RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator

RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 11:45:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander The process is like this: Everything that exists, does so because it is dependant upon something else. Okay, this is your premise. And eventually you conclude the existence of a god who exists and is not dependent on anything else, falsifying your own premise. If you can create exceptions to the rule, it is not a rule. It is just as easy (and more parsimonious) to say that the universe itself is the exception to this non-rule.

gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 12:19:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: The Church's adoption of "creatio ex nihilo" denies both of these and so is an important doctrine to uphold in its traditional formulation. So, what's your point? You've presented a lovely dissertation (rabbit trail), but it does nothing to change the Truth of John 1:3 and Col 1:16. Creation ex nihilo is all about by and through. Do you think the ECFs did not understand the word nihilo? I hope not. The point is that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 don't change the doctrine of creation from nothing either. What bothers me is Christians posing questions like this: quote: Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? The answer of course is that the whole universe is an example of something coming from nothing. God made it out of nothing. That has been orthodox Christian theology for 2 millennia and Christians should be the last people to be challenging that doctrine.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 12:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander The process is like this: Everything that exists, does so because it is dependant upon something else. Okay, this is your premise. And eventually you conclude the existence of a god who exists and is not dependent on anything else, falsifying your own premise. If you can create exceptions to the rule, it is not a rule. It is just as easy (and more parsimonious) to say that the universe itself is the exception to this non-rule. No, because you're thinking with secular-based ideas... "Everything" can be equated to "created things." God is not a created thing. OK, semantics - Created things require a creator. That is saying the same thing, and is actually on par with Paul's 1st letter to the Romans. All created things, (everything that is not God) are ultimately dependant upon a creator for their existence because something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, any explaination that attempts to remove God from a universe of existing things, in effect, removes the fact that things do indeed exist. For if one denies the existence of a source of existence that is independant of everying for its own existence, then the existence of something would indeed HAVE to come from nothing - which is impossible, short of God's own creative ability.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 12:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: The Church's adoption of "creatio ex nihilo" denies both of these and so is an important doctrine to uphold in its traditional formulation. So, what's your point? You've presented a lovely dissertation (rabbit trail), but it does nothing to change the Truth of John 1:3 and Col 1:16. Creation ex nihilo is all about by and through. Do you think the ECFs did not understand the word nihilo? I hope not. The point is that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 don't change the doctrine of creation from nothing either. What bothers me is Christians posing questions like this: quote: Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? The answer of course is that the whole universe is an example of something coming from nothing. God made it out of nothing. That has been orthodox Christian theology for 2 millennia and Christians should be the last people to be challenging that doctrine. Gluadys: The point of my question was that this universe came from God who created everything from nothing. In essence, the universe was created from GOD. Now, God didn't use anything to get the universe (out of nothing), but you can't say that "something came from nothing" because the universe indeed came from God. If God could be somehow removed from the picture and the universe existed, then indeed we could argue that something can come from nothing - as it is, everything comes from God. I hope this clarifies my point.

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 1:03:28 PM)
quote: The vacuum is empty space. Particles are created spontaneously in the vacuum. The vacuum is nothing but empty space. Wrong: "means a simple empty space where nothing ever happens or a pure abstract concept of quantum field theory." Observing mechanical dissipation in the quantum vacuum: an experimental challenge; in Laser physics at the limits. "Even if matter fields involved in he vacuum state are rather peculiar and certainly not observable in the sense ‘real’ particles are, it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty ‘void’." Time, space and philosophy.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 1:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander No, because you're thinking with secular-based ideas... "Everything" can be equated to "created things." God is not a created thing. Sorry, but changing the words doesn't change the problem. If gods can be exempt from the "everything is a created thing requiring a creator" rule, then so can the universe.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 1:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander No, because you're thinking with secular-based ideas... "Everything" can be equated to "created things." God is not a created thing. Sorry, but changing the words doesn't change the problem. If gods can be exempt from the "everything is a created thing requiring a creator" rule, then so can the universe. Nope, you are sorely mistaken sir. God is not a created being. (note: not "gods") I will point to Scripture, although you may not appreciate it, it is not a new idea that God is separate from His creation: In Isaiah 6 we read of the seraphim who stand above the Throne of God, ready to do His bidding in a moment's notice. They hide their faces and their feet with their wings for 2 reasons: #1 to cover the reflected Glory of God (the same occured to Moses when he was presented with the Glory of God - his face shown so that no man could even look at him) so as to not give temptation to others to worship them, and #2 they cover their feet in humility - although they themselves are sinless beings, they are shameful of their created state in the presence of their creator. God is seperate from His creation in that He has NOT been created - He is the originator. Putting the universe on the same plane as God is ridiculous. God is so far removed from our human understanding that we only have a glimpse of His Holiness - but that small bit of understanding that we do have is enough to make us fall to our knees in humility...

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 1:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Nope, you are sorely mistaken sir. God is not a created being. (note: not "gods") I will point to Scripture, although you may not appreciate it... I appreciate that it demotes your argument from "philosophical proof" to pretty much what drj11 originally said: "But your statement is the same old circular reasoning... 1. God exists because the Bible says so 2. The Bible is true because God exists"

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 3:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Nope, you are sorely mistaken sir. God is not a created being. (note: not "gods") I will point to Scripture, although you may not appreciate it... I appreciate that it demotes your argument from "philosophical proof" to pretty much what drj11 originally said: "But your statement is the same old circular reasoning... 1. God exists because the Bible says so 2. The Bible is true because God exists" But now you're trying to change the subject... So what if it's circular reasoning? Does that automatically make it wrong? Nope. It may not fit into a discussion of proper debating techniques, but I don't care about that - a debating technique has no bearing on the truth of the matter. It comes down to this... What caused the first thing that ever existed to exist?? Science can offer no explaination. What science exclaims as unknowable, I proclaim to you as known: GOD!

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 3:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Nope, you are sorely mistaken sir. God is not a created being. (note: not "gods") I will point to Scripture, although you may not appreciate it... I appreciate that it demotes your argument from "philosophical proof" to pretty much what drj11 originally said: "But your statement is the same old circular reasoning... 1. God exists because the Bible says so 2. The Bible is true because God exists" But now you're trying to change the subject... So what if it's circular reasoning? Does that automatically make it wrong? Nope. It may not fit into a discussion of proper debating techniques, but I don't care about that - a debating technique has no bearing on the truth of the matter. It's not about debating techniques. The premise of your argument relies upon the conclusion of your argument. Which makes it a non-argument, but an assertion. One which you cannot prove, nor is self-evident. quote: It comes down to this... What caused the first thing that ever existed to exist?? Science can offer no explaination. What science exclaims as unknowable, I proclaim to you as known: GOD! There it is. You say God exists so we just have to believe it. And maybe he does. You still haven't got a shred of proof in your arguments, philosophical or otherwise to connect this being with the God of the Bible. Again you have to rely on circular reasoning in your demonstrations.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 3:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander But now you're trying to change the subject... On the contrary, you changed the subject. The subject is "philosophical proof of God", but your proof is logically flawed. Rather than being embarrassed, or offering a better formulation of your 'proof', you said you "don't care about that", and returned to asserting your conclusion without proof.

drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 3:53:00 PM)
quote: What bothers me is Christians posing questions like this: quote: quote: Would you care to offer just one example of something coming from nothing? The answer of course is that the whole universe is an example of something coming from nothing. God made it out of nothing. That has been orthodox Christian theology for 2 millennia and Christians should be the last people to be challenging that doctrine. What's even more bothersome is Christians pretending that God is "nothing" and claiming that is orthodox theology! Nice try, gluadys, but we can see right through your misrepresentations when the facts fail to fit your preconceived worldview.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 3:53:28 PM)
Premise #1) Everything that exists is dependant upon something else for its existence. Premise #2) Nothing that exists does so upon its own doing as something cannot spring into existence from nothing, and without causation. Question: What was the cause of the first thing to exist, being that something cannot come from nothing? Answer: There must have been something that is dependant upon nothing to be the cause of everything that exists. There. That is a non-circular reasoning, non-theological statement for the argument. Yeesh... Now, that argument alone does not call that "something" the God of the Bible, but this manner of thinking is all over the Bible describing the "I AM."

drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Premise #1) Everything that exists is dependant upon something else for its existence. Premise #2) Nothing that exists does so upon its own doing as something cannot spring into existence from nothing, and without causation. Question: What was the cause of the first thing to exist, being that something cannot come from nothing? Answer: There must have been something that is dependant upon nothing to be the cause of everything that exists. You haven't drawn out your argument to lead to god. This something that is dependent on nothing could just as well be plain matter.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:04:47 PM)
Just as a side note, and this is NOT meant to be mocking in any way so please don't take it that way - I am honestly curious... What drives a self-proclaimed atheist to post on a Christian forum? Are they honestly curious about the things of God? Or are they here for mocking purposes only?

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Premise #1) Everything that exists is dependant upon something else for its existence. Premise #2) Nothing that exists does so upon its own doing as something cannot spring into existence from nothing, and without causation. Question: What was the cause of the first thing to exist, being that something cannot come from nothing? Answer: There must have been something that is dependant upon nothing to be the cause of everything that exists. You haven't drawn out your argument to lead to god. This something that is dependent on nothing could just as well be plain matter. Then tell me what matter exists without causation? Or exists on its own - dependant on nothing. The fact is, there is nothing in our physical universe that exists on its own accord. There must be a cause that is outside or above our physical universe - something outside the boundaries of physics and time.

gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:25:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Gluadys: The point of my question was that this universe came from God who created everything from nothing. In essence, the universe was created from GOD. Now, God didn't use anything to get the universe (out of nothing), but you can't say that "something came from nothing" because the universe indeed came from God. If God could be somehow removed from the picture and the universe existed, then indeed we could argue that something can come from nothing - as it is, everything comes from God. I hope this clarifies my point. You were not the person who posed the question I referred to. I understand your point. The only quibble I would make on this paragraph is with the sentence "the universe was created from God". It should say "by God" not "from God" as the latter implies that God made the universe out of his own substance. Is that really what you are trying to say? Or are you trying to say that God is the agent who brought something out of nothing? "by" is the correct term to designate an agent. Yes, it is correct to say that "something came from nothing" *because* God produced it out of nothing. Most people who don't believe in creation don't believe that something came from nothing. They believe that the something has always existed in one form or another and did not need to be brought into existencem because it has always existed.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Gluadys: The point of my question was that this universe came from God who created everything from nothing. In essence, the universe was created from GOD. Now, God didn't use anything to get the universe (out of nothing), but you can't say that "something came from nothing" because the universe indeed came from God. If God could be somehow removed from the picture and the universe existed, then indeed we could argue that something can come from nothing - as it is, everything comes from God. I hope this clarifies my point. You were not the person who posed the question I referred to. I understand your point. The only quibble I would make on this paragraph is with the sentence "the universe was created from God". It should say "by God" not "from God" as the latter implies that God made the universe out of his own substance. Is that really what you are trying to say? Or are you trying to say that God is the agent who brought something out of nothing? "by" is the correct term to designate an agent. Yes, it is correct to say that "something came from nothing" *because* God produced it out of nothing. Most people who don't believe in creation don't believe that something came from nothing. They believe that the something has always existed in one form or another and did not need to be brought into existencem because it has always existed. This is really a case where the English language just totally stinks to try to get a point across... The existence was created BY God FROM nothing. (He SPOKE existence into being) Where in most cases in the English language, the words "by" and "from" are interchangeable - we must be careful when describing Biblical occurances and doctrine.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Most people who don't believe in creation don't believe that something came from nothing. They believe that the something has always existed in one form or another and did not need to be brought into existencem because it has always existed. I see what you're saying, but I don't see how anyone can honestly claim this as a truth... Seeing a dependance in anything is so apparent as to be completely obvious.

gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Most people who don't believe in creation don't believe that something came from nothing. They believe that the something has always existed in one form or another and did not need to be brought into existencem because it has always existed. I see what you're saying, but I don't see how anyone can honestly claim this as a truth... Seeing a dependance in anything is so apparent as to be completely obvious. That's ok. I didn't claim it was truth. Just pointing out how the other half thinks.

WormHeart -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander It comes down to this... What caused the first thing that ever existed to exist?? Science can offer no explaination. What science exclaims as unknowable, I proclaim to you as known: GOD! True, and he even has a name - Ymir. The first being floating in the void of Ginnungagap. [sm=aside.gif] WormHeart

essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander What drives a self-proclaimed atheist to post on a Christian forum? Are they honestly curious about the things of God? Or are they here for mocking purposes only? My involvement here is almost exclusively in the Science & Origins forum. My interest in science and education has led me to help others come to a better understanding of science. Sadly, many here (but by no means all) are scientifically unsophisticated, and/or have been taught things that are absolutely wrong. I seek to educate and correct these errors.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander What drives a self-proclaimed atheist to post on a Christian forum? Are they honestly curious about the things of God? Or are they here for mocking purposes only? My involvement here is almost exclusively in the Science & Origins forum. My interest in science and education has led me to help others come to a better understanding of science. Sadly, many here (but by no means all) are scientifically unsophisticated, and/or have been taught things that are absolutely wrong. I seek to educate and correct these errors. What are your qualifications to do so? (honest question by the way)

Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:47:34 PM)
quote: Okay, this is your premise. And eventually you conclude the existence of a god who exists and is not dependent on anything else, falsifying your own premise. If you can create exceptions to the rule, it is not a rule. It is just as easy (and more parsimonious) to say that the universe itself is the exception to this non-rule. Actually, it would be properly stated 'everything that comes to exist depends on something else for it's existence' - in that case God would be that which has always existed.

PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 4:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander It comes down to this... What caused the first thing that ever existed to exist?? Science can offer no explaination. What science exclaims as unknowable, I proclaim to you as known: GOD! True, and he even has a name - Ymir. The first being floating in the void of Ginnungagap. [sm=aside.gif] WormHeart Read post #88...

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI