Who made God?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What better evidence do you need of a designer than the design itself?

If you saw a painting, what better evidence do you need that the painter exists, other than the painting itself?

You are rite! Prays JESUS! Gist luke on the litle virus JESUS maid. Onlee JESUS koud dezine the eebowla virus.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You are full of yourself, aren't you? Why do you dislike someone using logical deduction on your god to show that the entire enterprise is full of logical fallacies?

Scotty,

Yea yea, I full of myself.

Now the logical fallacies, how about pointing them out.

It takes more faith to believe that space, time, matter, and energy exploded into existence from no cause, then it does to believe that an eternal Creator outside of nature commanded them into existence.

Since my faith in the universe coming into existence by no cause and by nothing is so weak, your job is to build it up. Use your bag of logical fallacies about a creating Creator to do that.

Originally posted by telerion
You are rite! Prays JESUS! Gist luke on the litle virus JESUS maid. Onlee JESUS koud dezine the eebowla virus.

Okay, here is another issue. If God designed the universe how come ebola virus? How come the common cold? How come desease, earthquake, tornadoes, cancer, mental illness, death?

This is another debate. "We don't like the design." Or at least "There are a number of things designed by this designer/s that we do not like."

So by pushing the argument into this stage are you then conceding designed but badly designed? Is that your position now? Are you conceding that the evidence of intelligent design is there, but a bunch of lousy things were included in all the things designed?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are saying that the universe was created and not designed?

What do you use as evidence? The universe?

Is that not circular reasoning?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing anything; I'm merely granting you the "created" part of your formulation for the sake of argument.

In other words, you are arguing that the universe was designed and created. I'm prepared to give you created, and suggest we concentrate on "designed".

I reject the so-called "evidence" that the universe is designed, for the usual reasons: (1) that much "fitness for purpose" can be perfectly well explained by evolution; and (2) that so-called "miraculous" co-incidences (such as the incredibly unlikely combination of circumstances that make carbon-based life possible on earth) are only "miraculous" from an earth-bound point of view. They may be incredibly unlikely, but the universe is incredibly huge.

The fact something is incredibly unlikely doesn't meant it wasn't an unplanned co-incidence. Release 100 ants in a jar and the exact path each takes over a 24-hour period; the odds of them chosing these precise paths (as opposed to all others) will be incredibly huge. So what?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Who made God? No one did. He was not made. He has always existed. Only things that had a beginning - like the world - need a maker. God had no beginning , so God did not need to be made. For those who are a little older, a little more can be said. Traditionally, most atheist who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just ...[text shortened]... as well ask, "Where is the bachelor's wife?"

- Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Cut n' paste, did not read.

Originally posted by dottewell
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing anything; I'm merely granting you the "created" part of your formulation for the sake of argument.

In other words, you are arguing that the universe was designed and created. I'm prepared to give you created, and suggest we concentrate on "designed".

I reject the so-called "evidence" that the universe is de ...[text shortened]... ese precise paths (as opposed to all others) will be incredibly huge. So what?

I know you are addressing someone else but ...

Does this mean that for argument's sake you believe the universe was created with no purpose in mind? Are you saying that no design means no purpose is behind the creation of the universe?

Are you proposing that there is a meaningless and undesigned creation?

When you look at, say, the sexual reproduction cycle of human life, do you see an undesigned and meaningless chaos?

Originally posted by jaywill
When you look at, say, the sexual reproduction cycle of human life, do you see an undesigned and meaningless chaos?

I addressed these points. Undesigned by "god", yes. Chaos, no. Meaningless, not to me.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Tell me, dj2, what's so wrong with metaphysical randomness? Do you really think we have good rational grounds for accepting the Principle of Sufficient Reason? I don't see any good grounds, but I am open to interpretations.

The ironic thing is that many will support the PSR and yet argue for the existence of libertarian free will. But under j ...[text shortened]... argument for libertarian free will is, in fact, also an argument for metaphysical randomness.

Hi LJ. Good to hear from you.

I think I am missing your point here. Would you mind elaborating a little?

Originally posted by dottewell
I addressed these points. Undesigned by "god", yes. Chaos, no. Meaningless, not to me.

Do you mean you concede some agent/s created but that agent or agents did not design?

Does undesigned refer to the universe regardless of the creating agent?

Originally posted by jaywill
Do you mean you concede some agent/s created but that agent or agents did not design?

Does undesigned refer to the universe regardless of the creating agent?

I conceded, for the sake of argument, only that the universe might be caused. Not by any sentient being.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Hi LJ. Good to hear from you.

I think I am missing your point here. Would you mind elaborating a little?

Yes, sorry. My post was probably very confusing.

Your initial post stated that "If the universe is not eternal, it needs a cause." This walks and talks like the Craigian formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, one premise of which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. (You can also see why this ties in with the PSR.)

I'm asking why you think I should grant you this premise.

This is technically off-topic with respect to your opening post, so maybe we could discuss it somewhere else -- like the "But Marge..." thread.

Originally posted by jaywill
So where is your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable doubt that God does not exist?

Hmmm, that's a toughie.

For starters, how about

2004 Asian Tsunami = 200,000 dead persons.

Originally posted by David C
What? By whom? You want me just to take your word for it?

Flavius Josephus is widely recognised as one of the greatest first-century historians.

You claim to be a Seeker of the Truth. Then by all means, go...seek. Jospehus was a great historian, but the paltry reference to Jesus is extremely suspect for many different reasons.

[quote][Acco looked at it in any way. Maybe there is a case to be made for a mythical Mohammed, I dunno.[/b]

I am refering to the massive work which Josephus wrote about the history of the Jews (Jewish Antiquities), which was published in 93 or 94 A.D.

Josephus wrote about Jesus in the Antiquities as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonders, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew many after him both of the Jews and the gentiles. He was the Christ. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things about him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day. (Antiquities 18:63-64).
[See www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html]

This writing is an extremely powerful statement by a non-Christian writing within the period of the eyewitnesses. Although there is some doubt regarding all the words- some of which are believed to have been added (italicized)- even if we regard the words regarded by scholars as historically certain, we find the corroboration of the historicity of Jesus, his miracles, his loyal followers, and his crucifixion by Pilate.

Now you can reject this, but you would not be open-minded by doing so. The volumes of evidence regarding the historical figure is simply overwhelming. Even if you reject Josephus, there are plenty of other historical writers.

By rejecting the historical figure of Jesus you would not be doing so because of the lack of evidence, but because of your rejection/suppression of it. And you would also not be justified in believing anything else from history.

Originally posted by jaywill
When you look at, say, the sexual reproduction cycle of human life, do you see an undesigned and meaningless chaos?

I will address your other point tomorrow morning, but it's late. First this. Why would you expect this without God? Have you never heard of evolution?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I will address your other point tomorrow morning, but it's late. First this. Why would you expect this without God? Have you never heard of evolution?

Evolution does not rule out God. I believe someone else pointed out something similar with the evolution of computers.