3RU7AL

My preferred definition of fact is something which is known or proven to be true. And exist i take to mean having objective reality or being. 

It really isn't unless you take your logical framework from Kant.

You could, for example, believe the world is entirely incomprehensible... 

...or that there is no inherent identity to anything (anatman in Buddhist philosophy).

Even quantum physics seems to suggest Noumenon is a bad assumption. 

Those are basic assumptions, not facts. And to be honest, I'm not refusing to give my definitions, I just think that discussion over the existence of the earth isnt the point of the thread. 

All facts are under dispute, otherwise they are an assumption in my opinion. If you Don't let evidence weigh in, it's an assumption. 

Otherwise there is no actionable data.

Also I hate to be a stickler but the god(s) and the afterlife are two separate things demonstrating one would not necessitate the other.

Have you ever learned anything by reading about it? If yes, then knowledge can be shared. To say that knowledge can't be shared is a self-defeating statement since that itself is purported to be a statement of knowledge. If it's not purported to be a statement of knowledge then it's meaningless. We might as well be talking in gibberish. Nskekekekemdkdod wieodididkdkdk wodododkoeowpeodkdldododo wosododkdkdnowowododod

...you cannot claim a fact is true without proving it.

All of that is to say, however, to show that you can't prove anything without first agreeing on terms and then you'll always be wrong or incomplete. Now, we can discuss whether we all think we should believe in god(s), but there is no way to give any evidence either way. And the prime mover argument assumes an origin to the universe, which I don't see how that's necessarily true. 

Tautologies can only be true within a given logical framework,

Experimental facts, or empirical knowledge, can also never be said to be even provisionally true

Give me any true empirical fact.

I'm going to have to dispute knowledge being obtainable in the first place, maybe that is pedantic, but I'd argue any claim cannot be provable. 

- Again, the Quran defines God as the Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being. This, however, does not exclude other tradition, as long as they believe in God too.

At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not.

Depends entirely on how you define theism.

All we should concern ourselves with is whether it is more rational to believe God does or doesn't exist. That's it.

The key problem we are here to explore and hopefully solve is, "(IFF) there must be a creator (THEN) what can we possibly know about it? (AND) which of the mythical gods (if any) best describe the logical necessity?"

- You really don't know what IFF means...

- It's the strictly the same thing, you defined FSM as God is defined in the Quran. You can't accept one & deny the other, for they are one & identical The demonstration establishes that a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. This being just happens to be identical to God as defined in the Quran. Calling this being 'FSM' or '007' or '&(!%&)!' does not change the meaning. 

The point is that what we think is "right" via science changes as we learn more. We never understand the whole picture, just segments of it. How will you know when what you believe is true to what is? 

But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future

But it doesn't.

...evil demons...

The material realm is comprised of 100% pure noumenon.

The material realm is some unknown fraction of the whole (noumenon).

But surely the argument is that as the bible contains an uncannily accurate prophecy of events more than 500 years in its future...

The artist (that is the only thing in existence) would necessarily be required to create any work of art out of itself.  Perhaps it could use some strands of hair to form a brush and perhaps some blood and saliva for paint, and perhaps a patch of skin for a canvas. 

Here again, you are equating what is in the created world/realm/order to God by the analogy. Both you and God would use their imaginations to create. The difference is that God does not use any preexisting physical material when He creates. You do unless it is a story from your mind and you use preexisting things from the material realm mostly to describe the things existing in the story unless you are imagining abstractions such as principles of logic or mathematics. 

A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.

Why? Why either/or instead of and/both?

 (IFF) such a god is the sole creator of everything (THEN) everything is pieces parts of god and as such this type of god CAN interact with those pieces parts of itself.  On the other hand, (IFF) such a god is supposedly "transcendent" or otherwise fundamentally separate from the material realm and the material realm is NOT part of god (THEN) such a god would never be able to interact with or observe the material realm and anything and everything in the material realm would never be able to interact with or observe such a god.

How can something be a piece or part of God if God is immaterial and the something is material?

Why can't Someone who is immaterial and omnipotent as well as omniscient produce something material by using His mind?

You just presuppose this is impossible because you can't do that, yet you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

If you are spirit as well as body then you interact with the world in both aspects of your being.

If you are solely a biological material machine how do you come up with concepts that are not material but abstract and do not owe their existence to any material thing?

The key question here is, "what did god make everything out of?"

He imagined it into existence. Just like you can create something out of what exists by reshaping and moulding it through your imagination so God can create something physical from His imagination.

Certainly such a god would not be LIMITED TO the material realm, but it also cannot logically be EXCLUDED FROM the material realm (without also necessarily excluding it from all possible observation and or interaction with the material realm).

The Son became part of the realm He created as well as sustaining it and interacting with it, so He does not exclude Himself from it. He excludes Himself from sin and wrongful action. 

I'm not saying that a god CANNOT be interactive.  I'm saying that a god cannot be interactive AND transcendent (not 100% of everything).

I still don't understand why not? 

You are not a part of the chair in your dining room but you can interact with it. You probably did not create the chair and even if you did the chair is not you, yet you interact with it. Your being transcends the chair in a sense (although not solely in the same sense or definition that I would apply to God - including #3 especially - below) in that God and you are both conscious but you have a corporeal/bodily existence, God doe not. The chair does not have consciousness, just physical existence.

Excellent illustration. I hope it sinks in this time. Claims are not evidence of whatever they claim!

Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 

Because it is consistent with logic and mathematics and the scientific method, validated by verifiable efficacy.

Yet we have finite knowledge. Particular views of science like the Ptolemaic view have been overturned by the Copernican view. Newton had limited knowledge and some of his principles have been refuted and others have been expanded upon. Einstein's views have been expanded. Now we have the science of quantum physics and other views that challenge the current paradigm. They all used mathematics and logic. With their limited understanding, these people thought their views were valid, the answer, yet some of those views have been overturned or modified and expanded upon. 

And you say "god"

And I say "nobody knows"

These answers are FUNCTIONALLY identical.

Your answer does not logically necessitate ANY modification to our daily behavior.

I would argue on the impossibility of the contrary. I don't understand how a universe without a necessary Being is possible.

Why would a universe begin to exist, then sustain itself via random chance happenstance?

It is not logically consistent that a universe that has no intent to it, no design, no purpose would continue to exist and sustain itself for billions of years via chance.

And why do we continue to find meaning in a meaningless universe, even design? Is meaning and design really there or are we just making it up?

Your answer does not reveal any useful or actionable data or insights.

It makes sense of how origins can come about, through intentional Being and by His sustaining it.

We see how humans are able to sustain things and utilize nature in cultivating it for food that left alone would return to randomness without their human input. 

The data is there in prophecy and how it interacts with history. It is reasonable and logical to believe with the information available to us from history. 

Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]

Again, God doing it makes sense of its being. I challenge you to explain why the universe is here. Make sense of the "why." 

I understand that when you say, "god did it" you try to add "therefore we must obey the teachings written in some old book".

But you have yet to bridge that incomprehensible gap with any sort of (even tacitly) coherent argument.

What is more reasonable, life coming from the living or life coming from something devoid of life, and where do you ever witness it doing so? You just assume it can because you have built a paradigm around such a scenario.

The atheistic worldview has nothing to offer. It is barren and desolate. If that is your belief, stumble on! 

Atheists make claims based on a paradigm that cannot explain our most important questions of meaning.

The laws of nature =/= chance happenstance, and by all observations, they are what sustains the existence of the universe and describe how it behaves. 

Independent? There is bias in every view. What makes your view better? Why should I believe you? Who are you to tell me the way things are?

What authority do you have that I should believe you?

The holy scriptures have no coherent explanation for the formation of our universe.

Sure they do, God spoke the universe into existence. He said, and it was - no more difficult to God than that.

 The holy scriptures have no coherent version of the scientific method.

The intent is not scientific but spiritual and historical although principles of logic and science are found. God is not trying to impress us with scientific knowledge but relates in a spiritual and colloquial way to the relevant audience of address directly and us indirectly as the secondary audience.

  The holy scriptures do not contain a coherent description of what we call the laws of physics (Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).

From the Bible, we can deduce particular principles of science such as the earth is round (not flat as thought about in earlier centuries). 

Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22 

Again, God is relating directly to a Mosaic Covenant people who are not advanced in science like we are thus He speaks in terms they will understand. He chose these people to make Himself known to the world with His interaction and providence to them.

"Our epistemological limits" meaning no one has yet made sense of origins?

How do you know nobody knows?

Again, I point to a necessary Being [THING] for us to know through His [ITS] revelation otherwise, I would agree, although one theory seems to be accepted by mainstream science as more valid than any other.

- Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to sound clever. ;-)

- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.

Atheists are like a room full of toddlers. I said nothing about gods. 

609 posts to day. Some religions name a creator god and some don't. Atheists, doing it the wrong way again.

An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".

The Christian God is knowable. He reasons with humanity in both by 1) what He has made and 2) by His written word. 

If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?

What do you truly know about it and how did you come to this knowledge?

Which theory of the universe do you hold to?

Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 

How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?

What do you mean?

Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?

Since it is your scenario, and I have no idea of how it relates to the above, you tell me, then I will discuss whether I think it is reasonable or not. 

A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.

Your hypothesis makes no sense.

First, you are assuming He is hypothetical based on your logic above. Second, why can't the biblical God interact with what He creates? 

If you make something it did not exist in the form you made it before you made it. 

He is similar in some ways (i.e., reason, logic, personal, conscious) yet His essential nature is different in other ways, just like your nature is different from that of a bird since you can fly - it is not in your nature. You have a physicality to your nature, He does not. You have a beginning to your nature, He does not. Thus, you are created, He is not. The universe has a beginning, He does not. 

An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.

And what makes you think the biblical God is not interactive in every aspect of His creation?

I notice that swarm predictions require no interpretation(read room for error) they simply state a result and poof 94% accurate. 

I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical. 

Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.

Example B is somewhat like a pantheistic view of "god" as all and in all and on par with what is (i.e., not transcendent). It would be like saying that a painting is part of the artist instead of created by the artist, or the painting and the artist are one, or the painting is derived from the same substance. A painting does not have the DNA of the artist, does it? Granted, it requires the artist for its existence.

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.

Why? 

God is separate in His nature from the material realm. God is also not created whereas the material realm would be. The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not. 

As an atheist i'm easy with the idea that there's some thing underneath it all, waiting to be discovered.  But 'thing' is a lot less loaded than 'being'!  There's no reason to think that the 'thing' is in anyway god-like - it's probably more like a law of nature, such the laws of thermodynamics.  No need to suspect the 'thing' answers prayers or has views on women's clothing.

Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.

- Wut...?! You don't seem to understand what IFF means. If the necessary being is singular, then all other possible beings must be contingent on this singular being, thus must all be distinct -disjoint- from it.

Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.

- What is interact..?

The temperature is only rising by about 2 degrees.  I can survive a 2 degree temperature increase.

How can you read my vote and think I put C last or read 3ru7al's vote and think he put D last?

Question 1

Yes - 8

No - 0

• A - 27
  
• B - 13
  
• C - 13
  
• D - 14
  
• E - 22
  

As I pointed out the other day, explaining what is meant by excessive has been much needed on these. ... And to be a nitpicker, I still think the requirement of listing each time someone did not violate conduct is a waste of everyone's time.

Deism was invented because there was no reasonable alternative to divine creation a few hundred years ago.   

...then I'm pretty sure it functions exactly the same as atheism. 

What is the differrence between"median household income" and "median per-capita"?

I feel like the answer is going to be "because it's so mysterious / mystifying, that's how it works and you don't understand it, just believe it first then you'll understand it is true."