You take all the fun out of this.

This is a load of crap. We know that a watch was designed because there's historical record to back up the fact that they didn't exist at all before relatively recently. We have documentation about the basic way that they evolved since then.

There is no plausible reason to assume that the universe was created. We know that it is, but tigers and whales also exist, and nobody in their right mind would suggest that they were created as there's no evidence to support that conclusion.
And here you're clearly begging the question. There is no guarantee that #1 is true, therefor there's no reason to believe that your premises follow from that as you still have to deal with the first mover problem and the resultant infinite regress problem. Suggesting that the universe needs a cause but not "god" is absolutely ridiculous.

The idea that we live in a logical universe is the basis for science and it is held by the vast majority of people, so it is hardly something that is unique to those who believe in a purely rational creator. Instead of trying to psychoanalyze why you think I see no reason to think that an illogical cause could even exist or have causal power, let alone give rise to a universe that has logic in it, you could take the opportunity to provide a reason. I've changed my mind about many things, even about a major issue, and I'll be happy to change my mind if I'm currently wrong about something, but you need to convince me. So again, stop trying to make this about me and how inflexible you think I am towards your position, and actually give me an argument for it. If you argument has true premises and a valid form, then I'll change my position. In logic, if an argument is valid, then the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. It is impossible to have a valid argument with true premises that has a false conclusion. This is equally true for you as it is for me. Illogical causes can't have logical effects, garbage in, garbage out. If the universe has a cause and the universe is inherently logical, then the cause would necessarily have to also be inherently logical. I have not used any ontological arguments in this thread. The fact that nothing comes from non-being is one of the oldest principles of philosophy that as far as I can tell has been universally held by professional philosophers since its inception. Until you give a reason to doubt that principle, your objection to it amounts not believing the Earth orbits the Sun because you don't like that it's true. If you'd like to put forth an argue for that, then be my guest. This has nothing to do with the strength of my faith. My arguments show that a theistic God is a logically necessary being, so it is logically impossible for it not to exist. I could be wrong about the Christian identity of this being, and thus wrong about the purpose of existence. However, it is logically necessary for this being to have a will and so it created the universe for its own purpose, even if I don't know what that purpose is. I accept that I may be wrong about the purpose of existence, but I believe otherwise, and there is evidence to support my belief. Proof and logic are needed because they are a necessary requirement in order to form a belief that anything is true, and the existence of God is no exception. I'm not demanding proof from God, I think God has already provided it.
Sorry. :(

"I am lying."

Is this true, or untrue, in logic? (I cut the chase: it is a paradox, unprovable)

I could see Touring Universal Machine in theory beating the most accomplished of human chess players - but not inventing the problem posed.

What say you?

Sorry, it's just it confused me why you won't allow the use of logic to figure things out about the cause. We all have bias, but it seems odd to me any non-theist who thinks the argument is sound becomes a theist and you then won't be persuaded by theists. I'm really not trying to play word games, but I do think the meaning of words is important. The mistake is in assuming that when we say God is omnipotent that we mean that He has the power to do the logically impossible, when we actually mean that He can do anything that is possible to be done with power. So the answer to the question of whether God can create a rock he can't life is simply "no". This is not me bending the word or playing word games, but simply telling you what we mean by the word when we use it. The laws of physics are descriptive because they describe the ways that we have observed that physical objects behave. The are not prescriptive because science is not asserting that physical objects must behave according the the laws that we've created. So yes, God is free to manipulate physical objects in ways that are contrary to our knowledge of how they normally behave, but there is nothing illogical about that. If God were making square circles or whatnot, then He would be acting contrary to logic, but He can't. I completely agree that the existence of God asks more questions than it answers, so it's a starting point rather than an ending point. I personally think Christianity offers a number of answers about God, but perhaps Christianity is wrong and some other religion is correct, or perhaps no religions are correct.
I say it's neither true nor false.

As posted just now " I am lying" is by logic an unprovable statement because it cannot be proven true nor untrue.

Some seek materialistic explanation, some seek spiritual - and some seek none at all, but aim to be decedent humans, some possibly end up nihilistic, and even aim at being nihilistic.

My personal view is: care not too much what what is argued in a sophist way - I do think there is a questioning way of assessing if we do good or ill, as Jesus Christ was a radical really, and if we find it too easy to "condemn" we should look inwardly.

What I particularly dislike, as such, are persons who justify personal bigotry and lack generosity by belief - or non-belief.

I can only say that my maternal grand-mother was such a deep person who with - or I think even without - her "common to the people" belief could accept her death with serenity and dignity. And if she indeed enjoyed afterlife as she should have, she would have seen that her funeral rites were such a beauty, about her life, not her passing.

I personally can only go for universal salvation, or nothingness: such a person as she can only be accepted at the sight of God, whatever the orthodoxy or her human failings, or it should not matter.

I love how you say this almost every time you reply to me, it's so cute. The object doesn't need to be something that you have ever see before. If it had various patterns, you could still reasonably conclude that it was designed even if you had no idea what it was. If you're willing grant that the universe was created, then why is it a stretch to think that it was designed? 1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

This argument has the same logical modus ponens form as the Kalam argument, so it is not question begging. Question begging is when someone's only reason for believing a premise is true is that they already believe the conclusion. It would look something like this:

1.) Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.
2.) The moon is not made of green cheese.
3,) Therefore, God exists.

This is a sound argument because the premises are both true and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic in a disjunctive syllogism. Nevertheless, the argument is no good because the only reason for someone to believe 1 is true is that they already believe that God exists. The other arguments are not like this because there are reasons for believing the premises are true that are independent of the conclusion. I see no reason to doubt #1 and I'm honestly curious if you can name a single professional philosopher who does. The first mover does not have an infinite regress problem because it's impossible to have an infinite series of secondary causes without a primary cause. If there is no primary cause, then there are no secondary causes. Prior to Big Bang cosmology, atheists had long held that the universe was eternal and thus it didn't have a cause, so the idea that eternal things don't have causes is nothing new. If the universe had a beginning, then it has a cause, if it doesn't have a beginning, then it doesn't have a cause. Something that's eternal doesn't have a beginning, so It's absolutely ridiculous to ask what caused it.

Look mate, I'm not going to expose a proof for my beliefs. It seems you have already forgotten we agreed it is impossible to prove anything about this topic. It is impossible for us to know, and be certain of, the truth about this. I am not trying to prove anything about God. You are. I am trying to indicate and argue for our audience's benefit something about you.

In this reply alone you:
1 - Argue from authority, even though belief in science is identical to belief in religion at the level of discussion we are having
2 - Argue from majority as if the number of believers that the universe is logical and rational proves it
3 - Strawman me into proponent of invalid sylogisms, or as if I am saying your sylogisms are invalid, yet what I dispute is the truth value of the premises and therefore of the conclusions
4 - Dismiss the whole opposing argument altogether by providing no argument at all why illogical causes cannot have logical results
5 - Play semantics, as the first mover argument which you have used repeatedly is an argument about our existence, which as far as I recall is called ontology
6 - Argue from authority again, this time about professional philosophers
7 - Strawman again, this time about heliocentrism
8 - Ignore the challenge again - your arguments prove nothing about a logical creator, unless you can prove an illogical one is impossible - but of course you just make it a premise and assume it to be true.
9 - Or in other words, you premise the proof, and when challenged on the premise you argue using the conclusion. Circular reasoning at its best. You argue that a cause exists through asserting the universe is rational - if the universe is not rational, all your valid arguments may be false. When asked to justify why the universe is rational, you argue that the cause makes it so, or that it is prima facies so.

"I accept that I may be wrong about the purpose of existence, but I believe otherwise, and there is evidence to support my belief." I can say the exact same, with equal validity, and equal truth. To be clear, the truth is unknown for both of our beliefs. Your belief is not objectively better than mine.


You have got to be kidding me... This is exactly what you do in regards to the universe being causal, deterministic and logical. Of course you say that you reach such a conclusions scientifically, but the truth is you also believe it, and it is deeply connected with your belief in a cause of existence.

EDIT: You know what, I have better things to do than to argue with somebody that's willfully ignorant.

No, I ask, why presume the existence of a God, at all?....Scientific conjecture must not be clouded by elements of bias. There is little evidence to show the existence of such an entity and is merely fanciful thinking on the behest of human beings. The essence of this myth is the 'Creation ex nihilo' bias...then again we have to understand that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum in space.

For dark matter exists even there . I reckon that human minds are still too primitive in how it is that we perceive and conceive things with the finite number of senses that we carry. We should draw inference from observation and only then arrive at a logical conclusion. As it stands now, human beings fail to comprehend natural phenomena and understand the origins of life and thus 'god' is merely an allusion to our ignorance.

Our not understanding something doesn't make it illogical. It's true we can't explain Him though. agreed that this question is both illogical and pointless. It's just a word game in itself.
Soyeong made the point that omnipotent does not mean capable of illogical things. A square circle is illogical by definition.
(You could take a square and then bend space so that it appears to be a circle from afar but is a square locally, but that doesn't change what it is.)
The rock could be unliftable by one incarnation of God but then He could make a new incarnation that could lift it. Away from the rules of gravity and mass, the question has no meaning. It answers the question of "Where does the universe come from?" Or do you mean that knowing this is unhelpful as we can't understand what the answer means? (42) Agreed that He raises more questions, some are unanswerable from our perspective and knowlege of the universe. That doesn't make the explanation pointless - if we know that the explanation is God (and I'm not saying that we can know this for sure), then it defines our universe.
Asking "Where did He come from?" would assume a beginning to Him and a cause. Soyeong is arguing that He has no cause as He is (and must be, or it sets the question back without answering it) eternal.
Sorry - I'm missing your point here (it could be lack of sleep) - can you explain please?
(It's designed to do the one through calculation, but not designed to do the other)
Quantum mechanics has particles created by fluctuations in vacuum energy - not without cause. The cause is the fluctuations. We may not fully understand what causes those, but I don't think we've arrived at 'causeless'
Is there a science link I'm missing?

"Where does the Universe come from if it wasn't created by God?" is just the same 'God of the gaps' justification that the religious have been using for thousands of years, and still just boils down to 'I don't know, therefore God'. Science has been disproving this argument for thousands of years (Why does it rain? Why does the sun come up every day?) and I'm sure will continue to do so.

If it were only like this, if God would always retreat once science offers a more logical perspective, than there wouldn't be creationist teaching possible.

On the other hand i can imagine science not being able to explain everything. The big bang probably is the start of what we can conceive and investigating black holes directly will be also difficult not to mention the parts of the universe which are beyond our event horizon. Or the string theory, will it ever get verified? It's really close to believe.

I guess science is really bad in answering something like: "Why does the universe exist". Not that religions are better there.

This assumes that God doesn't do all those things that science finds the reason for.
The argument isn't that 'we thought that God made the sun rise but now we know He didn't'
It's that 'We thought He made the sun rise by magic and now we know He makes it rise through the rotation of the Earth'
My point: We're not taking God out of the equation, just because we understand some of the variables better.
If God were to somehow 'cease' then the universe would cease with Him. He makes the laws of physics etc. He's a part of the universe as well as apart from it. Why complain because He built it on rules? And those rules can't be used to argue against His existence.
If you want to say 'we don't know for sure' then I'll agree.
If you're trying to suggest that science has gone anywhere near disproving Him, then we'll disagree.

Only because they had no Large Hadron Collider. Now we know better.

People like YOU used to believe that, even a while after we knew better. See above.


LMAO come on, that site is obviously satire. I mean who falls for that,, this site is funny stuff.