent with the real world. Secondly, they're claiming that only one CEw/oME. This is also not consistent with the real world, where things do not exist in uniquity. Third, they're claiming that it happens to be the one CEw/oME that they were taught about. Don't forget that throughout human history, there have been many deities referenced.

 

Finally, they're claiming that this CEw/oME intervenes. This is HUGELY problematic. For starters, if ghosts (for example) existed , then they would either impress upon our sense or they would not. If they did, then we could measure, document, and substantiate them. If they did not, then for them to exist or not would be functionally the same thing. Also, if this CEw/oME could intervene and doesn't, then it is revealed that the deity would NOT be worthy of praise and worship, given all of the atrocities we've suffered and are capable of inflicting.

 

I would avoid these types of conversations right now. Given your other thread, I think it's reasonable to expect that the people you'd be debating are more experienced at making the irrational seem rational. They'll only serve to waste your time and frustrate you if you were to imagine for a moment that your inability to reach them is some fault of yours. I was organizing my thoughts for a good 6 months after I had been exposed to rational thought before I began to speak on such things. I wasn't able to do so with confidence until another half a year later. It's something I'm still working on.

 

And I follow the advice I've offered you. If you speak English and not German, there's little to gain from trying to converse with somebody who speaks German but not English. If two people cannot agree upon how to determine what is true, then they're speaking right past each other. If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series as well. It's important to understand WHY people believe what they believe. Simply put, you cannot use reason to convince somebody out of a position they were not reasoned into.

[Sabras]

 

Here is a very good example of how to deal with an argument that god is all powerful.

 

Many thanks to Ferssitar who shared this video with me.

[Will Torbald]

Usually during a debate (if you can call it thtat) the conversation goes like this:

 

Him: How did the universe begin?

Me: I think _insert any theory_

 

Him: But what created *THAT*

Me: I don't know, nobody does *YET*

Him: Well it must be god

 

Me: what created God?

Him: Gods outside of time, is infinite, and always existed

 

How do you argue this? We currently only have partial information on how the universe began so it leaves it open to the god-dun-it argument ... I know a bunch of logical reasons why this is bs but how can I convince him of that?

 

Time is necessary for causation. Without time, you can't say that at one moment you are not creating a universe, and at the next you are, because that would presuppose time itself. Therefore a being outside of time can't do anything.

An infinite being cannot understand itself, because it will never finish knowing what it can do. Therefore an infinite god will never do anything because it doesn't even know what it can even do.

 

A god that always existed negates causality since it never had a beginning. Thus arguing causality from a being without causality is self detonating. Also, a being that always existed wouldn't understand time, thus it goes back to the first counterargument. Also, assuming that something can always exist to argue against a universe that could have also always existed is self detonating, too. We have a theory for what happens the tiniest moment after the big bang, but not before that tiniest moment. The singularity itself is described as infinite time, zero space, and all that weird jazz. There's your always existed, infinite thingy argument.

 

If you want scientific understanding of a universe from nothing, look up Laurence Krauss on youtube or his book about it. It's the latest theory on how "nothing" is unstable due to quantum mechanics, thus leading to the formation of the universe.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"Eternal" might be a better word for god as "infinite" can have a beginning. 

[AccuTron]

There was a man unstuck in time,

Who claimed that he always felt fine.

“If anything I lack,

I simply go back,

And I’m always first place in line.”

[dsayers]

Time is necessary for causation. Without time, you can't say that at one moment you are not creating a universe, and at the next you are, because that would presuppose time itself. Therefore a being outside of time can't do anything.

An infinite being cannot understand itself, because it will never finish knowing what it can do. Therefore an infinite god will never do anything because it doesn't even know what it can even do.

 

A god that always existed negates causality since it never had a beginning. Thus arguing causality from a being without causality is self detonating. Also, a being that always existed wouldn't understand time, thus it goes back to the first counterargument. Also, assuming that something can always exist to argue against a universe that could have also always existed is self detonating, too.

This had never occurred to me and this is the first time I've been exposed to this approach. Big thanks for this.

 

Also thanks to Sabras (and Ferssitar) for that logical proof against omnipotence. Don't forget too that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Quick shorthand: If you could know it, it is certain. If you could change it, it is uncertain.

 

As a Christianity survivor and somebody who has brought rational arguments to the religious, I think you'll just be met with the default "God exists in a dimension where these things are possible" despite rejecting this with regards to any other endeavor towards seeking the truth in their lives. Which reveals their fundamental NEED for God to exist, most likely to preserve the status of their parents in their own fantasy, in accordance with their parents' programming.

[Mister Mister]

My feeling is, that it's true there are great mysteries at the heart of the universe, creation, space, time, matter, energy, cause, effect, and so on.  And personally I don't think that science yet has a consistent or coherent cosmology.  And I'm fine with this uncertainty.  The problem is, that sometimes religious people will try to jump on this rational uncertainty, and insert their false religious certainty, which has no basis whatsoever.  If anything, I think it's just a cover for the anxiety some people feel about being uncertain.  Sometimes this false certainty is mirrored by atheists, with regards to things that are yet unproven, or unproveable, such as the Big Bang, string theory, dark matter etc.  That's kind of another issue, but I think it's important that we be secure about what we know for certain and what we don't, and not try to respond to religious, irrational uncertainty, with pseudo-scientific, irrational uncertainty.

So in the case of this argument from the OP, yes it's true that there are problems with our understanding of the "First Cause" of the universe, but calling that "God" doesn't solve the problem.  Unless they can clearly define a God which isn't self-contradictory, and demonstrate how this God solves the problem in question.  It would be like if we have a math problem, and you are asked to solve for "x", and you answer "x" = "y".  I ask, well, what is "y", and you say "y" = "x", or "we can't comprehend it".  Doesn't fundamentally answer anything.  And my guess is they are using this to justify certain archaic religious beliefs or practices, which are most likely predatory or parasitic.  I might ask them, "how does knowing this change your life?" and go from there.

This is known as "God of the gaps", where people insert God into any gaps in scientific knowledge, such as the missing link between apes and humans, abiogenesis, planetary formation, etc.

[Nick900]

Thank you all for your responses, it's given me a lot to think about, I'll be checking out the book reccomended and going over the suggested podcasts.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Also, he's contradicting himself. First he asserts that all that is must have been created with his leading question of "what created that," then he rejects that God had to also be created. He rejects it because it would dismantle his belief. Accepting impossibility because it exists in some fantasy dimension where such an impossibility is possible is not a sound methodology for determining what is true.Will play devil's advocate since I am a theist.

 

Not really. Per laws of causality, a creation requires a creator, a creator creates. What you are assuming is that the creator is also created and contingent, which is false in basic theism, hence your question would be incoherent.

 

 

In your other thread, I recommended Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. In it, he points out that when somebody says God exists, they're making a large number of problematic claims. First of all, they're claiming that consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME). This is not consistent with the real world. Secondly, they're claiming that only one CEw/oME. This is also not consistent with the real world, where things do not exist in uniquity. Third, they're claiming that it happens to be the one CEw/oME that they were taught about. Don't forget that throughout human history, there have been many deities referenced.

 

That is not as much of a claim than it is a conclusion, if the consciousness existing w/o M/E is coherent and the argument follows soundly, then there is no problem. An objection I would raise is whether consciousness is meaningful with only M/E; that would imply universal delusion such as that your thoughts are not your own, that you are not thinking, evaluating, judging, or deciding; that your 'consciousness' whatever that is perceives of what has already happened and has no control while being deluded into having the perception it does. That would appear to be self-refuting.

Claiming that CEw/oME is not consistent with the real world sounds like a baseless claim which assumes philosophical materialism, which is unable to support its claims within its own criteria and is thus internally incoherent and irrational (Along with denying the validity of the First Principles of logic).

One CEw/oME is not claimed, what is claimed is that there is one transcendent first cause, which should be obvious.

What the deity is or its attributes would be irrelevant to its existence.

 

 

Finally, they're claiming that this CEw/oME intervenes. This is HUGELY problematic. For starters, if ghosts (for example) existed , then they would either impress upon our sense or they would not. If they did, then we could measure, document, and substantiate them. If they did not, then for them to exist or not would be functionally the same thing. Also, if this CEw/oME could intervene and doesn't, then it is revealed that the deity would NOT be worthy of praise and worship, given all of the atrocities we've suffered and are capable of inflicting.

 

Lets go with this analogy: We cannot have an adequate mental or visual picture of the way which bats 'see' using ultrasonic waves. But we know the concept to be existent and true due to solid evidence based on your understanding of soundwaves, bat biology, logical analysis and experimentation, and not because of some irrational ideas, even though we cannot have personal experiential knowledge of bat vision. In other words, in order to comprehend, one does not have to actually have experience of visual perception, therefore we can indeed say that we do comprehend that bat vision is based on ultrasound. hence, we can know the existence and comprehend the nature of a cause through the evidence of the effects.

Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe? It is impossible to have any mental or visual picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be unlike anything in the universe because this entity must be independent of all matter, energy and motion and therefore also of time. The evidence for the existence of this single intelligence lies in the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine; hence, such an ideology must, logically speaking, be rational.

 

By making an objection based on justice, you imply that there is an objective way the universe ought to be, but is there such a thing rather than a way the universe is in atheism?

Do you object to the level of suffering or the existence of suffering (and thus purpose, desire, courage, improvement, truth/falsehood, etc.)? Would the deity only be worthy of worship if all commands are fulfilled?

 

 

Time is necessary for causation. Without time, you can't say that at one moment you are not creating a universe, and at the next you are, because that would presuppose time itself. Therefore a being outside of time can't do anything.

 

How do you know?

Time as one of the four dimensions of the physical world (which gets influenced by matter/energy and space like a flexible square fabric) empirically did not exist before Planck's time, furthermore as a finite property it cannot be eternal. Therefore it began to exist.

By asserting that time is necessary for causation, are you implying that nothing can create something and that the law of causality is false? That is internal incoherence.

 

 

How exactly would it further know what it can do when it inherently knows everything.

 

I believe the term "maximal" is more accurate than "infinite". Hence the properties would be qualitative rather than quantitative, such as: "The ability to actualize every possible affair", in which getting a litter stronger is impossible, or "Knowledge of everything", in which further knowledge is impossible.

 

 

A god that always existed negates causality since it never had a beginning. Thus arguing causality from a being without causality is self detonating. Also, a being that always existed wouldn't understand time, thus it goes back to the first counterargument. Also, assuming that something can always exist to argue against a universe that could have also always existed is self detonating, too. We have a theory for what happens the tiniest moment after the big bang, but not before that tiniest moment. The singularity itself is described as infinite time, zero space, and all that weird jazz. There's your always existed, infinite thingy argument.

 

If you want scientific understanding of a universe from nothing, look up Laurence Krauss on youtube or his book about it. It's the latest theory on how "nothing" is unstable due to quantum mechanics, thus leading to the formation of the universe.

 

A chain of causality starts at an uncaused causer, else it would need a prior cause and a prior cause, etc. and wouldn't have begun. How is a first cause that is not dependant on anything external incoherent?

 

The cause of time would transcend time. The universe is contingent and its event is dependant on prior causes, therefore logically it cannot qualify as a first cause (however, if the first cause possess will, it would not be coerced and thus would not be dependant on external causes and would be coherent); this is also empirically falsified since an eternal universe would be in a state of heat death thus would have had a beginning, this also applies to a multiverse.

 

I can't believe you recommended a pseudophilosopher such as Laurence Krauss (at least I heard he stopped calling philosophy stupid and retarded). 'Nothing' is merely misuse of semantics; by nothing energy fluctuation in vacuum is meant, but that is something, not not-a-thing.

[dsayers]

Not really. Per laws of causality, a creation requires a creator, a creator creates. What you are assuming is that the creator is also created and contingent, which is false in basic theism, hence your question would be incoherent.

No, the assumption was that the universe was created. What you refer to as an assumption on my part is holding the person to this assumption.

 

Claiming that CEw/oME is not consistent with the real world sounds like a baseless claim

Saying that 100% of empirical evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a baseless claim is itself a baseless claim.

 

One CEw/oME is not claimed

My refutation was of "God exists," the claim of a singular deity. You're telling me my premise was not my premise.

 

Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe? It is impossible to have any mental or visual picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be unlike anything in the universe

What evidence?

 

Lot of bluster and question begging. Not a good first impression.

[Will Torbald]

 

 

Not really. Per laws of causality, a creation requires a creator, a creator creates. What you are assuming is that the creator is also created and contingent, which is false in basic theism, hence your question would be incoherent.

 

 

 

 

That is not as much of a claim than it is a conclusion, if the consciousness existing w/o M/E is coherent and the argument follows soundly, then there is no problem. An objection I would raise is whether consciousness is meaningful with only M/E; that would imply universal delusion such as that your thoughts are not your own, that you are not thinking, evaluating, judging, or deciding; that your 'consciousness' whatever that is perceives of what has already happened and has no control while being deluded into having the perception it does. That would appear to be self-refuting.

Claiming that CEw/oME is not consistent with the real world sounds like a baseless claim which assumes philosophical materialism, which is unable to support its claims within its own criteria and is thus internally incoherent and irrational (Along with denying the validity of the First Principles of logic).

One CEw/oME is not claimed, what is claimed is that there is one transcendent first cause, which should be obvious.

What the deity is or its attributes would be irrelevant to its existence.

 

 

 

 

Lets go with this analogy: We cannot have an adequate mental or visual picture of the way which bats 'see' using ultrasonic waves. But we know the concept to be existent and true due to solid evidence based on your understanding of soundwaves, bat biology, logical analysis and experimentation, and not because of some irrational ideas, even though we cannot have personal experiential knowledge of bat vision. In other words, in order to comprehend, one does not have to actually have experience of visual perception, therefore we can indeed say that we do comprehend that bat vision is based on ultrasound. hence, we can know the existence and comprehend the nature of a cause through the evidence of the effects.

Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe? It is impossible to have any mental or visual picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be unlike anything in the universe because this entity must be independent of all matter, energy and motion and therefore also of time. The evidence for the existence of this single intelligence lies in the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine; hence, such an ideology must, logically speaking, be rational.

 

By making an objection based on justice, you imply that there is an objective way the universe ought to be, but is there such a thing rather than a way the universe is in atheism?

Do you object to the level of suffering or the existence of suffering (and thus purpose, desire, courage, improvement, truth/falsehood, etc.)? Would the deity only be worthy of worship if all commands are fulfilled?

 

 

 

How do you know?

Time as one of the four dimensions of the physical world (which gets influenced by matter/energy and space like a flexible square fabric) empirically did not exist before Planck's time, furthermore as a finite property it cannot be eternal. Therefore it began to exist.

By asserting that time is necessary for causation, are you implying that nothing can create something and that the law of causality is false? That is internal incoherence.

 

 

 

I believe the term "maximal" is more accurate than "infinite". Hence the properties would be qualitative rather than quantitative, such as: "The ability to actualize every possible affair", in which getting a litter stronger is impossible, or "Knowledge of everything", in which further knowledge is impossible.

 

 

 

A chain of causality starts at an uncaused causer, else it would need a prior cause and a prior cause, etc. and wouldn't have begun. How is a first cause that is not dependant on anything external incoherent?

 

The cause of time would transcend time. The universe is contingent and its event is dependant on prior causes, therefore logically it cannot qualify as a first cause (however, if the first cause possess will, it would not be coerced and thus would not be dependant on external causes and would be coherent); this is also empirically falsified since an eternal universe would be in a state of heat death thus would have had a beginning, this also applies to a multiverse.

 

I can't believe you recommended a pseudophilosopher such as Laurence Krauss (at least I heard he stopped calling philosophy stupid and retarded). 'Nothing' is merely misuse of semantics; by nothing energy fluctuation in vacuum is meant, but that is something, not not-a-thing.

Drop the re-wording of my arguments. You're treading into straw man territory when you mischaracterize what I say. Before bringing a lose "how do you know?" ask that to yourself before trying to defend a god. Like, dude, how do you know anything about this deity? Give me a break. This is grade school sophistry.

 

Then you start throwing science terms as if to sound intelligent while discussing theology, as if that wasn't already ridiculous.

 

Here's something that you didn't catch: I don't negate the possibility of a first cause for the beginning of the universe. But that first cause has to be empirical, rational, self consistent, and in accordance to the laws of physics. No gods have that. No woo woo deism has that.

 

Finally, Krauss is a cosmologist, not a philosopher. Cosmology trumps theology when it comes to debating the cosmos. Second, no, the fluctuations of space time itself are not the nothing in the theory. It is literally no space and time. So be educated in your rebuttals, don't argue from hearsays, and learn something for once.

[Sig]

How do you argue this? 

 

My humble answer is : You don't.   

 

Let's say you came back home and found that someone created a mess, a havoc in your kitchen.  

And your cat looks so innocent that you just can't believe it did it.

The door was closed and on security, so you know it wasn't opened.

The only possible hypotheses explaining the state of your kitchen is that something get there through the cat flap and did it. 

You can't possible know if it was another cat, raccoon or squirrel.

But you absolutely sure that, whatever it was, it must be something being able to sneak through the cat flap.

 

So we know something for sure about that potential perpetrator: it is small enough to fit into the cat flap. 

 

I wouldn't argue with you on that.

 

I probably would argue with you about why you are so sure your own cat didn't do it.

 

I hope it explain why we shouldn't argue with the 'God is infinite' statement, the God that is not infinite just won't fit into a cat flap.

 

Please excuse my English, I am still working on it.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

Here is a very good example of how to deal with an argument that god is all powerful.

 

Many thanks to Ferssitar who shared this video with me.

 

#4 is wrong.

 

"It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker."

 

The capacity of a maker to make a finite mass of rock heavier than he can lift, is an arbitrary association.  It's like saying that fruit trees must produce cherries.  No, they don't need to produce cherries.  They might produce lemons, or apples, or silver trumpets.  It is not logical that boiled water turns to steam.  It is not logical that silk worms produce silk.  The fact that humans have been observed able to produce a thing they cannot lift is not logical at all, it is simply a fact, which pertains to humans.  It does not necessarily or logically apply to God.

[Will Torbald]

My humble answer is : You don't.   

 

Let's say you came back home and found that someone created a mess, a havoc in your kitchen.  

And your cat looks so innocent that you just can't believe it did it.

The door was closed and on security, so you know it wasn't opened.

The only possible hypotheses explaining the state of your kitchen is that something get there through the cat flap and did it. 

You can't possible know if it was another cat, raccoon or squirrel.

But you absolutely sure that, whatever it was, it must be something being able to sneak through the cat flap.

 

So we know something for sure about that potential perpetrator: it is small enough to fit into the cat flap. 

 

I wouldn't argue with you on that.

 

I probably would argue with you about why you are so sure your own cat didn't do it.

 

I hope it explain why we shouldn't argue with the 'God is infinite' statement, the God that is not infinite just won't fit into a cat flap.

 

Please excuse my English, I am still working on it.

 

Your english is good, it's your reasoning that needs some work. Simply stating that a finite god is what can create the universe already kills the god.

[Sig]

Your english is good, it's your reasoning that needs some work. Simply stating that a finite god is what can create the universe already kills the god.

 

That is exactly what am I trying to say here. Finite God is unable to survive even basic scrutiny.

 

Take Unicorns, an Unicorn has single horn, this is practically the only thing that we know about Unicorns for sure, the rest is just a folklore.

 

You may argue if Unicorns exists, but you can't argue that Unicorns have no horns at all.

 

Being infinite is the definition of God, as a concept.

 

If any of us ever see God (I doubt so, but anyway)  we should examine what we see to check if it's infinite. If it's not - it's not a God.

[Pelafina]

Why does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that over time disorder increases.  In evolution, there is an increase in order.

[dsayers]

Why does life violate that law? Things that are alive can repair and reproduce, the opposite of disorder. Are you suggesting life doesn't exist?

[Pelafina]

Why does life violate that law? Things that are alive can repair and reproduce, the opposite of disorder. Are you suggesting life doesn't exist?

I'm saying that science says that disorder must increase over time.  But over millions of years we have seen an increase in order that occurred spontaneously.  Over time life forms get more complex.  This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[shirgall]

I'm saying that science says that disorder must increase over time.  But over millions of years we have seen an increase in order that occurred spontaneously.  Over time life forms get more complex.  This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

Science doesn't say this. What is *observed* is that entropy of large systems increases on average. There's a HUGE source of energy pumping sunlight onto the planet and that huge influx of energy creates conditions under which all sorts of interesting things can happen.

 

The sun's energy is dissipating over a gigantic volume of space and a tremendous span of time. On average, the entropy of the system as a whole is increasing as all that matter and energy is spread out further and further.

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated. You are not properly accounting for the conditions of the system.

[rosencrantz]

If any of us ever see God (I doubt so, but anyway)  we should examine what we see to check if it's infinite. If it's not - it's not a God.

 

What makes the Judeo-Christian god so special among other gods? Zeus, Odin, and many others are not infinite. And what kind of infinity are we talking here? Countable or uncountable infinity?

[Alan C.]

The "evolution violates the 2nd law" is one of those canards that has been floating around the Internet for years and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth isn't a closed system.

 

What makes the Judeo-Christian god so special among other gods?

 

Nothing makes it special.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

 

No, the assumption was that the universe was created. What you refer to as an assumption on my part is holding the person to this assumption.

 

That sounds like switching the goal post since you assumed that the first cause is created by asking who created the Creator.

 

There are much better reasons to believe that the universe is contingent and thus created rather than necessary: When we reflect on everything we experience, we are intuitively aware of the possibility that those things could've been different; everything in our experience is dependent upon something else for its existence; we have excellent reasons both philosophical and empirical for thinking that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. Which means that the assumption that the universe is contingent can be confidently taken; now why according to you shouldn't we think the universe is contingent?

 

 

 

Saying that 100% of empirical evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of matter is a baseless claim is itself a baseless claim.

 

The new speculative field of “emergence” is (currently) unsupported by any real empirical replicable data, to my knowledge. Further, it is motivated by the need to preserve philosophical materiality in the face of existing physical laws against things that require the effect to be greater and more complex than the cause. Can you provide that evidence please? Reading on the scientific method and the philosophy of science, we will understand that subjective conscious experiences are outside of the scope of the scientific enterprise, as science is restricted to only that which can be observed, while subjective conscious states cannot. Thus your statement of emergence appears to be an unjustified faith statement and is in no way an empirical factoid. Furthermore the ability to think new and creative thoughts seems enough to falsify this notion; the ability to place oneself into a subjective, creative zone at will. The denial of the primacy of the conscious intellect is a self-refuting non-coherence: if the conscious intellect is not in charge, or is a delusion / illusion, then human 'thoughts' clearly have no meaning, having not been derived by the conscious human, but by an aggregate of mass / energy which is not under the control of the deluded or non-existant conscious intellect . So a thought to any effect regarding the matter is neither consciously nor intellectually derived, and therefore is not the property of the conscious intellect. These are consequences of the idea that the mind is purely a material artifact of the material brain, and the consequences are irrational.

 

Oh, and don't bother bringing up bloodflow; that is bad philosophy and science. There is no knowledge that the bloodflow indicates a decision at all; that is a Jump To Conclusion. The bloodflow might be preparatory for initial conditions which need to be satisfied in order to make the decision consciously; it might include the need for memory access to comparable situations so that a rational comparison can be made; it might include the differentiation process, and other processes required of rational decision making, before the decision is actually made; it might merely be a nutritional preparation for a process which is upcoming. There is no direct measurement of either the decision, or the actual receipt of information by the conscious mind, and the unjustified conclusion can be accepted only by declaring our every experience to be a delusion.

 

Your claim would not only be baseless as demonstrated above, it would be rationally untenable: If determinism is valid, then humans are uncaused causer, because human agency is rationally undeniable without self-refutation, and it defies predetermined control (hence some Atheist philosophers such as Bertrand Russel and David Hume went with an unidentified substance for the philosophy of mind).

 

 

 

My refutation was of "God exists," the claim of a singular deity. You're telling me my premise was not my premise.

 

I agree that God is a singular deity, but your misconception was that basic theism requires that God is the only unembodied mind in existence, when it is conceivable for God to create other unembodied minds. This is not claimed.

 

The statement I addressed specifically is this:

 

 

Secondly, they're claiming that only one CEw/oME. This is also not consistent with the real world, where things do not exist in uniquity.

 

Which is contrary to your current premise.

 

 

What evidence?

 

Lot of bluster and question begging. Not a good first impression.

 

My statement was to demonstrate that evidence is possible and is capable of being valid, not to present it, but I see that you have no objection to my statement.

 

To keep it simple: The objectivity of logic, existence of morality, and existence of freewill are not compatible with Atheism in a non-illusionary form. The negation of any of the three will lead to self-refutation.

There. The existence of God is a basic belief needed to construct a coherent worldview (Along with being intuitive and axiomatic, as it is cross-cultural and doesn't require transfer of information, and children tend to become theists without adult intervention).

 

I ain't timid, but I envy you along with your usual discourse environment if that is considered a 'lot of bluster'. My statement assumed you are aware of basic evidence of the position you criticize, which is at the very most unintentional question begging.

 

 

Drop the re-wording of my arguments. You're treading into straw man territory when you mischaracterize what I say. Before bringing a lose "how do you know?" ask that to yourself before trying to defend a god. Like, dude, how do you know anything about this deity? Give me a break. This is grade school sophistry.

Then you start throwing science terms as if to sound intelligent while discussing theology, as if that wasn't already ridiculous.

Here's something that you didn't catch: I don't negate the possibility of a first cause for the beginning of the universe. But that first cause has to be empirical, rational, self consistent, and in accordance to the laws of physics. No gods have that. No woo woo deism has that.

Finally, Krauss is a cosmologist, not a philosopher. Cosmology trumps theology when it comes to debating the cosmos. Second, no, the fluctuations of space time itself are not the nothing in the theory. It is literally no space and time. So be educated in your rebuttals, don't argue from hearsays, and learn something for once.

 

So you don't know despite previously claiming that you know (redherring from you btw, specifically Tu Quoque; "you too!"). Ok.

I thought I provided direct quotes; please point what I mischaracterized and explain your point, I apologize for any strawman if I had made any.

 

The level of my intelligence is irrelevant to the argument.

 

 

Are the laws of physics invisible, immaterial, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and eternal? Why do you accept that yet find a transcendent first cause inconsistent and irrational?

The laws of physics came with the universe, hence they are contingent; they could be fundamentally different, ergo an other reason they are contingent. You claim that the material first cause is dependent upon the laws of physics, but that would negate it being a first cause as it needs to be compelled by something else first to cause second, namely the laws of physics (which didn't exist). You seem to go into the territory of woo woo, and ignoring deductive and empirical conclusions that universes need a cause.

 

 

As Einstein said, the man of science is a poor philosopher, and Krauss is strengthening that stereotype when he attempts to do philosophy. 'Debating' implies disagreement.

Krauss also tells us that nothing is a “physical quantity” which can be studied through “empirical” means. All of which entails that the absence of something is a physical quantity which can be studied through empirical means. Please try to wrap your mind around that. Lets say your desktop has length, width, depth, mass, etc. and can be seen and touched.  And it turns out that the absence of your desktop has length, width, depth, mass, etc. and can be seen and touched. Does the absence of a desktop look different from the absence of a cat? Do they weigh the same? And how many absences can you fit in one room?

What part of nothing don't you understand? What kind of system is nothing? If it is a state, what exactly is it that is in that state? What are the components of nothing and what does shuffling around those components involve? How does it differ from not shuffling anything around at all, or there being nothing in a state at all, or there being nothing with any components at all? What does it mean to turn nothing into something? How does it work with the law of entropy, and what does the law govern when there is nothing around to govern?

 

The objection was raised to Lawrence Krauss's fallacy of equivocation, and his response was to maintain it and change the subject (talking about “space,” “properties,” an “approximation of nothing,” “energy,” “infinite number of universes,” etc., which of course are not nothing but something) while continuing to insinuate that he is somehow addressing the original question (how something could come from nothing, not something). All as if repeating the fallacy changes its fallacious nature.

[Placebo_Nocebo]

 

Here is a very good example of how to deal with an argument that god is all powerful.

 

Many thanks to Ferssitar who shared this video with me.

 

Question: "Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?"

 

Answer: This question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. So, the question, could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it? The quick answer is "No." But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer...

 

This question is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like "almighty" or "omnipotent." These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God's power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7-11, 37:23; etc.). Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man's ability is being shown in contrast to God's), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.

 

So, the first part of the question is based on a false idea - that God being almighty means that He can do anything. In fact, the Bible itself lists things God cannot do - like lie or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). The reason He cannot do these things is because of His nature and the nature of reality itself. God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible - these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. 

 

ps. There's plenty of room at my "Lil' Philosopher's" table if the "Grown-Up Philosopher's" table is full... of themselves.   

       ...see video above 

[rosencrantz]

Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. 

 

So God is bound by physical laws?

[Donnadogsoth]

So God is bound by physical laws?

 

God can only do that which is coherent.  "Make a square circle" doesn't refer to anything.  It is a meaningless commandment.  God cannot perform meaningless commandments, because there's nothing in them to do.