Wrong? I don’t know on an absolute scale. I do know that the ones I’m aware of are wrong for me. That is why I practice no religion. For me there is the personal relationship with God/Creator. And there is religion. I’ve no interest in the latter.
I’m perfectly fine arguing the logical argument that points to the necessity of God. The rest I’m private about for the reasons mentioned.
Which is what, exactly?
I’m sorry. But I’m genuinely having a difficult time understanding your points and questions. So I’ll just offer this up in the hope that it helps: I don’t see my faith as being blind—as far as the existence of God. Not sure what you mean by “me having hammered it in”.
Again, having a hard time. Odd. Perhaps if you asked me specific questions that would help. Just a suggestion, though.
The need (in my estimation) for a First Cause that needs not be caused itself. I though you would have gleaned that by now.
Well, I was hoping you’d have something more novel, but even if we assume a First Cause existed, it acted momentarily billions of years ago and there’s no indication of its involvement since. What “relationship” could we have with such an entity, if entity is the right word?
For me, as I said, it is a highly personal one. I feel like I’m on the right track acknowledging his/its existence. The rest I mainly wonder about, trying to figure it all out as things get thrown my way.
Matter. There it is. Time has nothing to do with it.
Well, if you ever find some actual evidence, don’t be shy.
Will do.
I’m an atheist, but I’m prepared to accept that we (and by “we” I mean everyone) cannot explain existence itself at this time.
Some atheists seem uncomfortable about this, and maintain that there is no philosophical mystery: there is.
Of course, using this fact as a support of theism isn’t quite as strong as the OP imagines.
For one thing, the OP uses Occam’s razor to discount the theory of the universe popping into existence. Yet later god pops into the equation, quietly ducking the razor.
Secondly many of the arguments that the universe must have had a beginning are based around properties of this space time “bubble”. Even if the OP does not consider quantum foam, say, as “nothing” (which I agree with), it is still the case that such states are not necessarily finite the way our spacetime appears to be.
In other words, there’s no reason to suppose that “it all” has a beginning, therefore affecting the “The universe has a beginning” premise of the ontological argument.
But finally, I’m not convinced that eternal entities necessarily don’t require a cause. This is the unspoken assumption of the ontological argument.
Clearly there are eternal entities / concepts that do not exist.
So even if god / our universe were eternal, it wouldn’t explain anything. We’d still be able to ask: why does this eternal entity exist and not others?
And when you think about it, there’s very little difference, perhaps no difference, between this question and “How did our finite universe pop into existence”?
I never claimed that by the 20th century, no one in Jewish spirituality or theology would have attempted to identify some of the attributes associated with God. No one who had read Hillel, Shammai, Maimomides, or even Philo would make the claim that the concept of understanding God was alien to Judaism. I was pointing out that after multiple rude posts, all relying pretty much on the Shema, alone, raindog had failed to substantiate his point that scripture demonstrated that God was knowable.
He still has not.
I can point to a few passages in scripture that could support his claim, (along with the passages from Job that deny it–scripture being the marvelously versatile instrument that it is), but if he is going to attack other posters on a point, he should at least provide the evidence that supports his position rather than simply talking in circles and making up his own interpretations that are not supported by the text.
These are not the scenarios that I posited in the OP.
There are billions of people who believe they have connected with God, have felt his presence and influence. Now, understand my point, I’m not suggesting this is evidence that God exists. But it is consistent with the existence of an “active” creator God.
I’m just reacting to the comment “no indication of its involvement since.” Nothing provable, but certainly there is an indication of a possible ongoing involvement. But, for me, that’s beside the point. It is apparently irresistible to respond to the assertion of the First Cause with the question, “But how does that prove that the God a given people believe in exists?” even when that notion was specifically disavowed.
That’s right; these were my own simplified alternatives to the creation mystery.
Simplified even further - God did it, or Shit Happens.
If it’s the former, I’d be interested to know why god only decided to get involved with its plaything when primitive man had managed to invent Hebrew? Were its creations not worthy of its contact until a certain time and place in history?
Here’s a suggestion and/or challenge to those of a religious persuasion of any kind. Acquire a copy of Geoff Simon’s “Time To Be Rational- Darwin, Demons and Sex” and read it as diligently as you read your respective holy books — read it, and then read it again, to makes sure you’ve got the real gist of it. Then come back and post rationally.
If this was acceptable as evidence, it would be evidence of hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of different gods, considering all the different and contradictory messages the populace receives.
That’s why he has that long, white beard
Billions of people also have believed the world was flat, and the center of the universe. Some have the need to want a being that takes care of them.
Belief about a God is the belief in another humans words, or beliefs, that is why believing that the Bible or the Koran or any book is not proof of God’s sayings but what some human says it is.
Not if existence has always existed, as it is impossible for nothing to exist! It is true it proves little, but it doesn’t mean a being could exist out of existence, so a being would need a place, and existence could be place!
No, the argument just goes to the existence of God. Period. If people then take the additional step of saying what God is or wants, that’s beyond the scope of the Firs case argument. And when they start to build a religion around him, that another step yet—a big one.