But, but where could God come from

[NWO_Spook]

Claiming that the physical universe had to have been created by something, but God didn't, is a classic example of special pleading. Quite simply, there's no reason to introduce a middle man. For all we know, or should care until we have evidence to the contrary, the universe itself is the uncaused first cause.

Indeed, if there are other possibilities and the arguer ignores them in order to push a single hypothesis without credible evidence, then it is special pleading. The cosmological argument has been deemed thus for ages, and I don't why this is so difficult.

From another thread:

All the variations of the Cosmological Argument (Prime Mover, First Cause, the Kalam) ultimately take a leap of logic at the same points. 1) The god is exempt from the process of causality without any sound reasoning behind the assumption, and the individual arguing in favour of it invariably assumes it is his or her god that is responsible. It does not in way any discount the possibility that there may be many gods behind the process either, or a chain of gods stretching back forever. The assumption contains many problems.

In reality, there is another, more reasonable possibility instead of a supernatural god, and that is simply a natural process that we lack any knowledge of, and this is by far the most plausible of the possibilities. When Hawking used the metaphor 'God' for this unknown process, many invariably and erroneously took it literally.

2) To make the leap of logic and assume a supernatural entity is responsible is a fallacy known as 'special pleading': an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

In reality, the argument is specious and has been recently popularised by the likes of William Lane Craig, despite it being demonstrated to be questionable for some time.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard....an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

It also qualifies in a way as a case of an argument from ignorance which is the formal term for the 'god of the gaps' fallacy, that so incenses some not so gifted in the discipline.

 

[Angel]

That wasn't a justification, it was handwaving.

And this isn't an argument, it's dismissal.

 

[Angel]

However, is guessing that it is the product of a supernatural force more plausible than an unknown natural force?

Inferring isn't guessing except to a typical Internet Skeptic at a loss for an actual argument.

And spread the word to your fellows:

If nature and the laws of nature came into being with the Big Bang or its Big Congener, then what brought the Big Bang about must be outside of nature -- not-natural. un=natural, supernatural.

Go tell it on the anthill.

 

[Angel]

Indeed, if there are other possibilities and the arguer ignores them in order to push a single hypothesis without credible evidence, then it is special pleading. The cosmological argument has been deemed thus for ages, and I don't why this is so difficult.

It also qualifies in a way as a case of an argument from ignorance which is the formal term for the 'god of the gaps' fallacy, that so incenses some not so gifted in the discipline.

What are these "other possibilities," sport?
Stop playing Follow the Leader. Think and argue for yourself.

The "god of the gaps fallacy" is not what Dopey Dick Dawkins told you it is. I've corrected this New Atheist error in the past. If I'm feeling generous today, I'll correct it again for you in this thread.

 

[calamity]

What are these "other possibilities," sport?
Stop playing Follow the Leader. Think and argue for yourself.

The "god of the gaps fallacy" is not what Dopey Dick Dawkins told you it is. I've corrected this New Atheist error in the past. If I'm feeling generous today, I'll correct it again for you in this thread.

There is no god of the gaps. Why? Because there is no god.

 

[bongsaway]

what bad logic? God is defined in the Bible:roll:

And which 'bible' would that be? Lot's of things are defined in science fiction but it doesn't make them true. It never ceases to give me a good laugh when people defend their arguments with, 'it's in the bible'. Like collecting two of every animal on earth and putting them on a boat together. Or living in the belly of a fish for three days. It's in the bible, it must be true. Yeah.

 

[Paradoxical]

And which 'bible' would that be? Lot's of things are defined in science fiction but it doesn't make them true. It never ceases to give me a good laugh when people defend their arguments with, 'it's in the bible'. Like collecting two of every animal on earth and putting them on a boat together. Or living in the belly of a fish for three days. It's in the bible, it must be true. Yeah.

As you will shortly see, I don't always disagree with you because on this post, you are 1,000 percent correct. If you were to give a thousand believers a test on the OT and NT they would fail miserably. Someone said that many Christians believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. The OT was written over many centuries by many unknown people and those writings were cobbled together to create "God". When asked WHY they think the bible is the word of God, some of the more knowledgeable Christians will say either that it says so in the bible (a circular argument) or that prophecies have come true (a lie). The NT was primarily written by Paul, a person who just CLAIMED that he had a vision (not corroborated by anyone). He never met Jesus, never heard him, never walked with him. He was a wannabe apostle.

I have often wondered how humans could be made to believe such things that are so preposterous they border on lunacy and my questions have been answered here in modern times. It doesn't matter what political affiliation you are to know by now that Trump did NOT collude with Russia. I think that most all sane people would agree that he did not after three years of investigation. Why do I bring this up in relation to the bible? Because it is proof of how easy it is to indoctrinate humans to believe a lie using powerful and influential people and repeating the lie with conviction. We had powerful government people along with a compliant press with a agenda (apostles) promote this lie daily and often, telling everyone it was true. The result was predictable. MILLIONS of humans believed it.

Only begrudgingly did they lose that belief.

 

[bongsaway]

As you will shortly see, I don't always disagree with you because on this post, you are 1,000 percent correct. If you were to give a thousand believers a test on the OT and NT they would fail miserably. Someone said that many Christians believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. The OT was written over many centuries by many unknown people and those writings were cobbled together to create "God". When asked WHY they think the bible is the word of God, some of the more knowledgeable Christians will say either that it says so in the bible (a circular argument) or that prophecies have come true (a lie). The NT was primarily written by Paul, a person who just CLAIMED that he had a vision (not corroborated by anyone). He never met Jesus, never heard him, never walked with him. He was a wannabe apostle.

I have often wondered how humans could be made to believe such things that are so preposterous they border on lunacy and my questions have been answered here in modern times. It doesn't matter what political affiliation you are to know by now that Trump did NOT collude with Russia. I think that most all sane people would agree that he did not after three years of investigation. Why do I bring this up in relation to the bible? Because it is proof of how easy it is to indoctrinate humans to believe a lie using powerful and influential people and repeating the lie with conviction. We had powerful government people along with a compliant press with a agenda (apostles) promote this lie daily and often, telling everyone it was true. The result was predictable. MILLIONS of humans believed it.

Only begrudgingly did they lose that belief.

Can you please explain to all of us with the over a hundred meetings between the trump folks and the russians, like the one in trump tower to discuss adoption, why if nothing wrong was happening did so many of the trump folks lie about their meetings with russians and a few end up going to jail? Just wondering why trump knew none of this was going on?

 

[RAMOSS]

You do realize that circle also means encompassed in the Bible, which can only be possible with a 3d earth

Not at all, that is a lie. You are trying to make a translation out of a translation out of a translation, and not loooking at the original Hebrew.

 

[Paradoxical]

Can you please explain to all of us with the over a hundred meetings between the trump folks and the russians, like the one in trump tower to discuss adoption, why if nothing wrong was happening did so many of the trump folks lie about their meetings with russians and a few end up going to jail? Just wondering why trump knew none of this was going on?

Can you please explain to me why you are like evangelicals and STILL believe Trump colluded with Russia when THREE investigations found no evidence?

Your post is identical to what some Christian evangelical would post if I said there was no evidence of a resurrection. He/she would say "There were 500 witnesses and he appeared to the apostles"

Give up the ghost, bongsaway. It's over, done, finished. No reason to believe anymore. Most people have gone on with their lives.

 

[JustHanging]

Whenever a theist brings up the Cosmological argument, an atheist always has to step up and say "well where did God come from"

But there is a big difference between an observable thing and a God.

Where did God come from? Don’t we have to assume that if there is God, then there must have been something before Him that created Him?

These questions assume that everything, including God, is subject to the limitation of time and space, an assumption that the scientific community has questioned and virtually dismissed since Albert Einstein first published his special theory of relativity in 1905.

To accept that God exists outside the framework of time and space as we know it renders any question of what came before Him irrelevant. These questions might be legitimate if God is subject to our constraints of perception, which He is not. The Bible teaches that God is not bound by time or space, and that He simply has not chosen to reveal to us all that took place before He created the universe.

Where did God come from? - bethinking.org

This is a good point and a defense to a bad atheist rebuttal of the cosmological argument

It's called "special pleading." Thus it's a fallacious argument, unless you can prove that this Universe Creator can exist without a cause, but nothing else can. Well, can you?

Hint: Quoting from a storybook, such as is done in the article linked to in the OP, does not prove anything. No matter how old the storybook.

 

[JustHanging]

Can you please explain to me why you are like evangelicals and STILL believe Trump colluded with Russia when THREE investigations found no evidence?

Your post is identical to what some Christian evangelical would post if I said there was no evidence of a resurrection. He/she would say "There were 500 witnesses and he appeared to the apostles"

Give up the ghost, bongsaway. It's over, done, finished. No reason to believe anymore. Most people have gone on with their lives.

Actually Trump has a long history of lying and deceit. So do many of his closes associates.

The only "Evangelical" behavior is believing 100% that Trump has not been colluding with the the Russians. Particularly considering Trump stood on the world stage and told the world to put their trust in Putin and Russia, and not to trust the USA. (You probably don't know about it, so google "Trump Helsinki trust Putin". You can watch Trump do it.)

 

[TypicalRussian]

It's called "special pleading." Thus it's a fallacious argument, unless you can prove that this Universe Creator can exist without a cause, but nothing else can. Well, can you?

Hint: Quoting from a storybook, such as is done in the article linked to in the OP, does not prove anything. No matter how old the storybook.

I literally just proved it , that was the whole point of the OP

 

[TypicalRussian]

Not at all, that is a lie. You are trying to make a translation out of a translation out of a translation, and not loooking at the original Hebrew.

You haven't proved anything

 

[TypicalRussian]

And which 'bible' would that be? Lot's of things are defined in science fiction but it doesn't make them true. It never ceases to give me a good laugh when people defend their arguments with, 'it's in the bible'. Like collecting two of every animal on earth and putting them on a boat together. Or living in the belly of a fish for three days. It's in the bible, it must be true. Yeah.

You took this quote completely out of context

I was talking about how we can define God in relation to it's existence in the universe and I said it is defined in the Bible

Maybe you should read other posts first

 

[swing_voter]

Whenever a theist brings up the Cosmological argument, an atheist always has to step up and say "well where did God come from"

But there is a big difference between an observable thing and a God.

Where did God come from? Don’t we have to assume that if there is God, then there must have been something before Him that created Him?

These questions assume that everything, including God, is subject to the limitation of time and space, an assumption that the scientific community has questioned and virtually dismissed since Albert Einstein first published his special theory of relativity in 1905.

To accept that God exists outside the framework of time and space as we know it renders any question of what came before Him irrelevant. These questions might be legitimate if God is subject to our constraints of perception, which He is not. The Bible teaches that God is not bound by time or space, and that He simply has not chosen to reveal to us all that took place before He created the universe.

Where did God come from? - bethinking.org

This is a good point and a defense to a bad atheist rebuttal of the cosmological argument

If atheists really do ask that, and this is the first time I've heard it, the answer is very simple: God has always existed.

 

[TypicalRussian]

What is nothing? Where did it come from?

Nothing came from nothing, just emptiness

 

[TypicalRussian]

If atheists really do ask that, and this is the first time I've heard it, the answer is very simple: God has always existed.

Well yeah, you are correct sir, A maximally Great being such as God is not bound to any observable things

 

[RAMOSS]

You haven't proved anything

There are none so blind as he who will not see. I have shown my point quite clearly, and you have provided just a web site from a young earth creationist group. Sorry, but ignorance is no excuse.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Claiming that the physical universe had to have been created by something, but God didn't, is a classic example of special pleading. Quite simply, there's no reason to introduce a middle man. For all we know, or should care until we have evidence to the contrary, the universe itself is the uncaused first cause.

How about this to solve your special pleading

A universe existing under theism is more probable than existing under Atheism

 

[TypicalRussian]

That wasn't a justification, it was handwaving.



Because there is.

really, just because there is a though question to answer, Atheim has no answer and result to nihilists ramblings

 

[Paradoxical]

Actually Trump has a long history of lying and deceit. So do many of his closes associates.

The only "Evangelical" behavior is believing 100% that Trump has not been colluding with the the Russians. Particularly considering Trump stood on the world stage and told the world to put their trust in Putin and Russia, and not to trust the USA. (You probably don't know about it, so google "Trump Helsinki trust Putin". You can watch Trump do it.)

And this has to do with three separate investigations over three years finding no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia just how now?

 

[TypicalRussian]

However, is guessing that it is the product of a supernatural force more plausible than an unknown natural force?

Yes it is

 

[TypicalRussian]

There is no god of the gaps. Why? Because there is no god.

God is clearly real, Atheism makes no sense and can't answer any questions

 

[TypicalRussian]

There are none so blind as he who will not see. I have shown my point quite clearly, and you have provided just a web site from a young earth creationist group. Sorry, but ignorance is no excuse.

No you have not, you just completely ignored my point about the verse