"our claim is God is beyond nature and creation" - ElCid

logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
"our claim is God is beyond nature and creation" - ElCid

There are two subclaims in ElCid's claim.

Claim #1: there is a God. 

Claim #2: this "God" is beyond nature and creation.


Prove your claims.

Do not shift the burden of proof by asking atheists  to disprove your claim.

Good luck.
«1

Comments

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited October 29
    And please do not confuse "wishful thinking" for "proof", like this:

    "We exist therefore God exists"

    Those Aquinas arguments fall into this category.
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited October 30
    logitext said:
    "our claim is God is beyond nature and creation" - ElCid

    There are two subclaims in ElCid's claim.

    Claim #1: there is a God. 

    Claim #2: this "God" is beyond nature and creation.


    Prove your claims.

    Do not shift the burden of proof by asking atheists  to disprove your claim.

    Good luck.
    Well you are exposing your own strategy of shifting the burden of proof.  I have already posted my proof in our debate with your fellow atheist JuanTamad.  But for your benefit, in a nutshell this is my argument:

    Obviously matter cannot cause itself to exist.   It is therefore an entity which is not composed of matter who have caused matter's.  Matter had a beginning according to scientific evidence.  Since it cannot create itself, there was an entity outside of itself who is capable of creating matter out of nothing since matter is not eternal and it cannot bring itself into existence.  It stands to reason that this entity is powerful, non-material since it created matter (therefore spiritual), eternal (since he also created time) and limitless, (since he also created space). God is a term we apply for this entity for obvious reasons.  And obviously since he created matter and the entire universe, he is definitely outside of his creation in the same way that a painter is outside of his painting and a sculptor outside of his sculpture.

    Is there a more difficult question Logitext?  How about you?  Any luck in proving a negative existential proposition? Bwahahahahahaha.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ElCid said:

    I have already posted my proof in our debate with your fellow atheist JuanTamad.  But for your benefit, in a nutshell this is my argument:

    Obviously matter cannot cause itself to exist.   It is therefore an entity which is not composed of matter who have caused matter's.  Matter had a beginning according to scientific evidence.  Since it cannot create itself, there was an entity outside of itself who is capable of creating matter out of nothing since matter is not eternal and it cannot bring itself into existence.  It stands to reason that this entity is powerful, non-material since it created matter (therefore spiritual), eternal (since he also created time) and limitless, (since he also created space). God is a term we apply for this entity for obvious reasons.  And obviously since he created matter and the entire universe, he is definitely outside of his creation in the same way that a painter is outside of his painting and a sculptor outside of his sculpture.

    Is there a more difficult question Logitext?  How about you?  Any luck in proving a negative existential proposition? Bwahahahahahaha.

    What did I say about "wishful thinking"? Do not confuse it for "proof".

    There are a number of possibilities that could have caused the Big Bang like quantum fluctuations and the possibility of a multiverse. To say that it was a god is nothing but wishful thinking.

    Try Again.

    Prove that (1) there is a god, and prove that this (2) god exists beyond nature and creation.


    I suspect the only reason you came up with #2 is because you are having a tough time proving #1. :lol:



  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited October 30
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    I have already posted my proof in our debate with your fellow atheist JuanTamad.  But for your benefit, in a nutshell this is my argument:

    Obviously matter cannot cause itself to exist.   It is therefore an entity which is not composed of matter who have caused matter's.  Matter had a beginning according to scientific evidence.  Since it cannot create itself, there was an entity outside of itself who is capable of creating matter out of nothing since matter is not eternal and it cannot bring itself into existence.  It stands to reason that this entity is powerful, non-material since it created matter (therefore spiritual), eternal (since he also created time) and limitless, (since he also created space). God is a term we apply for this entity for obvious reasons.  And obviously since he created matter and the entire universe, he is definitely outside of his creation in the same way that a painter is outside of his painting and a sculptor outside of his sculpture.

    Is there a more difficult question Logitext?  How about you?  Any luck in proving a negative existential proposition? Bwahahahahahaha.

    What did I say about "wishful thinking"? Do not confuse it for "proof".

    There are a number of possibilities that could have caused the Big Bang like quantum fluctuations and the possibility of a multiverse. To say that it was a god is nothing but wishful thinking.

    Try Again.

    Prove that (1) there is a god, and prove that this (2) god exists beyond nature and creation.


    I suspect the only reason you came up with #2 is because you are having a tough time proving #1. :lol:



    Don't throw in big words that you understand like quantum.  We already know that you're just a poseur.  And I'm already done with this in a formal debate.  You on the other hand lose in claiming that the Abrahamic God does not exist.

    God is just a term we use.  He can also be called a FIRST CAUSE like he was always been called.  And right now, the plausible and most accepted theory is the BIG BANG.  Until your multiverse becomes more credible - you can't use that for an argument - that too right now is wishful thinking.
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    And please do not confuse "wishful thinking" for "proof", like this:

    "We exist therefore God exists"

    Those Aquinas arguments fall into this category.
    At the very start, may mali agad. :lol:

    First
    , how is "We exist, therefore, God exists" wishful thinking?

    Second, is "We exist therefore God exists" an argument of Thomas Aquinas?

    Third, why is Thomas Aquinas logical arguments "wishful thinking"?

    Clearly, you already made up your mind that you will not believe anything other than "God does not exist because there is not evidence (that I will accept no matter how logical it is)" :lol:
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ElCid said:


    God is just a term we use.  

    :lol: And you call yourself a "Christian". Elcid, you never fail to amuse me. :lol:

    Maybe you arent really a 'Christian' except for convenience.
    Because the real Christians I know, "God" is much much much more than just a term they use. Amen? :lol:


    ElCid said:

    Until your multiverse becomes more credible - you can't use that for an argument - that too right now is wishful thinking.

    Its more credible than "God".


    logitext said:
    And please do not confuse "wishful thinking" for "proof", like this:

    "We exist therefore God exists"

    Those Aquinas arguments fall into this category.
    At the very start, may mali agad. :lol:

    First
    , how is "We exist, therefore, God exists" wishful thinking?

    Second, is "We exist therefore God exists" an argument of Thomas Aquinas?

    Third, why is Thomas Aquinas logical arguments "wishful thinking"?

    Clearly, you already made up your mind that you will not believe anything other than "God does not exist because there is not evidence (that I will accept no matter how logical it is)" :lol:

    I never said it was. All I said is that the Aquinas arguments fall in that category.

    The Aquinas arguments are wishful thinking because

    1. It assumes there was a first cause. No such thing in science.

    2. It assumes that the cause was a god. No evidence of that whatsoever.

    Wishful thinking.







  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:

    logitext said:
    And please do not confuse "wishful thinking" for "proof", like this:

    "We exist therefore God exists"

    Those Aquinas arguments fall into this category.
    At the very start, may mali agad. :lol:

    First
    , how is "We exist, therefore, God exists" wishful thinking?

    Second, is "We exist therefore God exists" an argument of Thomas Aquinas?

    Third, why is Thomas Aquinas logical arguments "wishful thinking"?

    Clearly, you already made up your mind that you will not believe anything other than "God does not exist because there is not evidence (that I will accept no matter how logical it is)" :lol:

    I never said it was. All I said is that the Aquinas arguments fall in that category.

    The Aquinas arguments are wishful thinking because

    1. It assumes there was a first cause. No such thing in science.

    2. It assumes that the cause was a god. No evidence of that whatsoever.

    Wishful thinking.

    1) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed there was a first cause?
    2) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed that "the cause was a god"?
    3) Are you saying you only accept scientific evidence of God's existence?
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Desert_Dolphin said:

    1) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed there was a first cause?
    2) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed that "the cause was a god"?
    3) Are you saying you only accept scientific evidence of God's existence?

    Secunda Via: The Argument of the First Cause

    In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Via:_The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause





    I will accept any evidence as long as it can be objectively verified by anyone, regardless of biases. 
    I will accept any evidence that I can witness myself.

  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited October 31
    logitext said:
    Desert_Dolphin said:

    1) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed there was a first cause?
    2) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed that "the cause was a god"?
    3) Are you saying you only accept scientific evidence of God's existence?

    Secunda Via: The Argument of the First Cause

    In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Via:_The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause





    I will accept any evidence as long as it can be objectively verified by anyone, regardless of biases. 
    I will accept any evidence that I can witness myself.

    Accept any evidence? Space-time began at big bang according to the Big Bang Theory itself and according to professional physicists including Stephen Hawking but you still insist that space-time is eternal.

    Accept any evidence daw. :lol:

    You already made up your mind not to accept anything.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    Desert_Dolphin said:

    1) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed there was a first cause?
    2) Can you give the page or chapter (Summa Theologica) or a statement of Aquinas that he assumed that "the cause was a god"?
    3) Are you saying you only accept scientific evidence of God's existence?

    Secunda Via: The Argument of the First Cause

    In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Via:_The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause





    I will accept any evidence as long as it can be objectively verified by anyone, regardless of biases. 
    I will accept any evidence that I can witness myself.

    Accept any evidence? Space-time began at big bang according to the Big Bang Theory itself and according to professional physicists including Stephen Hawking but you still insist that space-time is eternal.

    Accept any evidence daw. :lol:

    You already made up your mind not to accept anything.

    May I remind you:


    The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuationscaused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity





    Mass and space-time was in the singularity BEFORE the Big Bang.

    I have made up my mind to believe the experts in this field than someone who does not know what he is talking about.
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    Accept any evidence? Space-time began at big bang according to the Big Bang Theory itself and according to professional physicists including Stephen Hawking but you still insist that space-time is eternal.

    Accept any evidence daw. :lol:

    You already made up your mind not to accept anything.

    May I remind you:


    The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuationscaused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


    Mass and space-time was in the singularity BEFORE the Big Bang.

    I have made up my mind to believe the experts in this field than someone who does not know what he is talking about.

    Believe the experts in this field daw. :lol:
    And yet, here you are again proving my point. It's you who do not believe the experts. You only believe your own understanding of what is.
    For Stephen Hawking, this moment was all that mattered: Before the Big Bang, he said, events are unmeasurable, and thus undefined. Hawking called this the no-boundary proposal: Time and space, he said, are finite, but they don’t have any boundaries or starting or ending points, the same way that the planet Earth is finite but has no edge.

    Your own source: https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
    Can't you understand that TIME AND SPACE ARE FINITE? Are you that dense? Stephen Hawking na may sabi nyan. And mind you, he is a professional physicist with a genius' IQ.

    I stand by my initial statement, your little brain won't accept anything. :lol:
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited October 31
    ^ Elcid, space and time are not the same as spacetime.



    You learned something new from me, AGAIN.
    YOU ARE WELCOME ;)
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    ^ Elcid, space and time are not the same as spacetime.


    You learned something new from me, AGAIN.
    YOU ARE WELCOME ;)
    Tangnga. Hindi ako si ElCid.

    Wala. Baliw ka na. :lol:

    Sino may sabi na space and time are not the same as spacetime? Sirauloka. :lol:
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Sino may sabi na space and time are not the same as spacetime? Sirauloka. :lol:

    In physicsspacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


    And may I remind you that infinity is not the same as eternal. 
    Eternal is necessarily infinite, but infinity is not necessarily eternal. Because there are many different forms of infinity, while eternity is strictly about time.

    What do you think is the kind of 'infinity' was Stephen referring to?
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    Sino may sabi na space and time are not the same as spacetime? Sirauloka. :lol:

    In physicsspacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


    And may I remind you that infinity is not the same as eternal. 
    Eternal is necessarily infinite, but infinity is not necessarily eternal. Because there are many different forms of infinity, while eternity is strictly about time.

    What do you think is the kind of 'infinity' was Stephen referring to?
    Here we go again. :lol:

    By saying that space-time, a mathematical model, is eternal, are you saying that other mathematical models (e.g. TRAFFIC FLOW EQUATIONS, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE GRAPHS) are either eternal or not eternal? Do you realize how stuppid you sound? :lol:
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited October 31
    logitext said:
    Sino may sabi na space and time are not the same as spacetime? Sirauloka. :lol:

    In physicsspacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


    And may I remind you that infinity is not the same as eternal. 
    Eternal is necessarily infinite, but infinity is not necessarily eternal. Because there are many different forms of infinity, while eternity is strictly about time.

    What do you think is the kind of 'infinity' was Stephen referring to?
    Here we go again. :lol:

    By saying that space-time, a mathematical model, is eternal, are you saying that other mathematical models (e.g. TRAFFIC FLOW EQUATIONS, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE GRAPHS) are either eternal or not eternal? Do you realize how stuppid you sound? :lol:

    I am only saying that spacetime is eternal because it was already there before the Big Bang, and no reason to believe that its ever gonna end.

    Isnt there anything new you can add to this discussion? Any other way you can prove your claim that God exists and that this God is beyond nature and creation?
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    Here we go again. :lol:

    By saying that space-time, a mathematical model, is eternal, are you saying that other mathematical models (e.g. TRAFFIC FLOW EQUATIONS, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE GRAPHS) are either eternal or not eternal? Do you realize how stuppid you sound? :lol:

    I am only saying that spacetime is eternal because it was already there before the Big Bang, and no reason to believe that its ever gonna end.

    Isnt there anything new you can add to this discussion? Any other way you can prove your claim that God exists and that this God is beyond nature and creation?
    Yeah, you try to escape but you cannot. You effectively imply that a pie chart, a mathematical model, can either be eternal or not eternal. Another stuppid claim of yours that does not make any sense.

    You can't find answers to your demands since you already made up your mind to accept nothing.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    Here we go again. :lol:

    By saying that space-time, a mathematical model, is eternal, are you saying that other mathematical models (e.g. TRAFFIC FLOW EQUATIONS, ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE GRAPHS) are either eternal or not eternal? Do you realize how stuppid you sound? :lol:

    I am only saying that spacetime is eternal because it was already there before the Big Bang, and no reason to believe that its ever gonna end.

    Isnt there anything new you can add to this discussion? Any other way you can prove your claim that God exists and that this God is beyond nature and creation?
    Yeah, you try to escape but you cannot. You effectively imply that a pie chart, a mathematical model, can either be eternal or not eternal. Another stuppid claim of yours that does not make any sense.

    You can't find answers to your demands since you already made up your mind to accept nothing.

    Tell that to this guy who said that spacetime predated the Big Bang.

     Wall, Mike (21 October 2011). "The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?"The History & Future of the Cosmos. Space.com. Retrieved April 16, 2012.



    You cannot prove your claims, as I suspect.

    CASE CLOSED.



  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited October 31
    logitext said:
    Yeah, you try to escape but you cannot. You effectively imply that a pie chart, a mathematical model, can either be eternal or not eternal. Another stuppid claim of yours that does not make any sense.

    You can't find answers to your demands since you already made up your mind to accept nothing.

    Tell that to this guy who said that spacetime predated the Big Bang.

     Wall, Mike (21 October 2011). "The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?"The History & Future of the Cosmos. Space.com. Retrieved April 16, 2012.



    You cannot prove your claims, as I suspect.

    CASE CLOSED.



    First, the article was written by Mike Wall, a biologist, not a physicist.

    Second, no where in the magazine article stated that spacetime predated the big bang.

    Third, the closest thing to your "eternal mathematical model" is a maybe statement about what is before big bang and does not even imply "eternal mathematical model". No proof.

    See? You are wrong and, at the same time, you made up your mind to accept nothing.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited October 31
    ^ The wiki quote I showed you was referenced from his work. In addition to being  a doctor in evolutionary biology he also has graduate certificate in science writing. I am sure he has a lot more credentials and authority in science than neither of us do. You must agree that statements from such people about science are much more credible than pure conjecture from people who dont know anything.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file