Q: Is Christian God a Capitalist?

[Havet]

First, we need to analyze the definition of a Capitalist. Some definitions come to mind:

- a person who invests capital in a business (check, God has invested certainly some time and resources (http://www.all-creatures.org/mi/b-beginning.html#1) in his "Earthly business")

- An owner of (considerable amount of) capital (check. As far as I ever heard, everything "belongs" to God (http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-godmoneyandfinances/godownseverything.php), doesn't it?)

- (By Karl Marx) one who owns working capital and the means of production and makes profit by letting others work on the MOP. (check, God "owns" the MOP and let's humans work to create value, but he still ultimately "owns" everything, besides creating some personal intellectual (as in non-physical) profit (http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/inspiration/kids-talk-about-god/what-does-god-enjoy-most-about-his-creation.html), by watching us humans from above struggle to live).

Can anyone think of more detailed definitions of a Capitalist and cross-reference them with God? Or perhaps question my (purposely provocative) conclusions shown above?

EDIT: The intentional postage of Christian God is purposeful given the higher number of Christians than of other religions.

[spiltteeth]

Ironically, your basis is capitalistically determined. What's the profit? Entertainment? That's like the new capitalists who argue that the notion of 'property' needs to be extended to 'intellectual property.'
At best this can be titled "Is God a terrible capitalist who doesn't understand the basic concepts of capital or property or profit and who has no competition and therefore cannot be a capitalist?"

Holy shit is this a silly post!

[New Tet]

If the wages of sin is death, who keeps the profits?

[Raisa]

No the "christian god" is a polytheistic trinity used to justify economic subjugation which evolved into capitalism.

There was no capitalism at the time of the "christian god"

[Havet]

Ironically, your basis is capitalistically determined. What's the profit? Entertainment? That's like the new capitalists who argue that the notion of 'property' needs to be extended to 'intellectual property.'
At best this can be titled "Is God a terrible capitalist who doesn't understand the basic concepts of capital or property or profit and who has no competition and therefore cannot be a capitalist?"


If I recall, capitalists do not need to have competition in order to be capitalists. That usually happens when they achieve a monopoly position.

Anyway, i'm sure God has competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=channel).

[Havet]

If the wages of sin is death, who keeps the profits?

"God"

[Havet]

No the "christian god" is a polytheistic trinity used to justify economic subjugation which evolved into capitalism.

I agree "God" has been used many times to justify natural rights, morality, conservativism and Capitalism.


There was no capitalism at the time of the "christian god"

Perhaps, but God himself could have been practicing his personal Capitalism long before humans started to practice it as well.

[RedAnarchist]

Perhaps, but God himself could have been practicing his personal Capitalism long before humans started to practice it as well.

Capitalism is a human invention, it's not something that naturally occurs or some ancient mythology.

[Havet]

Capitalism is a human invention, it's not something that naturally occurs or some ancient mythology.

How do you know?

Why couldn't some super-entity (aka God) have created Heaven and Earth under the same capitalistic principles?

Doesn't "he" ultimately have the monopoly over the MOP?

Doesn't "he" exploit those who work for him by taking the products of their labor?

Bear in mind this is all hypothetical analysis, and likely there isn't even a God (so your post does indeed make all sense). I'm merely asking you to look at this question from a Theistic and Economical perspective.

[Decolonize The Left]

What is the point of this thread?

- August

[Kwisatz Haderach]

:lol:

It's always funny when idealists fall in love with a concept so much that they start applying it to everything - real social structures, internet forums, God, the smurfs (http://www.iamlost.com/features/smurfs/commies.shtml), the kitchen sink and who knows what else...

[Richard Nixon]

He supports whatever works best for humanity, which would capitalism but your mileage may very.

[Havet]

What is the point of this thread?

- August


Can anyone think of more detailed definitions of a Capitalist and cross-reference them with God? Or perhaps question my (purposely provocative) conclusions shown above?

Or, alternatively, it might end up in one more Christians vs Atheists thread where we discuss the existence of God.

[Dr Mindbender]

the question is redundant, because most theists subscribe to the circular logic that the laws of rationality or political semantics to not apply to him since god 'created' human understanding and conciousness.



He supports whatever works best for humanity, which would capitalism but your mileage may very.
How did the 2004 Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina 'work best' for humanity?

I think if god exists, he is as an omnipetent deity at best indifferently incompetent and at worst a nihilist sadist.

I think George Carlin put it best, if he was working as an office clerk and producing equivalent results, ''holy shit, he wouldve been out on his ass on his first day''.

[Decolonize The Left]

hayenmill,
A capitalist is an individual human being who owns the means of production. How, exactly, is this in any way related to a posited theological deity?

- August

[Havet]

hayenmill,
A capitalist is an individual human being who owns the means of production. How, exactly, is this in any way related to a posited theological deity?

- August

I thought people thought capitalists were "inhumane"? Why does a capitalist necessarily needs to be a human being? Perhaps even God is a human being, except with some extra powers.

Anyway, like I said in my first post, God owns the means of production.


An owner of (considerable amount of) capital (check. As far as I ever heard, everything "belongs" to God (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-godmoneyandfinances/godownseverything.php), doesn't it?)

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought people thought capitalists were "inhumane"?

From many perspectives yes, capitalists are inhumane.


Why does a capitalist necessarily needs to be a human being? Perhaps even God is a human being, except with some extra powers.

No - God is not a human being. Human beings emerged as a species at some point in time in history through a process of evolution by natural selection. "God" necessarily existed before history (and hence the sun, earth, humans, etc...).

A capitalist is necessarily a human being because capitalism is a economic theory and practice. An economic theory and practice is a formulation and execution of human activities dedicated to the production and distribution of goods and services.


Anyway, like I said in my first post, God owns the means of production.

No, he doesn't. God actually doesn't 'own' anything because in order to own something there has to be some other subject towards whom the 'property' is not theirs.

- August

[Havet]

No - God is not a human being. Human beings emerged as a species at some point in time in history through a process of evolution by natural selection. "God" necessarily existed before history (and hence the sun, earth, humans, etc...).

Hadn't thought about that in that way, but I agree.


A capitalist is necessarily a human being because capitalism is a economic theory and practice. An economic theory and practice is a formulation and execution of human activities dedicated to the production and distribution of goods and services.

An economic theory and practice need not be a formulation and execution of humans.

Economy, which comes from greek, means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics): "management of a household, administration".

Surely we can hypothesize that a management of such household, of all the goods and services, could have been created by a supreme being?

And surely we could also hypothesize than even if an economic theory of practice could only be a formulation and execution of human activities, God "created" humans and "implanted" certain innate behaviors (instincts) which shape such activities, therefore making him responsible for those certain human activities.

I mean, i'm an atheist, and it's extremely difficult for me to pretend there is a God (so obviously all my arguing is based on faulty premises), but according to several definitions of a Capitalist, it could be argued that IF a God existed, he WOULD fit the general description of a capitalist, even if he were non-human.


No, he doesn't. God actually doesn't 'own' anything because in order to own something there has to be some other subject towards whom the 'property' is not theirs.

- August

And there are other subjects whom the property is not theirs: humans.

[Decolonize The Left]

An economic theory and practice need not be a formulation and execution of humans.

Economy, which comes from greek, means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics): "management of a household, administration".

Exactly. "Management/administration," i.e. formulation and execution of human actions.


Surely we can hypothesize that a management of such household, of all the goods and services, could have been created by a supreme being?

No, we can't. To 'manage' or 'administer' is an active verb - it can only be performed by a subject. A subject is a self (a locus of sense-making activity) within an objective world-space (the universe).


And surely we could also hypothesize than even if an economic theory of practice could only be a formulation and execution of human activities, God "created" humans and "implanted" certain innate behaviors (instincts) which shape such activities, therefore making him responsible for those certain human activities.

Such original cause arguments all fall to occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).


I mean, i'm an atheist, and it's extremely difficult for me to pretend there is a God (so obviously all my arguing is based on faulty premises), but according to several definitions of a Capitalist, it could be argued that IF a God existed, he WOULD fit the general description of a capitalist, even if he were non-human.

But you see that god, if we are to give our theists comrades the benefit of the doubt, is certainly a non-temporal entity (if that). God would be all, none, and the spaces in between. God would be everything and nothing. God is both a capitalist and a communist, an authoritarian ruler and a democratic socialist. Etc...

Of course, when we accept this extremely vague and nonsensical posited being, we cease to be speaking of anything at all - and hence religion's reliance upon faith.


And there are other subjects whom the property is not theirs: humans.

This would make all property God's, which would cease to have any meaning in the capitalist sense.

- August

[spiltteeth]

Exactly. "Management/administration," i.e. formulation and execution of human actions.



No, we can't. To 'manage' or 'administer' is an active verb - it can only be performed by a subject. A subject is a self (a locus of sense-making activity) within an objective world-space (the universe).



Such original cause arguments all fall to occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).



But you see that god, if we are to give our theists comrades the benefit of the doubt, is certainly a non-temporal entity (if that). God would be all, none, and the spaces in between. God would be everything and nothing. God is both a capitalist and a communist, an authoritarian ruler and a democratic socialist. Etc...

Of course, when we accept this extremely vague and nonsensical posited being, we cease to be speaking of anything at all - and hence religion's reliance upon faith.



This would make all property God's, which would cease to have any meaning in the capitalist sense.

- August


Actually, although not a human being, the Christian God is a person, albeit a non-material one.
Also, it seems a logical impossibility for God to be a communist and capitalist, thats like saying God is both all good and all evil, a clear impossibility.
Third, I see no reason to think God is non-temporal, in fact, this would cause many difficulties in the christian conception of God, so I'd think it'd be the reverse.
Also, I see no reason to rely on faith, logical consistency seems a fine criteria for truth, in all matters.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually, although not a human being, the Christian God is a person, albeit a non-material one.

Depends on your definition of a person. Furthermore, given that people wrote the religious texts, it would make sense that they would personify god in one way or another.


Also, it seems a logical impossibility for God to be a communist and capitalist, thats like saying God is both all good and all evil, a clear impossibility.

You have your human definitions of good and evil. In this case it is communism = good, capitalism = all evil. God supposedly knows all, and hence knows beyond your human moralizing. Hence god is both good and evil, as 'he' surpasses both neutralizing them into 'him.'

I am obviously putting aside the notion of the devil as an actual being existing in opposition to the being god, because such a fairy tale story isn't worth consideration in this thread. The notion here is the more difficult to critique idea of god being everything.


Third, I see no reason to think God is non-temporal, in fact, this would cause many difficulties in the christian conception of God, so I'd think it'd be the reverse.

If god created the universe, god created time (universe = timespace continuum with all material there within). Hence god is non-temporal.


Also, I see no reason to rely on faith, logical consistency seems a fine criteria for truth, in all matters.

Indeed. Yet religion is based upon faith, and that is what we are discussing. Some might argue that religions are logically consistent if one accepts the premise that god exists and created the universe. Whether or not this premise is logically consistent is deserving of another thread.

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1569973]Depends on your definition of a person. Furthermore, given that people wrote the religious texts, it would make sense that they would personify god in one way or another.

That does make sense, I'm merely saying your objection doesn't apply to a christian God -


No, we can't. To 'manage' or 'administer' is an active verb - it can only be performed by a subject. A subject is a self (a locus of sense-making activity) within an objective world-space (the universe).


You have your human definitions of good and evil. In this case it is communism = good, capitalism = all evil. God supposedly knows all, and hence knows beyond your human moralizing. Hence god is both good and evil, as 'he' surpasses both neutralizing them into 'him.'

I think we are talking about the Christian God, and He is all good. I have studied child molestation, know a bit about it in theory, I don't see how this knowledge constitutes my person. Perhaps by God knowing all you think this must necessarily be experiential knowledge? In which case I'd argue God can 'know' about evil/capitalism in other ways.


I am obviously putting aside the notion of the devil as an actual being existing in opposition to the being god, because such a fairy tale story isn't worth consideration in this thread. The notion here is the more difficult to critique idea of god being everything.

I believe this is pantheism? The Christian God created the world etc but isn't the world, he's separate.


If god created the universe, god created time (universe = timespace continuum with all material there within). Hence god is non-temporal.

I think you mean to say God had to be non-temporal before He created the universe and time, which is fine, but, for logical considerations, it would seem necessary that after he created time he would need to exist in time.


Indeed. Yet religion is based upon faith, and that is what we are discussing. Some might argue that religions are logically consistent if one accepts the premise that god exists and created the universe. Whether or not this premise is logically consistent is deserving of another thread.

- August

Faith only to a small degree, less and less since science. Belief always necessitates a logical reason even if, when explored, it turns out to be illogical after all. As for the rest, fair enough.

[Richard Nixon]

the question is redundant, because most theists subscribe to the circular logic that the laws of rationality or political semantics to not apply to him since god 'created' human understanding and conciousness.


How did the 2004 Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina 'work best' for humanity?

I think if god exists, he is as an omnipetent deity at best indifferently incompetent and at worst a nihilist sadist.

I think George Carlin put it best, if he was working as an office clerk and producing equivalent results, ''holy shit, he wouldve been out on his ass on his first day''.

I think God to be rather distant (ie the Distant God belief).

[Havet]

Exactly. "Management/administration," i.e. formulation and execution of human actions.

Certainly, one example could be that of a human. But surely a supreme being, like God, could manage and administrate the whole universe, which he "created" with his "divine" powers?


No, we can't. To 'manage' or 'administer' is an active verb - it can only be performed by a subject. A subject is a self (a locus of sense-making activity) within an objective world-space (the universe).

In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), a subject is a being which has subjective experiences, subjective consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_consciousness) or a relationship with another entity (or "object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29)"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

I don't know about God's subjective experiences and consciousness, but I do now he has (supposed) relationships with other entities - humans, in the forms of "miracles" and actions with "witnesses".He is also an observer.


Such original cause arguments all fall to occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

I agree completely, but the point is i understand the premises i am coming from are faulty, therefore they would not pass the occam's razor test. I am merely asking you to put yourself in a christian's mindset, abandon most logic, reason and rationality, and "ungodly" methods such as the occam's razor.


But you see that god, if we are to give our theists comrades the benefit of the doubt, is certainly a non-temporal entity (if that). God would be all, none, and the spaces in between. God would be everything and nothing. God is both a capitalist and a communist, an authoritarian ruler and a democratic socialist. Etc...

Like splitteeth said, God couldn't be everything otherwise he would be both good and evil, which is "impossible". God may exist forever in time, whereas a human capitalist cannot, but that doesn't mean he, hypothetically, couldn't still, or still does, perform actions which fit the definition of a capitalist.


Of course, when we accept this extremely vague and nonsensical posited being, we cease to be speaking of anything at all - and hence religion's reliance upon faith.

Yeah, i'm perfectly aware of that.


This would make all property God's, which would cease to have any meaning in the capitalist sense.

- August

Not quite, it would just mean he would be the supreme monopolist. And (human) capitalists don't cease to be capitalists just because they have a monopoly, do they? :cool:

[spiltteeth]

Certainly, one example could be that of a human. But surely a supreme being, like God, could manage and administrate the whole universe, which he "created" with his "divine" powers?



In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), a subject is a being which has subjective experiences, subjective consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_consciousness) or a relationship with another entity (or "object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29)"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

I don't know about God's subjective experiences and consciousness, but I do now he has (supposed) relationships with other entities - humans, in the forms of "miracles" and actions with "witnesses".He is also an observer.



I agree completely, but the point is i understand the premises i am coming from are faulty, therefore they would not pass the occam's razor test. I am merely asking you to put yourself in a christian's mindset, abandon most logic, reason and rationality, and "ungodly" methods such as the occam's razor.



Like splitteeth said, God couldn't be everything otherwise he would be both good and evil, which is "impossible". God may exist forever in time, whereas a human capitalist cannot, but that doesn't mean he, hypothetically, couldn't still, or still does, perform actions which fit the definition of a capitalist.



Yeah, i'm perfectly aware of that.



Not quite, it would just mean he would be the supreme monopolist. And (human) capitalists don't cease to be capitalists just because they have a monopoly, do they? :cool:

If God is a capitalist, may I ask how you explain this NASA HUBBLE telescope photo?

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/Marxcrop.jpg

[Havet]

If God is a capitalist, may I ask how you explain this NASA HUBBLE telescope photo?

OMGZ KARL MARX WENT 2 HEAVEN!!!HE HAS WINGZ!!

/joke

That picture has some serious photoshop issues. First of all, who was the genius who placed him in a woman's body? Wasn't he a man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man)?

Also, Earth doesn't need a God holding it. It "floats" due to orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit).

[spiltteeth]

OMGZ KARL MARX WENT 2 HEAVEN!!!HE HAS WINGZ!!

/joke

That picture has some serious photoshop issues. First of all, who was the genius who placed him in a woman's body? Wasn't he a man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man)?

Also, Earth doesn't need a God holding it. It "floats" due to orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit).

Marx transcends the male/female duality.
And he's not holding the earth. I think he's fucking it? Or covering up an erection maybe?
Plus I'm pretty sure it isn't photoshopped.

[Havet]

Plus I'm pretty sure it isn't photoshopped.

You're right. It's goddamn Windows Paint :lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

Certainly, one example could be that of a human. But surely a supreme being, like God, could manage and administrate the whole universe, which he "created" with his "divine" powers?

No. If a god is indeed omnipotent and omniscient then 'he' has no need to administrate or manage anything. All things happen according to 'his' law which cannot be violated.


In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), a subject is a being which has subjective experiences, subjective consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_consciousness) or a relationship with another entity (or "object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29)"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

I don't know about God's subjective experiences and consciousness, but I do now he has (supposed) relationships with other entities - humans, in the forms of "miracles" and actions with "witnesses".He is also an observer.

God is not a subject because a subject necessarily exists within an environment (the objective). Give that god does not exist 'within' the universe, 'he' is not a subject as there is nothing outside of 'him.'


I agree completely, but the point is i understand the premises i am coming from are faulty, therefore they would not pass the occam's razor test. I am merely asking you to put yourself in a christian's mindset, abandon most logic, reason and rationality, and "ungodly" methods such as the occam's razor.

Why? I am arguing against this form of belief...


Like splitteeth said, God couldn't be everything otherwise he would be both good and evil, which is "impossible". God may exist forever in time, whereas a human capitalist cannot, but that doesn't mean he, hypothetically, couldn't still, or still does, perform actions which fit the definition of a capitalist.

Incorrect. God is necessarily both good and evil as 'he' created everything and exists both within and outside of everything, hence 'he' encompasses both ends of any given morality.


Not quite, it would just mean he would be the supreme monopolist. And (human) capitalists don't cease to be capitalists just because they have a monopoly, do they? :cool:

A complete monopoly of all means of production eliminates capitalism entirely as capitalism necessarily entails the competition of capitalists in order to increase profit. The complete monopolization of all means of production is a form of centralism - capitalism is, to a certain degree, de-centralized. One can have a monopoly within a given economic sector, but not within all - only the government can have this monopoly and at this point it is either a socialist government (possessing the means of production in the name of the proletariat) or an authoritarian government (possessing the means of production in the name of the few).

If god was to be this government, metaphorically speaking, then the analogy still isn't apt as governments function within a framework of populations, resources, etc... an objective worldspace. God does not function 'in' anything.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

That does make sense, I'm merely saying your objection doesn't apply to a christian God -

How so?


I think we are talking about the Christian God, and He is all good. I have studied child molestation, know a bit about it in theory, I don't see how this knowledge constitutes my person. Perhaps by God knowing all you think this must necessarily be experiential knowledge? In which case I'd argue God can 'know' about evil/capitalism in other ways.

In order for god to be all good, and at the same time having created all evil, 'he' must necessary 'be' evil to some degree - see: the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil).


I believe this is pantheism? The Christian God created the world etc but isn't the world, he's separate.

Then how can he be a capitalist given that to be such one must be within the world?


I think you mean to say God had to be non-temporal before He created the universe and time, which is fine, but, for logical considerations, it would seem necessary that after he created time he would need to exist in time.

One cannot be outside of, and create, time and at the same instance 'enter' the temporal framework. To do so is to change oneself to the degree that one is no longer omnipotent.

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1576472]How so?

As I say, the Christian concept is that God is personal, He is a person.


In order for god to be all good, and at the same time having created all evil, 'he' must necessary 'be' evil to some degree - see: the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil).

Christians believe God did not create evil, at most, He allows it.


Then how can he be a capitalist given that to be such one must be within the world?

God is 'within' the universe, although not of it, as is the Christian conception.


One cannot be outside of, and create, time and at the same instance 'enter' the temporal framework. To do so is to change oneself to the degree that one is no longer omnipotent.

God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation. Having entered into time, He is not dependent upon finite velocity light signals or clock synchronization procedures for knowing what time it is. Rather, existing in absolute time, God is, as Newton proclaimed, the Lord God of dominion of His universe. In the words of St. Jude: "To the only God our savior through Jesus Christ, our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever."

I do think God also changes in intrinsic ways—for example, knowing what time it is. He knows it's now t1, now it's t2, now it's t3. But I think that these kinds of trivial changes are not at all threatening to an orthodox concept of God. What is crucial is that God not change in His attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, love, eternality, necessity, and all the rest. Those would all be preserved as essential attributes of God on this model.

[Tatarin]

What possible profit would God make by exploiting the workers of the universe?

[Havet]

What possible profit would God make by exploiting the workers of the universe?

He would stop being bored

[Decolonize The Left]

As I say, the Christian concept is that God is personal, He is a person.

People have lives - are bound by time and space. Their subjectivity is formed by these bonds. You're saying god is as I am?


Christians believe God did not create evil, at most, He allows it.

God created the universe - all that is... but not evil. That was... somewhere else...?


God is 'within' the universe, although not of it, as is the Christian conception.

A person is within the universe and of it. So god is not a person?


God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation. Having entered into time, He is not dependent upon finite velocity light signals or clock synchronization procedures for knowing what time it is. Rather, existing in absolute time, God is, as Newton proclaimed, the Lord God of dominion of His universe. In the words of St. Jude: "To the only God our savior through Jesus Christ, our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time and now and forever."

I do think God also changes in intrinsic ways—for example, knowing what time it is. He knows it's now t1, now it's t2, now it's t3. But I think that these kinds of trivial changes are not at all threatening to an orthodox concept of God. What is crucial is that God not change in His attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, love, eternality, necessity, and all the rest. Those would all be preserved as essential attributes of God on this model.

I'm not talking about invented time (hours). I'm talking about actual time (timespace).

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1576934]People have lives - are bound by time and space. Their subjectivity is formed by these bonds. You're saying god is as I am?

God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God's case, that would be everything). Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things... Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be... Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen.
To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire.
So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act... First, therefore, God is a person. But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said "Let there be light"; and there was light.)



God created the universe - all that is... but not evil. That was... somewhere else...?

As yr aware, 'evil' can only be committed by people who are significantly free to choose to act against God's plan, then evil comes into this world, it is created. In fact can you say evil existed before the evolution of man?

Paradoxically, evil actually serves to establish the existence of God. For if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist—as is evident from the reality of evil—, then it follows inescapably that God exists. Thus, although evil in one sense calls into question God’s existence, in a more fundamental sense it demonstrates God’s existence, since evil could not exist without God.


A person is within the universe and of it. So god is not a person?

It seems to me that the condition which is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness. To know oneself as a self, to have self-awareness and self-consciousness and, hence, intentionality and freedom of the will is sufficient for personhood.
But self-consciousness is not an inherently temporal notion. God can simply know all truth in a single intuition of truth without having to learn it or having to come by it through a process. As long as His consciousness does not change, there is no reason to ascribe to God temporality. So there is nothing about a self-conscious life that entails temporality as long as it is a changeless self-consciousness.


I'm not talking about invented time (hours). I'm talking about actual time (timespace).

Actually, I'm not sure what yr asking, as I have said, God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

[Havet]

No. If a god is indeed omnipotent and omniscient then 'he' has no need to administrate or manage anything. All things happen according to 'his' law which cannot be violated.

Again, like communists usually argue, a capitalist is not needed to administrate or manage anything, but he is still a capitalist.


God is not a subject because a subject necessarily exists within an environment (the objective). Give that god does not exist 'within' the universe, 'he' is not a subject as there is nothing outside of 'him.'

Hmm...I guess I can agree with that.


Why? I am arguing against this form of belief...

I know. The thing is, i was only trying to formulate another anti-god argument, especially for communists, by trying to prove he was a capitalist. Indeed, I do not think there is sufficient (or any at all) evidence that God exists. I'm just asking you to abstract from our little atheist world and imagine, for a second, that you were in a mindset of a christian communist.


Incorrect. God is necessarily both good and evil as 'he' created everything and exists both within and outside of everything, hence 'he' encompasses both ends of any given morality.

Oh yes, I am very aware of that relationship. The thing is, you are still debating it as if thinking outside of the christian sphere. And they think God is not responsible for evil, so...


A complete monopoly of all means of production eliminates capitalism entirely as capitalism necessarily entails the competition of capitalists in order to increase profit. The complete monopolization of all means of production is a form of centralism - capitalism is, to a certain degree, de-centralized. One can have a monopoly within a given economic sector, but not within all - only the government can have this monopoly and at this point it is either a socialist government (possessing the means of production in the name of the proletariat) or an authoritarian government (possessing the means of production in the name of the few).

I do not see how it eliminates capitalism. "Capitalism is an economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) and social system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) (also known as capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29)) are privately controlled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)", so whether they are controlled by a single entity, or by several people, or the MOP are controlled by a mixture of government and private businesses is merely a question on the quality and quantity of the distribution of ownership.


If god was to be this government, metaphorically speaking, then the analogy still isn't apt as governments function within a framework of populations, resources, etc... an objective worldspace. God does not function 'in' anything.

Again, you must think outside of what you believe. Think as if you were a christian, because they fiercely believe God functions "in" this world (see divine intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle)). I'm not interested in debating the belief in God (we both agree there is no proof that he exists), just the capitalist part, from a christian perspective.

[Decolonize The Left]

I know. The thing is, i was only trying to formulate another anti-god argument, especially for communists, by trying to prove he was a capitalist. Indeed, I do not think there is sufficient (or any at all) evidence that God exists. I'm just asking you to abstract from our little atheist world and imagine, for a second, that you were in a mindset of a christian communist.

If I am a christian communist, I have been able to reconcile these two philosophies (if you will, though communism is an economic theory/ideology and christianity a religion) relatively succesfully. If this is the case, you will not be able to persuade me that god is a capitalist - just as you cannot persuade me (an atheist communist/anarchist) that god exists, and if 'he' did exist, would be a capitalist.

It's hard enough to argue against religious faith, why try and portray god as an economic player? In other words, won't this detract from the more poignant argument of complete and utter lack of evidence of existence and focus on a secondary debate which already assumes a posited beginning?



I do not see how it eliminates capitalism. "Capitalism is an economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) and social system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) (also known as capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29)) are privately controlled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)", so whether they are controlled by a single entity, or by several people, or the MOP are controlled by a mixture of government and private businesses is merely a question on the quality and quantity of the distribution of ownership.

Capitalism, as an economic system, requires some degree of competition. Complete monopoly of all means of production eliminates all competition and therefore destroys the so-called 'profit motive,' as well as all capitalist theory.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's the case.


Again, you must think outside of what you believe. Think as if you were a christian, because they fiercely believe God functions "in" this world (see divine intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle)). I'm not interested in debating the belief in God (we both agree there is no proof that he exists), just the capitalist part, from a christian perspective.

God may function in this world, but 'he' does not exist in this world. Hence 'his' subjectivity is not bound by an objective worldsphere. 'He' is not a subject. 'He' cannot be a capitalist (nor a communist, nor anythign of that sort).

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God's case, that would be everything).

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, there is no possibility of having 'surroundings.' This word implies a limited sphere of perspective, which god clearly does not have - 'he' has infinite perspective.


Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things... Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be... Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen.
To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire.
So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act... First, therefore, God is a person.

Incorrect. A person is a locus of sense-making ability. It has nothing to do with all the things you stated above, as these are characteristics of human beings. An alien could be a person too. All a person is a locus (a point through time and space) of sense-making (rationalization) ability. God is not within time and space, though 'he' may function as such.


But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said "Let there be light"; and there was light.)

If this is the case, then his 'will' is activity - there is no time delay between these phenomenons (as there is with human neuron synapses). If this is the case, then god is not bound by time and hence is not bound by subjectivity and hence cannot be a person.


As yr aware, 'evil' can only be committed by people who are significantly free to choose to act against God's plan, then evil comes into this world, it is created. In fact can you say evil existed before the evolution of man?

If evil is committed by free human beings who act (like disobedient children) against god's will, and god is omniscient, then 'he' foresaw this action and (since 'his' will is action) made it happen. This would make him evil.


Paradoxically, evil actually serves to establish the existence of God. For if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist—as is evident from the reality of evil—, then it follows inescapably that God exists. Thus, although evil in one sense calls into question God’s existence, in a more fundamental sense it demonstrates God’s existence, since evil could not exist without God.

Objective values do not exist. The 'reality' of evil proves nothing, for it is called into question immediately.
Ex: You witness someone killing someone else. You claim this to be evil. Hence it is 'real evil' to you. Yet this person was in fact defending his/herself against an attacker and unwillingly killed them. This is no longer 'real evil' yet you still believe it to be so.

What you believe to be evil is a subjective opinion of an act within a context - nothing more. It can be shared by everyone who ever existed and it is still not objective as it is a relative moral claim.


It seems to me that the condition which is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness. To know oneself as a self, to have self-awareness and self-consciousness and, hence, intentionality and freedom of the will is sufficient for personhood.

You have assumed:
a) a self exists
b) this self is 'conscious'
c) this self is conscious of itself as a self.

All of these assumptions can be called into question, and have been.



Actually, I'm not sure what yr asking, as I have said, God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

If god is temporal subsequent to creation then he has a fixed beginning and end. This makes him finite and no longer god.

- August

[spiltteeth]

=AugustWest;1577334]If god is omnipotent and omniscient, there is no possibility of having 'surroundings.' This word implies a limited sphere of perspective, which god clearly does not have - 'he' has infinite perspective.

I fail to see how having surroundings necessarily precludes an 'infinite' perspective; indeed, as the very source of these surroundings, and cause of their motion etc, God would be intimately knowledgeable of all of said surroundings.


Incorrect. A person is a locus of sense-making ability. It has nothing to do with all the things you stated above, as these are characteristics of human beings. An alien could be a person too. All a person is a locus (a point through time and space) of sense-making (rationalization) ability. God is not within time and space, though 'he' may function as such.

As I keep pointing out, with biblical quotes, the Christian understanding is that God is indeed within time and space.

Indeed, I believe a person is that which has self-conscious, materiality I would argue is not essential or necessary for personhood.

With your definition parrots are persons, monkeys are persons, my dog is a person, my computer is a person.
The definitions Ive given is much closer to what person-hood is, and God is much closer to a human, which is why we can have a personal relationship with Him.


If this is the case, then his 'will' is activity - there is no time delay between these phenomenons (as there is with human neuron synapses). If this is the case, then god is not bound by time and hence is not bound by subjectivity and hence cannot be a person.

First, as I'm sure you know, time is relative, so I'm sure you can see the difficulties trying to speak of 'time delay.'

As I've already said, God existed before time, and so was then not 'bound by time.'

And, as I've also said, it seems to me that the condition which is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness. To know oneself as a self, to have self-awareness and self-consciousness and, hence, intentionality and freedom of the will is sufficient for personhood. But self-consciousness is not an inherently temporal notion.

Also, how is instantaneous manifestation not bound by time? It can't happen in the past OR future, therefore it is indeed bound by time.


If evil is committed by free human beings who act (like disobedient children) against god's will, and god is omniscient, then 'he' foresaw this action and (since 'his' will is action) made it happen. This would make him evil.

Actually, it is logically possible that God could have made a world less evil only at a significant loss of the good, and a sharp decrease in our free-will; free-will being a greater good.

As you probably know, God cannot do the logically impossible (make 2+2=5 etc)

In other words, a world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

And of course, by Christ, all evil is transformed, ultimately, to good; as the Christians believe
(just as war may be bad, a person sacrificing himself on a grenade does good, thereby alleviating some of the evil of war. God sacrificed his only son, thereby alleviating the evil in the world.
Further, all evil has been forgiven and an eternity of bliss awaits those who choose it)


Objective values do not exist. The 'reality' of evil proves nothing, for it is called into question immediately.
Ex: You witness someone killing someone else. You claim this to be evil. Hence it is 'real evil' to you. Yet this person was in fact defending his/herself against an attacker and unwillingly killed them. This is no longer 'real evil' yet you still believe it to be so.

To a Christian objective values do indeed exist, there source is God; although obviously I myself, being but a human, can easily mistake good for evil and vice versa.


What you believe to be evil is a subjective opinion of an act within a context - nothing more. It can be shared by everyone who ever existed and it is still not objective as it is a relative moral claim.

What I believe is subjective yes, this is why I try, as much as I can, to go by the objective morals, as revealed by God to the orthodox church.


You have assumed:
a) a self exists
b) this self is 'conscious'
c) this self is conscious of itself as a self.

All of these assumptions can be called into question, and have been.

I have assumed none of these, but like all theories they can of course be called into question.

Consider,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.


If god is temporal subsequent to creation then he has a fixed beginning and end. This makes him finite and no longer god.

- August[/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe in science, and science tells us the universe had a definite beginning but will have no end, it will expand endlessly. The universe is eternal but not infinite.
There is no end, God is beginninglesss and eternal.

[Havet]

It's hard enough to argue against religious faith, why try and portray god as an economic player? In other words, won't this detract from the more poignant argument of complete and utter lack of evidence of existence and focus on a secondary debate which already assumes a posited beginning?

Simple: Quantity. Having more arguments to throw at someone (even though one should, in fact, start by the most irrefutable argument) creates a difficult task for the defendant to address all the points.


Capitalism, as an economic system, requires some degree of competition. Complete monopoly of all means of production eliminates all competition and therefore destroys the so-called 'profit motive,' as well as all capitalist theory.


I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's the case.

Why? It might require some competition at the beginning, but does it stop being capitalism the minute everything becomes a monopoly of someone?

What definition of Capitalism are you using?

Here's mine:

Capitalism is an economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) and social system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) (also known as capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29)) are privately controlled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)

This might be important:

However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of wage labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labor) in the interdependent social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) context of nonlabor income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or employer's) active personal use.

God still fits the definition of a capitalist, if one interprets things like harvest, food, water, air, as the wages he gives to people (lol).


God may function in this world, but 'he' does not exist in this world. Hence 'his' subjectivity is not bound by an objective worldsphere. 'He' is not a subject. 'He' cannot be a capitalist (nor a communist, nor anythign of that sort).

But why can only humans be capitalists?

To use an example by IcarusAngel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQObaYFmaw&feature=player_embedded

Wouldn't this hypothetical alien be a capitalist? If not, why?

A religious person could even claim that "he" "in fact" exists in this world because "God is everything", therefore the chair you are sitting on, the table the computer is on, is "him".

[Decolonize The Left]

Simple: Quantity. Having more arguments to throw at someone (even though one should, in fact, start by the most irrefutable argument) creates a difficult task for the defendant to address all the points.

I hear what you're saying, but I still disagree with the point of this thread.


Why? It might require some competition at the beginning, but does it stop being capitalism the minute everything becomes a monopoly of someone?

What definition of Capitalism are you using?

Here's mine:

Capitalism is an economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) and social system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) (also known as capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29)) are privately controlled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)

This might be important:

However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of wage labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labor) in the interdependent social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) context of nonlabor income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or employer's) active personal use.

God still fits the definition of a capitalist, if one interprets things like harvest, food, water, air, as the wages he gives to people (lol).

You make two notes here which are important:
- The first is wages - money given to the worker for time spent laboring. You have stretched the analogy here (which you note yourself) in that god might provide harvest, food, water, air, etc... for..? Labor? Labor towards what? Moral goodness? If this is the case, then you run into the problem of multiple monotheistic religions. Shouldn't Christians be the wealthiest and healthiest according to this analogy? What about Jews and their 'one' god? What about Muslims?
- The second is the definition of capitalism. According to your definition, which is fine as a basic premise, monarchies were capitalist. The king privately owned the means of production. But capitalism arose after monarchies with industrialization. So you see that the actual definition fo capitalism is a bit trickier - and the truth is that the capitalist class is just that, a class. A group of people possessing the means of production. They 'compete' against each other, yet together monopolize.


But why can only humans be capitalists?

To use an example by IcarusAngel:

yrQObaYFmaw

Wouldn't this hypothetical alien be a capitalist? If not, why?

A religious person could even claim that "he" "in fact" exists in this world because "God is everything", therefore the chair you are sitting on, the table the computer is on, is "him".

The alien can be a capitalist, yes. I didn't even watch the video but I'll agree that aliens can be capitalists - in fact, any person can. God, of course, is not a person.

- August

[Havet]

You make two notes here which are important:
- The first is wages - money given to the worker for time spent laboring. You have stretched the analogy here (which you note yourself) in that god might provide harvest, food, water, air, etc... for..? Labor? Labor towards what? Moral goodness? If this is the case, then you run into the problem of multiple monotheistic religions. Shouldn't Christians be the wealthiest and healthiest according to this analogy? What about Jews and their 'one' god? What about Muslims?

Yes, labor towards moral goodness.

I understand the problem of multiple monotheistic religions, which is why I asked you to specifically focus on christianism, the most prevalent form of monotheistic religion in the western world.


- The second is the definition of capitalism. According to your definition, which is fine as a basic premise, monarchies were capitalist. The king privately owned the means of production. But capitalism arose after monarchies with industrialization. So you see that the actual definition fo capitalism is a bit trickier - and the truth is that the capitalist class is just that, a class. A group of people possessing the means of production. They 'compete' against each other, yet together monopolize.

Well, this is why I included the "important part", which distinguished between earlier forms of social organization. I'll post it again:

However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of wage labor (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labor) in the interdependent social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) context of nonlabor income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or employer's) active personal use.


The alien can be a capitalist, yes. I didn't even watch the video but I'll agree that aliens can be capitalists - in fact, any person can. God, of course, is not a person.

- August

The alien is not a person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person).

[Decolonize The Left]

I fail to see how having surroundings necessarily precludes an 'infinite' perspective; indeed, as the very source of these surroundings, and cause of their motion etc, God would be intimately knowledgeable of all of said surroundings.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words you're using. "A surrounding" implies two things, a perspective and an objective space. The objective space is that which 'surrounds' the perspective - i.e. the subject. Yet also implicit in this is an inability to 'see' beyond one's surrounding - hence the nature of it surrounding, as opposed to expanding.

If god's perspective is indeed infinite, then 'he' has no surroundings.


As I keep pointing out, with biblical quotes, the Christian understanding is that God is indeed within time and space.

And this is insane. God cannot create time and space, maintain an infinite perspective, yet be within time and space as well.


Indeed, I believe a person is that which has self-conscious, materiality I would argue is not essential or necessary for personhood.

Consciousness is brain function. Material.


With your definition parrots are persons, monkeys are persons, my dog is a person, my computer is a person.
The definitions Ive given is much closer to what person-hood is, and God is much closer to a human, which is why we can have a personal relationship with Him.

How do parrots 'make sense' of anything? And dogs? Your computer? None of your examples make sense of anything - they perform functions, operate according to instincts, but do not make sense of their existential situation.

You have no proof, or any strain of logic, to indicate that god is closer to human beings. Furthermore, I can have a 'personal relationship' with a rock. I can love and cherish it and it can give me guidance. The rock isn't god...


First, as I'm sure you know, time is relative, so I'm sure you can see the difficulties trying to speak of 'time delay.'

This doesn't make any sense. Yes, time is relative. Yet despite this simple statement, human beings exist as three dimensional creatures whereby time is linear and consequential. Hence we perceive time to 'begin' and 'end' depending upon the event being measured.

Brain waves, neuron synapses, etc... all have time sequences - they take a certain amount of time to occur.


And, as I've also said, it seems to me that the condition which is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness. To know oneself as a self, to have self-awareness and self-consciousness and, hence, intentionality and freedom of the will is sufficient for personhood. But self-consciousness is not an inherently temporal notion.

I've already noted that your definition of a person is full of holes.


Also, how is instantaneous manifestation not bound by time? It can't happen in the past OR future, therefore it is indeed bound by time.

Who's talking about 'instantaneous manifestation?'


Actually, it is logically possible that God could have made a world less evil only at a significant loss of the good, and a sharp decrease in our free-will; free-will being a greater good.

What are you talking about?


As you probably know, God cannot do the logically impossible (make 2+2=5 etc)

Sure 'he' can - 'he's' omnipotent!


In other words, a world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

What the fuck are you talking about?


And of course, by Christ, all evil is transformed, ultimately, to good; as the Christians believe
(just as war may be bad, a person sacrificing himself on a grenade does good, thereby alleviating some of the evil of war. God sacrificed his only son, thereby alleviating the evil in the world.
Further, all evil has been forgiven and an eternity of bliss awaits those who choose it)

This borders on preaching. There is a rule on this forum about preaching: don't do it.


To a Christian objective values do indeed exist, there source is God; although obviously I myself, being but a human, can easily mistake good for evil and vice versa.

But you, in your previous paragraphs, enumerated various ways in which you know what's good and bad, how it is measured, how god sees it, and how 'he' ultimately weighs actions.

Now, one line later, you claim that you can easily mistake everything you just said? So you're basically saying that you have no idea what you're talking about, but you do, but you don't.


What I believe is subjective yes, this is why I try, as much as I can, to go by the objective morals, as revealed by God to the orthodox church.

Ouch. But the bible is so riddled with contradictions as to these 'objective' morals that it cannot be considered accurate. Furthermore, there are no objective morals.


I have assumed none of these, but like all theories they can of course be called into question.

Consider,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Not necessarily true.


2. The universe began to exist.

Also not necessarily true.


3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

See above.


Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

As I have noted, it doesn't.


From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Lovely esoteric piece.


Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

What?


If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Again, a lovely esoteric piece.


Actually, I believe in science, and science tells us the universe had a definite beginning but will have no end, it will expand endlessly. The universe is eternal but not infinite.
There is no end, God is beginninglesss and eternal.

You clearly do not know your science. There are two main theories as to the end of the universe - in neither does it go on forever.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, labor towards moral goodness.

I understand the problem of multiple monotheistic religions, which is why I asked you to specifically focus on christianism, the most prevalent form of monotheistic religion in the western world.

Alright, but there are still two gaping problems:
1) Moral goodness, as defined by the bible, is contradictory.
2) Why would god ask us to labor towards moral goodness? Certainly 'he' is capable of doing whatever 'he' pleases - including ridding the world of evil.



The alien is not a person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person).

Not necessarily - but an alien could be a person. God, on the other hand, cannot.

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1581368]You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words you're using. "A surrounding" implies two things, a perspective and an objective space. The objective space is that which 'surrounds' the perspective - i.e. the subject. Yet also implicit in this is an inability to 'see' beyond one's surrounding - hence the nature of it surrounding, as opposed to expanding.

If god's perspective is indeed infinite, then 'he' has no surroundings.

As I've said, God indeed exists in time, co-exist with space, and knows everything that has happened and will happen, I've explained how this is logical possible.
There is nothing beyond our universe, which God co-exists with, (as far as we can now say) - there is no perspective from 'outside space' because there is no 'outside.' The universe is everything there is.

So I haven't a clue by what you mean by infinite. Again, God is eternal, I don't know what you mean by infinite at all.


And this is insane. God cannot create time and space, maintain an infinite perspective, yet be within time and space as well.

As I say, I don't understand what you mean by 'infinite' but I have explained how God could have existed before the big bang, and then existed in time after.


Consciousness is brain function. Material.

It is a brain function, but not material I'd argue; from Plantinga, who imagines a scenario in which, within a very short period of time, while he is reading the paper, all of the parts of his body are replaced by duplicates and the originals are destroyed. Plantinga holds that he would survive such a procedure, although his body would not; thus he concludes that he is not identical to his body.


How do parrots 'make sense' of anything? And dogs? Your computer? None of your examples make sense of anything - they perform functions, operate according to instincts, but do not make sense of their existential situation.

Ah, you originally said "sense-making...rationality" which is different form making sense of our existential situation, which, in fact, is merely an outcome of having self-consciousness, desires etc
In any case it does not contradict anything I've said. And again, your definition would occlude many people with certain types of mental disorders, or people in a vegetative state etc. Again, my definition is closer to what most people consider a person to be - self conscious, having desires, opinions, preferences etc


You have no proof, or any strain of logic, to indicate that god is closer to human beings. Furthermore, I can have a 'personal relationship' with a rock. I can love and cherish it and it can give me guidance. The rock isn't god...

I adopt criteria for personhood based on states of consciousness, intentionality, and capacity for inter-personal relations.
An inter-personal relationship is between persons.
I would ask how a rock could give you guidance, since it has no opinions, preferences, self-conscious etc
but perhaps I don't want to know.


This doesn't make any sense. Yes, time is relative. Yet despite this simple statement, human beings exist as three dimensional creatures whereby time is linear and consequential. Hence we perceive time to 'begin' and 'end' depending upon the event being measured.

Brain waves, neuron synapses, etc... all have time sequences - they take a certain amount of time to occur.

Of course. I was just pointing out that time is relative, but God exists in all of space, so I was merely pointing out some metaphysical difficulties, although its not necessary, I happen to believe in an absolute Now, which solves many of them.


I've already noted that your definition of a person is full of holes.

I've addresses those.


Who's talking about 'instantaneous manifestation?'

You said the following :

If this is the case, then his 'will' is activity - there is no time delay between these phenomenons (as there is with human neuron synapses). If this is the case, then god is not bound by time and hence is not bound by subjectivity and hence cannot be a person.

If "no time delay between phenomenon" does not mean instantaneous, what exactly did you mean?


What are you talking about?

You could go back and see your question, but here it is:

YOU:

If evil is committed by free human beings who act (like disobedient children) against god's will, and god is omniscient, then 'he' foresaw this action and (since 'his' will is action) made it happen. This would make him evil.


Sure 'he' can - 'he's' omnipotent!

As I say, omnipotent does not mean He can do the logically impossible, such is how the Christian philosopher has maintained for at least 1,000 yrs.


What the fuck are you talking about?

Again, it is a response to the following :
YOU:

If evil is committed by free human beings who act (like disobedient children) against god's will, and god is omniscient, then 'he' foresaw this action and (since 'his' will is action) made it happen. This would make him evil.


This borders on preaching. There is a rule on this forum about preaching: don't do it.

You are the one who asked the question about evil, I was answering your question from the Christian perspective. How in the world is this preaching?


But you, in your previous paragraphs, enumerated various ways in which you know what's good and bad, how it is measured, how god sees it, and how 'he' ultimately weighs actions.

I have not done any of those 3 things. I know objective morals exist, I believe they were revealed by God to the orthodox church. How God see's things or weighs things I have no knowledge about at all.


Now, one line later, you claim that you can easily mistake everything you just said? So you're basically saying that you have no idea what you're talking about, but you do, but you don't.

See the above.


Ouch. But the bible is so riddled with contradictions as to these 'objective' morals that it cannot be considered accurate. Furthermore, there are no objective morals.

As the Orthodox has explained it for the past 2000 yrs there are no contradictions, also, since I have rational, good reason for thinking God exists, I believe in object morals. In any case, the Christian does.
Secondly, this is an argument not that objective morals or God does not exist, but that the Israelites were not inerrant in recording events.
And the God has revealed himself to the church, the bible being only one aspect of the church, and for the Orthodox, not the most important one.


Not necessarily true.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.


Also not necessarily true.



See above.



As I have noted, it doesn't.


I'm afraid you must have reasons.


Lovely esoteric piece.

Indeed. Stephen Hawking cites this argument for a major impetus in his work for the past 20 yrs. The Hawking-Hartle theory can be considered a response to it.


What?

I argue it must be personal. I'll put it a 2nd, easier way.
What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“


Again, a lovely esoteric piece.

It is based on basic logic, not too esoteric I hope.

The form of my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference.

(Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.


You clearly do not know your science. There are two main theories as to the end of the universe - in neither does it go on forever.

- August

I actually thought this was common knowledge, but I'll explain what the science says, simply.

The key is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states all systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, which is connected to entropy.

So, given sufficient time, the universe will eventually suffer "heat death." Once the universe reaches heat death, no further change is possible. P. J. Zwart describes such a state:


. . . according to the second law the whole universe must eventually reach a state of maximum entropy. It will then be in thermodynamical equilibrium; everywhere the situation will be exactly the same, with the same composition, the same temperature, the same pressure etc., etc. There will be no objects any more, but the universe will consist of one vast gas of uniform composition. Because it is in complete equilibrium, absolutely nothing will happen any more. The only way in which a process can begin in a system in equilibrium is through an action from the outside, but an action from the outside is of course impossible if the system in question is the whole universe. So in this future state of maximal entropy, the universe would be in absolute rest and complete darkness, and nothing could disturb the dead silence. Even if there would by chance occur a small deviation from the state of absolute equalization it would of itself rapidly vanish again. Because almost all energy would have been degraded, i.e. converted into kinetic energy of the existing particles (heat), this supposedly future state of the universe, which will also be its last state, is called the heat death of the universe.

Thus, the implication of the Second Law is that the universe faces inevitable extinction.

Since we know the density of the universe is less than the critical value, gravity will not overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will expand forever at a progressively slower rate. Tinsley described the fate of our universe:


If the universe has a low density, its death will be cold. It will expand forever at a slower and slower rate. Galaxies will turn all of their gas into stars, and the stars will burn out. Our own sun will become a cold, dead remnant, floating among the corpses of other stars in an increasingly isolated Milky Way.

So although the universe did indeed have a beginning, it will have no end, and so is eternal.

[Havet]

Alright, but there are still two gaping problems:
1) Moral goodness, as defined by the bible, is contradictory.

I'm aware of that. But that is outside of what we are talking. I already told you to ignore bible inconsistencies :lol:


2) Why would god ask us to labor towards moral goodness? Certainly 'he' is capable of doing whatever 'he' pleases - including ridding the world of evil.

Again you are referring to Christian bible inconsistencies, and I completely agree with you here.

Perhaps the argument I was trying to present is not very useful, and it would indeed be better just to start debunking christians at the very early arguments instead of conceding the fact that God might exist as an excuse to throw the "he's a capitalist" at them. But I still find this argument somewhat useful for Christian communists especially.


Not necessarily - but an alien could be a person. God, on the other hand, cannot.

- August

How could an alien be a person and God couldn't?

Wasn't Jesus a person? Wasn't he God, according to the bible?

[Decolonize The Left]

How could an alien be a person and God couldn't?

An alien is a material being, with a subjective perspective - an alien is a locus of sense-making activity, though not a human being. God isn't any of the above.


Wasn't Jesus a person? Wasn't he God, according to the bible?

Well, Jesus may have been a person, though there is little evidence to support even this theory. But assuming he was, the Bible claims he was god incarnate in a human body - then again, the Bible claims a bunch of things which are either false, contradictory, or completely inane.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

As I've said, God indeed exists in time, co-exist with space, and knows everything that has happened and will happen, I've explained how this is logical possible.
There is nothing beyond our universe, which God co-exists with, (as far as we can now say) - there is no perspective from 'outside space' because there is no 'outside.' The universe is everything there is.

There are numerous theories as to alternate/multiple universes, surely you are familiar with them.


So I haven't a clue by what you mean by infinite. Again, God is eternal, I don't know what you mean by infinite at all.

Time and space are not separate. If time is 'eternal', space is 'infinite.' I personal don't think time is eternal, or that space is infinite, but any definition of god needs both these to be true.


As I say, I don't understand what you mean by 'infinite' but I have explained how God could have existed before the big bang, and then existed in time after.

No, you haven't. You've gone on and on with esoteric rambles about your beliefs in god and how they might be logical if one agrees with your numerous assumptions.


It is a brain function, but not material I'd argue; from Plantinga, who imagines a scenario in which, within a very short period of time, while he is reading the paper, all of the parts of his body are replaced by duplicates and the originals are destroyed. Plantinga holds that he would survive such a procedure, although his body would not; thus he concludes that he is not identical to his body.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the fact that neuron synapses are material - electrical impulses.

What you have described here is a fairly weak philosophical argument regarding identity. It is completely faulty, but that's beside the point.


Ah, you originally said "sense-making...rationality" which is different form making sense of our existential situation, which, in fact, is merely an outcome of having self-consciousness, desires etc

What? Sense-making is rationality. They are synonymous. Making sense of our existential situation is likewise synonymous - I have merely added an object.


In any case it does not contradict anything I've said. And again, your definition would occlude many people with certain types of mental disorders, or people in a vegetative state etc. Again, my definition is closer to what most people consider a person to be - self conscious, having desires, opinions, preferences etc

Yes. My definition does exclude people in vegetative states - they, according to my strict definition, are not people. Human beings yes, people no. It also excludes babies until a certain age.

Again, off topic.


I adopt criteria for personhood based on states of consciousness, intentionality, and capacity for inter-personal relations.
An inter-personal relationship is between persons.
I would ask how a rock could give you guidance, since it has no opinions, preferences, self-conscious etc
but perhaps I don't want to know.

How could god give you guidance? A rock can do so easily - ex:
I walk down a road which comes to a fork. I see a rock in the middle of one of the roads ahead and I induce that that road is more cumbersome to me. The rock has 'given me guidance.'


Of course. I was just pointing out that time is relative, but God exists in all of space, so I was merely pointing out some metaphysical difficulties, although its not necessary, I happen to believe in an absolute Now, which solves many of them.

No, it doesn't. I'm familiar with the Now and it solves no theoretical problems, only current emotional ones.



If "no time delay between phenomenon" does not mean instantaneous, what exactly did you mean?

That is what I meant.


As I say, omnipotent does not mean He can do the logically impossible, such is how the Christian philosopher has maintained for at least 1,000 yrs.

Then you fail: if god cannot defy human logic, then god is not omnipotent.


You are the one who asked the question about evil, I was answering your question from the Christian perspective. How in the world is this preaching?

Because you cease to be rational and logically consistent (not that you have been, but you are maintaining a good dialogue). When you start spewing scripture and random nonsense, it becomes preaching.


I have not done any of those 3 things. I know objective morals exist, I believe they were revealed by God to the orthodox church. How God see's things or weighs things I have no knowledge about at all.

Objective morals do not exist. Go read On the Geneology of Morals by Nietzsche and think about it - the arguments are ridiculously powerful.

Furthermore, you disprove your own statement above. You say: "I know objective morals exist." And to justify that you say "I believe they were revealed..." Belief is not sufficient for knowledge.


As the Orthodox has explained it for the past 2000 yrs there are no contradictions, also, since I have rational, good reason for thinking God exists, I believe in object morals. In any case, the Christian does.
Secondly, this is an argument not that objective morals or God does not exist, but that the Israelites were not inerrant in recording events.
And the God has revealed himself to the church, the bible being only one aspect of the church, and for the Orthodox, not the most important one.

No contradictions eh? Poke around this page (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) for a while.


There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

The premise of god is refuted by all three reasons:
1) It isn't 'demonstrably false' because you can't prove a negative, but it is highly unlikely.
2) It lacks all evidence - completely.
3) It has the counter example of secular science, which has mountains of evidence to its benefit and is demonstrably true to a large extent.


So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Any number of things - perhaps they were already in existence, though in an infinitely small point at infinite density?


Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.

There is no argument that there must be "one" cause, at all. Furthermore, the cause need not be non-physical, though it may not be of hard matter.


Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.

"Eternally" is a meaningless phrase.


And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

Again, you are positing a cause for the big bang.


So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations

These are material - they have points in neurological frameworks within our brains.


Minds, like your own mind

Likewise, the mind is material.


Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

Our minds did not "create" the universe. Our minds are a direct product of the universe.


It is based on basic logic, not too esoteric I hope.

As I have just noted, it isn't.

The form of my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference.

(Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.[/quote]

That's nice, but as I noted in another thread, your original conditional claim isn't valid; i.e. I deny "if p, then q."


I actually thought this was common knowledge, but I'll explain what the science says, simply.

The key is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states all systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, which is connected to entropy.

So, given sufficient time, the universe will eventually suffer "heat death." Once the universe reaches heat death, no further change is possible. P. J. Zwart describes such a state:

Thus, the implication of the Second Law is that the universe faces inevitable extinction.

Since we know the density of the universe is less than the critical value, gravity will not overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will expand forever at a progressively slower rate. Tinsley described the fate of our universe:

So although the universe did indeed have a beginning, it will have no end, and so is eternal.

Wow. You fail to note your own conclusion. I am familiar with the 'big freeze' theory, and if it is true then the overall temperature of the universe will reach near absolute zero, where even atomic movement ceases. If this is the case, then that is the end.

You have made the assumption that an 'end' necessarily entails as disappearance of something, or a cease of existence, yet you see immediately that this is pure esoteric nonsense.

- August

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Who cares? The Christian god can't possibly exist because the characteristics ascribed to it are internally contradictory. No point speculating on it.

I guess he would be a theocrat. :lol:

-Alex

[spiltteeth]

There are numerous theories as to alternate/multiple universes, surely you are familiar with them.


yessss and? They have no evidence, nor are they conceptually coherent. I beleive in mainstream science, until then...


Time and space are not separate. If time is 'eternal', space is 'infinite.' I personal don't think time is eternal, or that space is infinite, but any definition of god needs both these to be true.

That's perfectly fine. contradicts nothing I've said.


No, you haven't. You've gone on and on with esoteric rambles about your beliefs in god and how they might be logical if one agrees with your numerous assumptions.

Ok. I can only respond to facts, not opinions, and there are no assumptions.


Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the fact that neuron synapses are material - electrical impulses.

Yes. This does not contradict my argument.


What you have described here is a fairly weak philosophical argument regarding identity. It is completely faulty, but that's beside the point.

Again, I need reasons to respond. I see nothing faulty.


What? Sense-making is rationality. They are synonymous. Making sense of our existential situation is likewise synonymous - I have merely added an object.

Well, the great apes, dogs, and many other animals do in fact, exhibit rationality, yet they do not make existential sense of their environment, thus the 2 are not synominous.
Regardless, as I say, this contradicts nothing I've said.


Yes. My definition does exclude people in vegetative states - they, according to my strict definition, are not people. Human beings yes, people no. It also excludes babies until a certain age.


We, I'm not going by your definition, but the philosophically accepted one I have set fort.


Again, off topic.



How could god give you guidance? A rock can do so easily - ex:
I walk down a road which comes to a fork. I see a rock in the middle of one of the roads ahead and I induce that that road is more cumbersome to me. The rock has 'given me guidance.'

As one person to another, can God give guidance..
To "generate" content is not to say that physical states can not cause belief with contents to exist. A interactionist dualist agrees with that.
I'm talking about the interaction of physical objects being a belief that has content. And it seems to me that that's impossible.


No, it doesn't. I'm familiar with the Now and it solves no theoretical problems, only current emotional ones.

Again, I need reasons to respond to.


That is what I meant.

Well, you asked who's talking about "instantaneous manifestation" so....if that is what you ment then the answer is you.


Then you fail: if god cannot defy human logic, then god is not omnipotent.

That is not the definition of omnipotence that has been in use in Christian philosophy for the last 1000 yrs.


Because you cease to be rational and logically consistent (not that you have been, but you are maintaining a good dialogue). When you start spewing scripture and random nonsense, it becomes preaching.

You asked for the Christian answer to evil, you must expect scripture to enter into it. However scripture has nothing to do with the argument I've set out against evil, which I see you have not refuted.


Objective morals do not exist. Go read On the Geneology of Morals by Nietzsche and think about it - the arguments are ridiculously powerful.

This is a statement of knowledge. A book is not proof.


Furthermore, you disprove your own statement above. You say: "I know objective morals exist." And to justify that you say "I believe they were revealed..." Belief is not sufficient for knowledge.

As I said, I know objective morals exist. I know they were revealed by God to the church, I believe they are still maintained in the Orthodox church.


No contradictions eh? Poke around this page (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) for a while.

No.


The premise of god is refuted by all three reasons:
1) It isn't 'demonstrably false' because you can't prove a negative, but it is highly unlikely.
2) It lacks all evidence - completely.
3) It has the counter example of secular science, which has mountains of evidence to its benefit and is demonstrably true to a large extent.

1) It is the most likely explanation - what is an explanation more likely?

2) The evidence :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
Any number of things - perhaps they were already in existence, though in an infinitely small point at infinite density?

3) It has one counter example, which is not reality descriptive.
You must posit the counter-example, not merely say "uh, yea, there are ones..."


There is no argument that there must be "one" cause, at all. Furthermore, the cause need not be non-physical, though it may not be of hard matter.

Again, I need reasons. If no matter or energy existed before the big bang, then how can the cause be physical?


"Eternally" is a meaningless phrase.

It means 'no end'


Again, you are positing a cause for the big bang.

Yes. The 1st law of thermodynamics states all things that have a beginning have a cause, this compels me to posit a cause.


These are material - they have points in neurological frameworks within our brains.



Likewise, the mind is material.


Again, I argue it isn;t, I'll expand, Plantinga'a argument :

The fact is, we can't see how it could have a content. It's not that we see or know this is perfectly possible, but we just don't know how it's done. When light strikes photo-receptor cells in the retina, there is a complex cascade of electrical activity, resulting in an electrical signal to the brain. I have no idea how all that works; but of course I know it happens all the time. But the case under consideration is different. Here it's not merely that I don't know how physical interaction among neurons brings it about that an assemblage of neurons has content and is a belief. No, in this case, we can't see how such an event could have content--that is, it seems upon reflection that it could not have content. It's a little like trying to understand what it would be for the number seven, e.g., to weigh five pounds (or for an elephant to be a proposition). We can't see how that could happen; more exactly, we can see that it couldn't happen. A number just isn't the sort of thing that can have weight; there is no way in which that number or any other number could weigh anything at all. (The same goes for elephants and propositions.) Similarly, we can see, I think, that physical activity among neurons can't generate content. These neurons are clicking away, sending electrical impulses hither and yon. But what has this to do with content? How is content or aboutness supposed to arise from this neuronal activity? How can such a thing be a belief? You might as well say that thought arises from the activity of the wind or the waves. But then no neuronal event can as such have a content, can be about something, in the way in which my belief that the number seven is prime is about the number seven, or my belief that the oak tree in my backyard is without leaves is about that oak tree.
Here's one way I formulate an argument against materialism in my head. It is not exactly Plantinga's argument, but it is suggested by the quote:
1) I can reasonably believe that it is impossible that a number has weight based on "seeing" that it is true.
2) I can "see" that it is impossible that an interaction of physical objects have content or be a belief, and this "seeing" is relevantly analogous to the "seeing" in premise.
3) I can reasonably believe that it is impossible that an interaction of physical objects have content or be a belief

(This isn't deductively valid, but an argument from analogy. If we wanted a deductively valid argument, we could add a premise about how arguing analogically gives likelihood of truth and then conclude that (3) is likely to be true or something like that, but I thought that'd complicate things. I hope I didn't make any embarrassing moves.)

How are the two "seeings" relevantly analogous? Well, I think that they are phenomenally the same. They are both motivated similarly: just as it seems that numbers aren't the sorts of things that could have weight, it seems that physical objects (and their arrangements and their interactions) aren't the sorts of things that could have thoughts or beliefs (or be thoughts or beliefs).
Here's how the intuitions are disanalogous, and this could block the jump from (1) and (2) to (3). There are no arguments out there that numbers could have weight, but there are arguments by smart people that material objects can think. This would make me hesitant to conclude (3). However, Plantinga thinks that materialists simply avoid this problem (what he calls Leibniz's problem), and he gives an example with Dretske's theory. I'm inclined to agree with Plantinga's assessment, but only very hesitantly so, since I'm no philosopher of mind and I'm not aware of the arguments out there (nor am I very aware of the contemporary literature). It has seemed to me from what I have read, however, that materialists do tend to make a quick jump from what Plantinga calls "indicator content" or representations to belief. The jumps I have read have struck me as tenuous (or at least they strike me as more tenuous now that Plantinga has pointed them out). Anyway, this is how I see the argument and this is why I am persuaded by it.


Our minds did not "create" the universe. Our minds are a direct product of the universe.

The posit is that God created the universe, not our minds.


As I have just noted, it isn't.

It is fine to note things, but I need reasons


The form of my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference.

(Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.


That's nice, but as I noted in another thread, your original conditional claim isn't valid; i.e. I deny "if p, then q."

You would need a reason to deny this premise.


Wow. You fail to note your own conclusion. I am familiar with the 'big freeze' theory, and if it is true then the overall temperature of the universe will reach near absolute zero, where even atomic movement ceases. If this is the case, then that is the end.

You have made the assumption that an 'end' necessarily entails as disappearance of something, or a cease of existence, yet you see immediately that this is pure esoteric nonsense.

- August[/QUOTE]

No, the universe expands endlessly, time does not end, therefore it is eternal.

[danyboy27]

god dosnt exist, so no, the christian god isnt a capitalist.

[Havet]

An alien is a material being, with a subjective perspective - an alien is a locus of sense-making activity, though not a human being. God isn't any of the above.

Well, Jesus may have been a person, though there is little evidence to support even this theory. But assuming he was, the Bible claims he was god incarnate in a human body - then again, the Bible claims a bunch of things which are either false, contradictory, or completely inane.

- August

The Bible is YET to provide any sort of evidence.

So it seems that our disagreement has stalked on the agreement that the Bible claims many false, contradictory and completely inane things.

Indeed from an atheist point of view the whole "God is a Capitalist" argument fails because we'd argue there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of God to even claim he might be a capitalist.

But of course, since the beginning of this discussion I intended the analysis to be made from a Christian's point of view. And so far it seems that from a christian pov God can be a capitalist, under Marx's and/or Wikipedia's definition of Capitalism and capitalist.

[Comrade Anarchist]

No he is fascist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Jesus, the man, as I believe him not to be a god, seemed very critical of the wealthy and was all about helping the least among us.

The bible is full of contradictions that would make it hard to know whether "God" as they view it is either.

However, Jesus certainly did not seem to support (even though capitalism really didn't exist at the time) an unfair and unjust system.