re: Satanic Temple puts up display at Michigan Capital

quote:

---

That is disingenuous. There is no evidence for a god of any kind whatsoever, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that god does not exist. There is no faith involved because there is no evidence to the contrary.

on the flipside, you believe in a deity with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. That does require faith.

---

I don't think you get what faith is.

Faith is simply trust or confidence in something or someone. You have trust or confidence that God does not exist. You feel secure in that thought because you have not seen any evidence sufficient to convince you otherwise, but that doesn't mean you do not have faith.

Belief and faith are synonyms, yet you just said "it is perfectly reasonable to believe that god does not exist". So yes, faith is involved, since you do not know for certain that God doesn't exist, you just believe (or have faith) that He doesn't.

quote:

---

There is no evidence for a god of any kind whatsoever

---

Again, this all comes down to explanations for origins and/or infinite existence.

There are but two alternatives as far as I can ascertain: (1) God, or (2) Infinite existence of inanimate material.

Can you prove one vs the other?
Is there some possibility other than (1) or (2)?

If you cannot prove (1) or (2), what evidence do you have in terms of presingularity origins?

You claim repeatedly "there is no evidence for a god of any kind whatsoever."
So I will say in the same vein, there is equally no evidence for infinite existence of matter.
Neither is explainable, based on current knowledge.

quote:

---

Ah, so you have faith that Zeus does not exist? By this definition, your worldview must be 100% reliant of the faith of Zeus not existing, correct?

And round and round we go.

---

Well, yes and no. I actually have studied this a bit more in depth and I think that it is possible that "Zeus" was actually one of the "Sons of God" / "watchers" that the nations were allotted. So in that sense, a being called "Zeus" could exist and have been worshiped in the past and that is not contradictory to my beliefs.

But more to your point, I have faith that Zeus is not God and that only God (Yahweh) is the true God of the universe.

I believe (have faith) that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

quote:

---

You claim repeatedly "here is no evidence for a god of any kind whatsoever." So I will say in the same vein, there is equally no evidence for infinite existence of matter.
Neither is explainable, based on current knowledge.

---

Absolutely correct.

But you are invoking the First Mover argument. That being: the universe cannot be infinite and cannot have come from nothing, and thus must have had a creator. Ergo, God must exist.

But then who created God?

If your answer is "Nobody created God; God is omniscient and omnipresent, he has no beginning and end," my rebuttal is "So why can't the Universe be the same?"

By adding God as a second, higher-order infinite state that's required to be the first mover of the universe, all you've done is further complicate the issue. What's more likely: that our Universe arrived from "nothing" (or really, some as-of-yet unknown force or process which may or may not be bound to the dimensionality of time), or conversely, that a God without beginning has existed literally forever and then created our universe by some untraceable means while time stamping it to approximately 13.5 billion years ago?

It seems to me that, as opposed to being more unbelievable and complex, the idea that the Universe has been infinite is actually much more simple and believable.

If it is illogical and impossible for the Universe to be infinite, it would be even more illogical for a second higher order (God) to be infinite.

quote:

---

But more to your point, I have faith that Zeus is not God and that only God (Yahweh) is the true God of the universe.

I believe (have faith) that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

---

I think at this point we're just arguing semantics.

We're using the terms "believe" with different underlying meanings. I agree with you in that I don't "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But by that, I don't mean "I have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist," because that statement presupposes that his existence is plausible, but I'm taking it on Faith that he's fake. Instead, I'd argue that when you say:

quote:

---

I believe (have faith) that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist

---

you are coming from the premise that there's no way something so illogical would have a basis in reality, and further, there's no evidence to the contrary. That's less "faith" than it is lack of faith, by definition.

Anyways, I feel like we're at a headway here. I'll reiterate that the main point I was defending from way further up thread was that atheism is, by definition, a LACK of belief, not a belief system in and of itself.

quote:

---

I don't think you get what faith is.

---

faith is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the world, even among Christians. I remember hearing once someone who said the opposite of faith is not doubt but rather certainty. Almost fell out of my chair laughing.

The way I understand (and the Church too) is that it is Man's response to God' revelation. God revealed to me in my own life that he exists that he was born of a brith etc. Faith is my response. Part of that is belief but also part of that is getting to know God better, to seek to understand what we are responding too etc.

I don't think it is good to say that you have faith that God doesn't exist. Rather I would say you believe God doesn't exist even though I can't know for certain.

quote:

---

If it is illogical and impossible

---

Then it is simply a matter of faith or belief. Which of course characterizes aspects of the argument be they theistic or atheistic.

quote:

---

Then it is simply a matter of faith or belief. Which of course characterizes aspects of the argument be they theistic or atheistic.

---

To be fair, I wasn't saying that I believe that matter or the universe being infinite was "illogical and impossible," I was saying that if you, or other believers, felt that way, then why wouldn't the same follow with god.

But I get the feeling that that won't change your interpretation of my post.

quote:

---

But you are invoking the First Mover argument. That being: the universe cannot be infinite and cannot have come from nothing, and thus must have had a creator. Ergo, God must exist.

---

Aquinas who is most famous for this argument is not arguing this. Even an infinite chain of finite beings needs a reason for it's existence either in itself or in something else. It is absurd to say it doesn't matter why it exists it just exists. Everything has a reason for it's existence. Aquinas demonstrates that even an infinite chain of finite causes can't exist without a infinite cause.

quote:

---

But then who created God?

---

You don't understand the nature we claim God to have. Plus any argument for God's existence doesn't argue to God rather it argues to a quality we claim God to have an nothing else. Nothing else is the first cause, nothing else is the necessary being, nothing else is the unmoved mover, etc. If you realize how Aquinas argues.

quote:

---

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

---

this is what Aquinas says. We arrive at a first mover (not scientific motion, like moving from point a to point b but rather metaphysical motion, or to it more simply change in terms of Form not matter.) than he says this everyone understands to be God.

People wrongly understand Aquinas as an argument for God's existence, no they are demonstrations that a being we call God exists. He never intended them to be an argument for the Christian God. Rather he simply demonstrates that a certain being that we call God must exist.

quote:

---

"Nobody created God; God is omniscient and omnipresent, he has no beginning and end,"

---

early submit sorry

This is an incorrect understanding of what omnipresence is.

The universe could be ininfite, even though I think the big bang proves to the contrary but that is another matter.

omni (all) present (presence) means all present, meaning everywhere and at every time this being exists. That is different than the universe in motion, and changing.

Another important aspect of an argument for an omnipresent, simplicity (contains no parts not change, etc.) he can't be contained by anything (can't remember the term) perfection, etc.

You can't argue to omnipresence only because God is more than that.