god, not God

Any time I debate somebody about the existence of the supernatural (which, admittedly, isn’t very often – I tend to keep my debates online only) they always seem to have reasons why they believe in a god and why I should too. Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument, obviously, but that’s not the point here. What I find amusing is that nobody has ever argued with me in favor of their god.

You can tell me all you want that evolution is a hoax and we were created. You might even give me “evidence” that we were created (you can’t – I’m just sayin’). But your “evidence” doesn’t support a theory of creation by your god. Just by a god. Not even necessarily by a god, but by some supernatural force. You’ve provided me with no argument whatsoever why the particular god you believe in must have been the one who created us.

To me, no religion makes sense. But deism makes far more sense than any organized religion. “There is something out there that started all this, but I won’t presume I know any more about it than that.”

There is no thought or reason behind believing in one god but disbelieving in all others, there is especially no reason behind choosing a particular god over others, and frankly I find the notion of choosing a god to believe in quite silly anyway.

About these ads

15 thoughts on “god, not God

  1. I can do just that.

    Here it is:

    The Christian God (triune) is metaphysically necessary in order for unity and diversity to have a meaningful expression in the first cause. A strict monad would have ultimate unity but no natural expression of diversity and hence would *need* the diversity of contingent beings; in other words this being could not metaphysically have aseity at least as it is correlative to diversification.

    Pantheism posits no distinction between unity and diversity; hence diversity is illusory though empirical experience militates against such a view. If diversity is illusory the antitheistic thoughts of a quasi-divine being must be considered identical with the positive conceptions of the theist.

    Polytheism faces the opposite dilemma. Ultimate diversity negates unity and finds no expression for unity of thought. Therefore the Christian God is the only God that could possibly exist due to the rational-irrational tension of the other conceptions. Coincidentally, naturalism suffers a similar fate.

    • Now, I am partial to significantly substantial verbal articulations to an equal or greater extent as the subsequently minimally distant (from my reference plane) masculine hominid, but you Sir, are taking the Michael…

      I like big words as much as the next man.

      See how much easier that was to read, understand and indeed think about?

      The fancy words have their place, but your argument above seems to be deliberately hiding behind these words…

      For example, Triune. As I’m sure you know, this means “Three in One” (like the oil). The common word Trinity would have done as well, or indeed better as it is the one used to describe the triple christian deity by most people.

      But lets look at your argument: (in English!)

      “The Christian God (triune) is metaphysically necessary in order for unity and diversity to have a meaningful expression in the first cause.”

      The Christian God is required for oneness and difference to be meaningful if it is to be used as a creator of the universe.

      I have no need of oneness or difference for the universe to exist! To then argue that a God without many confusing parts makes no sense because it has no confusing parts is therefore not required.

      I was going to go on with the rest, but my need for diversity leads me elsewhere…

      Try writing this again, in a style that makes your argument clear, and I look forward to discussing this with you.

      • Hi JBob,

        I read your blog post which seems to be more or less a reiteration of your comments here.

        You said: The fancy words have their place, but your argument above seems to be deliberately hiding behind these words

        i. This is an assertion on your part. I have no idea what you mean by this. Which words am I hiding behind? You are essentially charging me with sophistry without providing the refutation of my argument [ I suppose I could take my queue from you and simply say your hiding behind your words]

        ii. If you *read* my argument carefully the Triune {Trinity, Triune, Tri-unity are all synonyms} was bracketed after the words _Christian_God_ this was mentioned to set apart the *Christian* conception of God over against other religious claims. If you read AD’s original post he specifically mentioned that Theists have not provided arguments in *favor* of their God(s).

        You go on to say:
        I have no need of oneness or difference for the universe to exist! To then argue that a God without many confusing parts makes no sense because it has no confusing parts is therefore not required.

        i. In these comments you equivocate. Notice the change in argument from a positive argument about the existence of the Christian God to the assertion that unity and diversity have no utility for you but that’s not an argument for anything. Is unity and diversity {or oneness and difference} as you put it a logical necessity? If you argue that unity and diversity are ultimately meaningless then categories become nonsensical as the referent to the word *Cow* for example could mean an individual cow and every cow everywhere. This is irrational.

        Finally, Christianity does not posit a *triple* God, that would be Tri-Theism which is not at all what Christianity teaches.

  2. Interesting that you linked to my post of several days ago. The comments on that post revealed to me the fact that when I expound on what I was talking about I need to be clear that my arguments are not intended for, and will not convince, any atheists or agnostics. My discussion is relative only to people who do have a belief in a Supreme Being, and more particularly in God as that Supreme Being.

    Very interesting points you mention, thanks for linking to me so I could see it.

  3. Thanks for that A. Dave. I had never considered the point before. However leaving aside creation for the moment, my concept of God (promoted on my progressive Christianity website) is that God is a metaphor for compassion or Love (ie God is Love).
    Because this is a useful ideal and would resolve many community and international problems – and also makes sense of Jesus as the personification of Love – and even the Holy Spirit – Love in action, I suspect that this concept might even have universal attraction. I would go further and say that to promote an alternative metaphor – eg God is Judgement, or God is the exclusive Being for a particular people – might wind up to be completley counter-productive. The concept of God as being behind creation is more than my tiny mind can make sense of. Who was it who said that Man who cannot make a worm can make Gods by the dozen. I will wait a little until the physicists can at least describe the creation process and then figure out that bit later.

  4. Pingback: Finally! A clear argument proving the existence of the Christian God. « The Bob Delusion

  5. what god you’re talking about? there are many gods according to the bible:

    (Psalms 82:1, 6) “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

    (John 10:34-35) “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken…”

    (Exodus 7:1) “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

    (1 John 5:20) “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

    (John 20:28) “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

    (2 Corinthians 4:4) “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

    (Philippians 3:19) “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”

  6. BBG, every time I read something you post I get the impression your ability to debate rests entirely on your use of $10 words and your utter rejection of any other position but yours having any validity at all. You don’t make points so much as you denigrate and reject others points.

    Your arguments all come down to you claiming that the world as it exists could not possibly be without your god having made it so and nothing anyone else says can have any truth to it at all. When called on it, you simply ramp up the rhetoric.

    I can but wonder if this does not mask a massive insecurity about your beliefs. Frankly, I think you protest to much to really be secure in your beliefs.

  7. To the main point of this post, I think it’s a very intriguing debate that creation only proves the supernatural, not a specific supernatural entity. However, I believe this to be looking at it from a surface level only, and doesn’t go deep enough into it.

    I look at the Moral Argument for God’s existence, which I will agree with C.S. Lewis in thinking it is one of the more compelling arguments to be made for God. The implications of the argument, however, posit a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, immanent, immutable, morally perfect Moral Law-Giver. As far as I can tell, only one such Being fits that mold.

    If you would like to see the simplest explanation I could give as to why that is, visit my blog post on the subject.

    • Assuming only for a moment that a god exists, shouldn’t the existence of famine, natural disasters, plague, and simple “bad luck” be evidence that any god which exists must at the very least be apathetic, at worst find some joy in suffering, or simply be powerless to intervene? That’s not the god of the Bible.

      Then again, the god of the Bible endorses slavery and genocide, so I’d like to think we managed to get our morality and our sense of good vs. bad elsewhere.

    • Perhaps you would be right, if God were promoting such things. But as theism, and more specifically Christian theism, teaches, God is not indifferent to such things, but rather permissive in order to allow free will. There are accounts of God’s intervention when it is the best means by which to establish the best end (thus denoting the omnisapience of God), but generally He permits things to happen as we would choose them to happen, and being sinful beings sometimes we choose to do wrong. But if you think you are more wise than God, than by all means, let’s hear (a) how you know that and (b) what your better plan is.

      Regarding the God of the Bible, you have made a leap from theism to Christianity from the Moral Argument. That’s a little bit of cart before horse, but I’ll grant it to you because it’s the next logical step. Given your argument against the God of the Bible, it necessitates a positive burden of proof on you to demonstrate that genocide and slavery are objectively wrong, using no emotional appeals. To do so means you also have to show a better objective moral standard than the God of the Bible, for if you wish to uproot Him you must put something in His place. If you wish to insert subjective moral values, then you must tackle the first piece of my argument first, before jumping to the conclusion such as you did.

      Ball’s in your court. I’m anxious to see how you attempt to prove this based on your claim.

  8. I stumbled back on your blog and realized that you never answered my questions regarding your omnisapience and basis for objective morality. Is that still at play, or was I ignored because you have no viable answer?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s