God speaks to the theists.

[Xavier_Onassis]

God speaks to the theists.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A_iF1B3k0

[Plane]

At least I made it all the way through that one.

That particular Atheist would agree with all other Atheists on all logic in every location and time? 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think atheists comprise any sort of movement.  I don't think they have to. There is no First Atheist Church, Atheism is not a religion. Just as black is not really a color, the absence of color, atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. They hardly have to argue about the kind of God they do not believe in, just as Teetotalers do not have to argue over which alcoholic concoction they do not drink.

There are really only three possibilities: the universe was created by a creator, the universe has always existed, or the universe created itself.  If we claim that everything must have a beginning, then God must also have a beginning. 

We know from observation that the Universe is in a state of constant flux. Perhaps at one time it was a tiny, unbelievably heavy blob, but at some point it seems to have blown up, and the process is not yet complete. Perhaps it will never be complete. It hardly matters, given the immense amount of time involved. For our purposes it it infinite and eternal, or might as well be.

In an infinite space in which a nearly, but not completely. infinite amount of matter and energy exists for an infinite time, then all possible combinations of energy and matter will eventually combine,  dissolve, and recombine. That makes every bit as much sense as the God in the white beard painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. (which seems to be Dark Matter's model for his cartoons). Perhaps it makes even more sense, because that way we do not have to deal with who created God.  God the infinite being is more improbable than an infinite universe. At least according to the process we call Occam's Razor, if there are several explanations for a given phenomenon, the simplest is usually the best.

The point of this cartoon is that there are a vast number of theists, and they all have just Theism in common, as their opinion of God is one that has been influenced by their many divergent cultures.

[Christians4LessGvt]

If we claim that everything must have a beginning, then God must also have a beginning.

This reminds me of "Who created God?"
That is illogical, just like to whom is the bachelor married?

[Plane]

  If we claim that everything must have a beginning, then...

Stop.
Who claims this?

I don't think atheists comprise any sort of movement.

Neither do "Theist" people as defined in this cartoon.

Atheist is just one of many ways to get it wrong, but there is one very interesting conclusion made in this cartoon. More people feel the presence of God than don't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not at all. That is what is called a " smartass preacher remark".  It will  get you nowhere in even Philosophy 101.

The argument is that God MUST exist because everything that exists must have been created.

God is not nothing, and therefore is something that also must have been created.

If God is eternal, then the Universe itself can also be eternal, and then what we call the Universe could have created itself.

Nothing can be created from nothing. Nothing can be created ex nihilo.

If there is a God, then at some point there was God, and a bunch of stuff (energy, matter or both) and God made the Universe from it.
There is only other one alternative, that God created the Universe out of Himself. This is called Pantheism. All is God.

Of course, when you say that God is perfect, that sort of ruins the argument, because the Universe has much about it that is not perfect. Pi is not a rational number. stars explode and implode in random ways.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Neither do "Theist" people as defined in this cartoon.

Each one represents a



Atheist is just one of many ways to get it wrong, but there is one very interesting conclusion made in this cartoon. More people feel the presence of God than don't.

======================================================================
Not really. 

People like the idea of a perfect world more than the imperfect one we all  inhabit. Tinkerbelle can fly if we just believe hard enough. If we just have faith, we can do anything. Well, we like to say that. R Kelly sings that he believes he can fly, but so far he has not believed hard enough to jump off a cliff, bridge or tall building. People have this compulsion to scribble Jesus is Coming because they do not really believe it. They ate afraid that others feel the same way, and scribble this again and again so they will not be reminded of their doubt.

It also seems to help to shield their doubt with guilt, as in "I do not deserve to have an eternal life, it is only a gift for which I must express my gratitude
perpetually.

People know that the bus is coming. They feel no compulsion to write  "The Bus is coming soon: Be prepared to meet your Driver". all over the place.

People like the idea of having some purpose to their lives. It is a lot easier than figuring out their own personal purpose for themselves, to say, "I am on this planet to adore the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."

People do not like the idea of dying at all, and they like the prospect of staying dead even less. Along comes some charismatic, benevolent figure who claims that he can give you eternal pie in the sky when you die, and of course people buy into it. What do they have to lose? Or to put it more correctly, what they have to gain is living forever. Most do not think much about how singing praises in the Choir Celestial might get a tad tedious after four or five centuries.

By the way, eternal life and God are not necessarily related. There could be a creator got that could not create immortal souls. There could be a god that did not want to create immortal souls. And you could have an immortal soul even if you were not created by a deity.

Beliefs should not be assumed to be interconnected like options packages for cars. There are always those people who conclude that if you do not believe in every element of the Apostle's Creed, you don't believe in anything.

[Plane]

I don't think your logic is solid.

If the creation requires a creator, this does not imply that the creator requires a creator.

  If a cucoo clock requires wooden gears to be created , does this even imply that a clockmaker requires wooden gears to be created?

    Suppose at a flea market you find a ship in a bottle , this is strong evidence that there is somewhere a ship-in-a-bottle-maker, but is it evidence that the maker of ships in bottles lives in a bottle?

    I have to suppose that God is not nothing , but does this somehow prove that God is alike to the things of creation?

   Gods nature might be different than the nature of our observable universe and how much different we are poorly equipped to measure.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have to suppose that God is not nothing , but does this somehow prove that God is alike to the things of creation?
=================================================
There is zero evidence that God is different from the rest of the Universe. If, indeed, such an entity exists.

Again, I invoke Occam's Razor. Simplest solutions are usually the best.

It is simpler to believe that the Universe created itself. It is simpler to believe that a mass of energy and matter has always existed than to believe that a mass of energy and matter AND a talented, yet bored omnipotent hobbycrafter has always existed.

If we simply assume the existence of such an entity, then it is simpler to believe that such a being is like the other sentient beings that we know.  The Book of Genesis agrees with this when it says we humans were created in God's image. Christians have to believe that God can assume a human form.


.The cuckoo clock's creator was created by his parents. We all know that. He has no wooden gears.
 
There are tricks to assembling ships in bottles. If I wanted to know them, I am pretty sure there is a youtube video. I have never thought for one second that ships in bottles are assembled by itsy bitsy shipwrights. I doubt that you were, either.

===================================
   God's nature might be different than the nature of our observable universe and how much different we are poorly equipped to measure.

Yeah, and then it may not. God as described in the Bible seems to be a very insecure critter who creates an entire universe so he will have a species that constantly sings his praises. Of course, if they fail to sing well enough, he can throw a divine hissyfit and drown them, burn them, turn them into pillars of salt, have them driven out of their homes by mean Babylonians. After all, they deserve nothing. They are gulty, guilty as Hell. Their ancestor once dared to make the mistake of taking unwise culinary advice from a talking reptile!  The gaul! Punish them unto the thousandth generation!   

The main known features of God are that he is invisible, inaudible, and cannot be perceived by the senses. If he really wanted to be worshiped, he could make a seriously convincing  appearance every century or so. Otherwise, his existence it merely as questionable as that of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa, and the real  Mr. Clean, Mrs. Butterworth, Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben and Fat Fong, the fortune cookie baker.

I am from Missouri. I require a lot more proof than you seem to. To discuss God's personality and origins, his existence must first be established. Just as to discuss the techniques of the wee shipbuilders, we must first now beyond a reasonable doubt that ships in bottles were built by micro shipwrights, rather than by crafty geezers with long tweezers.

We know that people are quite capable of creating entities in their heads that do not exist. I create characters that reappear in my dreams upon occasion.
So we are also capable of creating gods, goddesses, angels, jinns, spirits and such. I am sure that there were many Greek priests who truly believed that they received divine messages from Zeus, Hermes,  Athena, Ares, Poseidon and the rest of the Olympians. Of course, the Christian take on such delusions is that they were all diabolic. Old gods cannot be just pitched out with the garbage, they first need to be converted into demons.

[Plane]

  Occam's razor is not really logic.

    It might be simpler to think that pocket watches grow on trees than to think that each one requires the skills of dozens of people from miners to metal smelters to assemblers.
   Simpler is good to prefer , but isn't proof of anything.

[Plane]

There is zero evidence that God is different from the rest of the Universe. If, indeed, such an entity exists.

  This abandons your earlier argument that God requires a creator because if everything else requires creation then God does too.


There is zero evidence that God is the same as the rest of the Universe. If, indeed, such an entity exists.
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say that I believe that everything has to have a creator. I said that those who claim that God exists because the universe requires a creator refuse to accept that God also must have a creator.

I said way back there that I believe that it is more probable that  the Universe and the matter and energy it consists of has in all probability always existed, and it has combined and recombined in every possible manner.  Nothing can be created out of nothing.

But there are many possibilities, since we still do not understand the role of Dark Matter and other details of the Universe.
Occam's razor is a basic principle for speculating about maters of causality.

I am not abandoning any argument. I simply do not accept that the Biblical argument is unsatisfactory from to many angles to be true.

[Plane]

 I simply do not accept that the Biblical argument is unsatisfactory from to many angles to be true.

Nether do I

Occam's razor is a basic principle for speculating about maters of causality.

As a principal, it is valuable to prefer the simple explanation over the needlessly convoluted, but it is not truly logic as it is often possible that the truth is complex.

But there are many possibilities, since we still do not understand the role of Dark Matter and other details of the Universe.

Yes , dark matter's reality is a recent discovery but all the evidence we have of it is its affect on gravity, as if gravity was existing alone. This is pretty weird.

I said way back there that I believe that it is more probable that  the Universe and the matter and energy it consists of has in all probability always existed, and it has combined and recombined in every possible manner.

Logic does not support this idea, because matter does become energy , but energy does not become matter. also energy tends to spread while matter tends to gather, so the universe is running down. If the universe is running down then it will ultimately run down entirely and in the past it must have been more energetic . At some time in the past it must have been started at a more energetic state than now. The necessity of an ending strongly indicates that a beginning must be.

Nothing can be created out of nothing.

How do you know that something can't be created from nothing? You should check out Isaac Asimov's speculation on the subject.
 http://www.worldcat.org/title/science-numbers-and-i/oclc/594837937

Look at the chapter titled "Four Leaf Clover".

I did not say that I believe that everything has to have a creator. I said that those who claim that God exists because the universe requires a creator refuse to accept that God also must have a creator.

  I make the assumption that you are a mammal and that since all Mammals have mothers , you must have had a mother.

     If I am wrong in this assumption of your mammalhood perhaps you are a Jellyfish and was engendered as a bud or you are a paramecium and your origin is lost in antiquity when ever that first mitosis occurred.

      That we observe a decomposing universe that must have a beginning and end does not even imply that God is alike in that respect to it.

Indeed if God is the creator then he must predate the creation.

And still I am assuming that God and the entire universe are progressing in time as I am, which is a less certain assumption than my assumption that you are not a jellyfish. 

[Plane]

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Numbers-I-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0441754570/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452229064&sr=1-1&keywords=science+numbers+and+i+asimov

[Xavier_Onassis]

  That we observe a decomposing universe that must have a beginning and end does not even imply that God is alike in that respect to it.

The Universe is not decomposing. There are, at any given moment, an infinite or practically infinite number of stars dying  and of Novas coming into existence.

I think it is a safe speculation that anything can be created from nothing. Asimov, as a scientist, certainly can speculate, as can we all, but it is a far more likely speculation than, for example, the Holy Trinity, or the Second Coming.