"I don't like even being around them"

[Justadude]

Hello justadude,

'exactly' is a pretty high standard. How about just a reasonable argument that there must be a 'first cause' to the universe?

Have you read St. Thomas Aquinas? (Its on my to do list lol).

I think this has the argument: The First Cause Argument

Faith and reason go hand in hand.

Peace be with you!

No, making an old argument about "first cause" does not constitute any sort of definition of what a "god" is.

 

[Justadude]

But, how do you REALLY feel?

I don't know if it's a result of internet forum culture, but whenever I've joined a religious forum I come away thinking that just about every negative stereotype of religious people has some truth to it. Sure, not every Christian is relatively uneducated, scientifically ignorant, believes their dreams are magical, lacking in critical thinking, believes in conspiracy theories even when they contradict each other, judgmental, self-righteous, bigoted, rude, close-minded, tribal, shallow, and just plain weird. But a heck of a lot of them are.....way more than in any other group I've ever wandered into.

The atheist/skeptic and science groups I've belonged to have an occasional case of some that now and then, but not in anything near the proportion as Christian groups, where all those things seem to be part of the baseline condition.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[amadeus]

Yeah, I've definitely gotten the message that even the "non-christian forums" are primarily intended as a place for Christians to preach to non-Christians, with no expectation of ever listening to them.

IOW, the "general discussions" and "inter-faith discussion" sub-forums are misnamed, since there is no expectations for actual discussion. It would be more appropriate to put them together under the label "Church for Non-Christians".

Yes, it is a Christian forum without regard to the sub-forum. I don't know the original the intentions of the builders of the forum, but it is what it is and people, including yourself, are what they are. You still want to decide how people should act or react to or interact with you. In that respect it is similarly to just about anywhere else, except for more of a bias against you. Should you really be expecting something else?

 

[Philip James]

No, making an old argument about "first cause" does not constitute any sort of definition of what a "god" is.

Hey dude,

If we are to have a rational discussion, defining our terms is important, as is asking for clarification if we don't understand each other.
Dismissing an argument because it is 'old' and not on the merits of its argument is not rational.

If we define 'God' as that first cause on which the entire universe depends is this somehow unreasonable?

Peace!

 

[Cristo Rei]

@Justadude
Anyway here is a short brief on the main lines of evidence for the big bang along with a link to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And here is a brief video explaining the main versions of the multiverse idea along with the wikipedia link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

[Willie T]

I don't know if it's a result of internet forum culture, but whenever I've joined a religious forum I come away thinking that just about every negative stereotype of religious people has some truth to it. Sure, not every Christian is relatively uneducated, scientifically ignorant, believes their dreams are magical, lacking in critical thinking, believes in conspiracy theories even when they contradict each other, judgmental, self-righteous, bigoted, rude, close-minded, tribal, shallow, and just plain weird. But a heck of a lot of them are.....way more than in any other group I've ever wandered into.

The atheist/skeptic and science groups I've belonged to have an occasional case of some that now and then, but not in anything near the proportion as Christian groups, where all those things seem to be part of the baseline condition.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

Most of the people I know, IRL, who exhibit Christ-like behavior, will have nothing to do with a "Christian forum." They shun them like the plague.

 

[Justadude]

You still want to decide how people should act or react to or interact with you.

Incorrect.

In that respect it is similarly to just about anywhere else, except for more of a bias against you. Should you really be expecting something else?

That's not what this is about.

 

[Justadude]

If we are to have a rational discussion, defining our terms is important, as is asking for clarification if we don't understand each other.

Then define "god" in a useful way. "First cause" is merely a description of what this "god" did, not what it is.

Dismissing an argument because it is 'old' and not on the merits of its argument is not rational.

I'm dismissing it because it doesn't answer the question I asked.

If we define 'God' as that first cause on which the entire universe depends is this somehow unreasonable?

Not unless you're willing to refer to a quantum fluctuation or some sort of gravitational math as "god".

 

[Justadude]

Most of the people I know, IRL, who exhibit Christ-like behavior, will have nothing to do with a "Christian forum." They shun them like the plague.

Funny thing though, much of the behavior I see here I've also seen in real life Christians.

 

[MattMooradian]

You are an idiot ! that's why . a simpleton ! a fool ! or just a clown ! that's the perceptio

"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool', shall be in danger of hell fire." Mt. 5:22).

 

[amadeus]

Incorrect.
That's not what this is about.

What is it about then?

 

[Willie T]

Funny thing though, much of the behavior I see here I've also seen in real life Christians.

I can't ever remember someone IRL telling anyone they were ignorant, didn't know God, or had no idea what the Bible said. That is fairly common, online.

 

[Justadude]

What is it about then?

It's what we discussed earlier, namely how Christians are only interested in preaching to someone like me, with zero interest in any feedback or questions. IOW, the Christian approach to non-Christians is "Sit down, shut up, and listen to me preach."

 

[Justadude]

I can't ever remember someone IRL telling anyone they were ignorant, didn't know God, or had no idea what the Bible said. That is fairly common, online.

That's not what I was talking about.

 

[Justadude]

"First cause' is a descriptor of God! Creator of all. Big bang (if it is ever proven to be true) does not negate God as the first cause, nor does the multiverse theory. Some descriptors of 'God' are well known to everyone: omnipresent, omnipotent, & omniscience. So, I am confused at your request for a description of God.

"First cause" is no more of a descriptor of what a "god" is than "bus driver" is a descriptor of what a "human" is. Both only tell you what the entity does, not what it is.

If you are referring to God's substance, then I agree. To say 'God is spirit' does not give any useful information, except to say that God is not made of matter. But, that is defining God by what He is not - which is no definition at all. We can hypothesize that God's spiritual substance is "dark matter", a type of matter that is imperceptible to human observations (because dark matter does not reflect light). We are only able to observe the consequences of dark matter, but we cannot perceive dark matter directly. We can use this same 'substance' (dark matter) to explain the presence of the human 'soul', which is also beyond observation (at this point in time).

That's much closer to what I'm talking about.

 

[amadeus]

It's what we discussed earlier, namely how Christians are only interested in preaching to someone like me, with zero interest in any feedback or questions. IOW, the Christian approach to non-Christians is "Sit down, shut up, and listen to me preach."

Probably with most of them you are right. I don't mind a little talk outside that framework, but you should not expect me to go completely outside of my faith in order to discuss. I really believe in what I live. Like it or not, my walk with God is the most important thing in my life. I won't bypass it for a talk.

 

[Justadude]

Probably with most of them you are right. I don't mind a little talk outside that framework, but you should not expect me to go completely outside of my faith in order to discuss. I really believe in what I live. Like it or not, my walk with God is the most important thing in my life. I won't bypass it for a talk.

And that was reflected when you were clearly expecting to preach at me and once I began providing feedback you got rather upset.

The expected framework from you and other Christians here: "Sit down, shut up, and let me preach at you. I expect you to be interested in what I say, but I have zero interest in hearing anything from you."

 

[Philip James]

Then define "god" in a useful way. "First cause" is merely a description of what this "god" did, not what it is.

Did you not look at the argument? It is rational argument that affirms that there must be a first cause. And that 'first cause' must BE, independent of the universe. If it is not dependent on space/time then it must be eternal and omnipresent..

I'm dismissing it because it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Perhaps not, but one must first make the argument that the 'first cause' IS before there's much point in making an argument for how we can know anything about it beyond that it must BE...

Not unless you're willing to refer to a quantum fluctuation or some sort of gravitational math as "god".

Hmm.. Is this 'quantum fluctuation' independent of time and space? Is it, itself, eternal? If it is not then it cannot be the first cause, and we must instead examine what caused the 'quantum fluctuation'..

As for math.... Were I to express the 'first cause' as a mathematical expression, i would use x/0 . the unknown and indivisible...

Peace be with you!

 

[amadeus]

And that was reflected when you were clearly expecting to preach at me and once I began providing feedback you got rather upset.

The expected framework from you and other Christians here: "Sit down, shut up, and let me preach at you. I expect you to be interested in what I say, but I have zero interest in hearing anything from you."

If that is really what think you see or what you expect, I again wonder why you are serious about continuing here unless you are openly hopeful of finding someone either very weak or not sincere in his espoused beliefs.

 

[Justadude]

Did you not look at the argument? It is rational argument that affirms that there must be a first cause. And that 'first cause' must BE, independent of the universe. If it is not dependent on space/time then it must be eternal and omnipresent..

I've seen it 100 times and never found it at all persuasive. It's little more than a "god of the gaps" argument.

Perhaps not, but one must first make the argument that the 'first cause' IS before there's much point in making an argument for how we can know anything about it beyond that it must BE...

I disagree. All the argument does is make a case for a "first cause", then make suite of (at times) unfounded assumptions about the traits of that cause, then assert without evidence that "god" has those traits, and then declare that "therefore god must be the first cause".

But to be clear, I'm not interested in debating the existence of something called a "god" if it can't be defined in a meaningful way.

Hmm.. Is this 'quantum fluctuation' independent of time and space? Is it, itself, eternal? If it is not then it cannot be the first cause, and we must instead examine what caused the 'quantum fluctuation'..

This is where a basic knowledge of science comes in handy. Prior to the big bang there was neither time nor space, so yes the fluctuation was independent of them. Also, a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that at the sub-atomic level, events happen randomly and without cause. That's why Einstein mistakenly rejected QM and quipped "God doesn't play dice with the universe".

Therefore, a quantum fluctuation meets all of your criteria. Yet I doubt you would refer to it as "god".

As for math.... Were I to express the 'first cause' as a mathematical expression, i would use x/0 . the unknown and indivisible...

I'm content to let the professionals do the math.