• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

Answering the 5 Objections to Proving God’s Existence

Forest

On Monday, I put forward five common objections regarding attempts to prove God's existence. Today, I'll respond to each of them.

Objection 1: “Proof in general is impossible, since we must trust our brains.”

Like A.J. Ayer’s principle of verification, this idea self-destructs. Can we trust this reasoning, which leads the objector to think that we must first run our brains through a thorough certification process before we can trust our own reasoning? If so, we can reason in a trustworthy manner before any such process after all. If not, then we needn’t bother about the objector’s conclusion.

This objection is also similar to one posed by Immanuel Kant. Whether on the grounds that he cannot give a reason to believe he is awake rather than dreaming or on the grounds that he has seen The Matrix or seen Star Trek or read about phantom limbs, or read Descartes, anyone who seriously thinks that our brains and senses and reason might not be in any way trustworthy until we find a way to establish their trustworthiness independently of trusting them is beyond the help this post aims to provide. I openly and unapologetically presume an audience of readers who think they know they exist, that the world exists, and that many other specific things in it exist.

Objection 2: “Proof of god’s existence is either useless or impossible.”

I admit it is impossible to prove that there is in reality a being to whom all the divine predicates found in the Bible belong. I also concede that proving the existence of a divine being in a general sort of way, such as I have done in my book, Who Designed the Designer?, is, at least by itself, grossly inadequate for winning anyone a place among the saints. But that is a far cry from saying it is altogether useless. Such arguments could help prepare the way for faith in someone who has been hitherto struggling intellectually with the idea of god. They can help believers answer much of the ridicule of atheists. And aside from any apologetic purposes to which they might be put, they are incredibly interesting things in themselves. Were they ever so useless for compelling other people to admit their conclusions, I would still want to understand them for myself.

Objection 3: “Proof is useless in general, being incapable of moving the heart.”

See the reply to objection 2 above. Otherwise, I will add only this: A pastrami sandwich is generally useless for banging in a nail. That doesn’t mean a pastrami sandwich is generally useless.

Objection 4: “Proof is unnecessary, since god’s existence is accessible by the much surer means of religious experience.”

Anyone who truly enjoys an experiential and personal connection with god possesses a certainty about god’s existence that is superior to and independent of the kind afforded by any philosophical arguments. Possibly, to such a person, such arguments will appear dry, cold, and abstract. But in my work and through my book, I am not in the business of offering people a personal connection with god. Without denying or disdaining such a thing, I am up to something else. And the something else (up to which I am) is of more use to those who have intellectual struggles with the idea of god, or who simply wonder about the rational path to god, than any religious experience of mine could ever be.

Objection 5: “Proof is unnecessary, since god’s existence is self-evident.”

The thought presented in the objection is that of Anselm of Canterbury, or very like it. While Anselm was not exactly trying to prove god’s existence to himself, this particular thought sequence of his is one of the many (and quite different!) arguments brought under the confusing and showy label “Ontological Proof of God’s Existence”. Ever since the time of Anselm, there have been people who believed in the soundness of this thinking precisely as a proof of god’s existence or of the self-evidence of his existence. Even today there are plenty of logicians who find the argument compelling. (Would that they were right! It certainly is short and sweet.) A surprising amount of literature exists on the argument, and probably there will always be erudite people who are convinced by it. There are several important insights connected to it. Nonetheless, insofar as it is supposed to be a proof for god’s existence, or for the self-evidence of his existence, I side with those who consider it a failure.

One reason for its failure is that “the being to which no superior can be conceived” might simply be the universe, for all the argument shows. If someone says, “Ah, but an intelligent creator would be even better than that!”, we have to wonder how we know that an intelligent creator is better and also how it is even possible. Perhaps a creator is impossible; perhaps the universe is self-existent and is the supreme sum of all things, and hence, nothing truly possible and truly conceivable could be better. Or, if an intelligent creator would be superior to the universe, why not ten or fifty intelligent creators? Wouldn’t that be ten or fifty times better still? If that is not possible, or not better, the Anselmian argument does not tell us why.

And then there is that premise: if a being whose superior cannot be conceived does not exist in reality, then we can think of a superior—namely, a being whose superior cannot be conceived existing in reality. Ah, but would this really be superior, if it is in fact an impossibility? How do we know that this weird formula does not contain a hidden self-contradiction, as “greatest prime number” and “thirty-sided perfect solid” do? It seems we need to supplement the argument with quite a bit of information about what makes something better than another, and what makes a thing of some given description truly possible and conceivable rather than a mere agglomeration of words.

There are other shortcomings in the argument, but it is not worth getting into them here. Were the Anselmian argument quite sound, after all, it would just mean that my main theses in my book are entirely correct; I just took a lot more trouble than was strictly necessary to establish them. I took the long way around. The scenic route. I could live with that, were it so.
 
 
Adapted from Who Designed the Designer?: A Rediscovered Path to God's Existence (Ignatius Press, 2015) by Dr. Michael Augros. Copyright 2014, Ignatius Press. Reprinted with permission.
 
 
(Image credit: Unsplash)

Dr. Michael Augros

Written by

Michael Augros earned his doctorate in philosophy at Boston College in 1995, and has been teaching ever since. He is the author of Who Designed the Designer?: A Rediscovered Path to God's Existence (Ignatius Press, 2015) and a tenured member of the faculty at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California. Since one of his teachers said never to trust philosophers who are no good with their hands, Michael keeps up oil painting and woodworking, too. But it is not his job or his projects so much as his wife and three children that keep him busy, happy, and well behaved.

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • David Hardy

    I agree with the first and fifth responses, so I will focus on the other three.

    I admit it is impossible to prove that there is in reality a being to whom all the divine predicates found in the Bible belong . . . Such arguments could help prepare the way for faith in someone who has
    been hitherto struggling intellectually with the idea of god.

    In short, if a person is struggling primarily with the idea of whether God exists, and is predisposed, should he or she accept God's existence, to choose Christianity over another monotheistic religion, the arguments have merit as proof for Christianity, assuming they actually demonstrate the existence of God. I do appreciate the acknowledgement of the limitations within the arguments. I would also ask if they are of use if a person is not predisposed to believe in God or Christianity, besides being "interesting."

    A pastrami sandwich is generally useless for banging in a nail. That doesn’t mean a pastrami sandwich is generally useless.

    Which still leaves open what the use is. If the use of the arguments is to win converts among those "on the fence," that may not be synonymous with determining the truth of God's existence.

    Anyone who truly enjoys an experiential and personal connection with god
    possesses a certainty about god’s existence that is superior to and
    independent of the kind afforded by any philosophical arguments.

    Having had a profound religious experience and transformation through Buddhist practices, I can understand the difficulty in looking at such experiences objectively. Once you do, however, you realize that many religions produce such experiences, religions that offer sometimes antithetical claims to each other, and so the experience cannot be proof of any of the religions producing them.

    • ClayJames

      Having had a profound religious experience and transformation through
      Buddhist practices, I can understand the difficulty in looking at such
      experiences objectively. Once you do, however, you realize that many
      religions produce such experiences, religions that offer sometimes
      antithetical claims to each other, and so the experience cannot be proof
      of any of the religions producing them.

      I have never understood this type of thinking even though I agree that it is prevalent. As a Catholic, I do not feel like I have to reject a Buddhist´s experience simply because they are not Catholic. I also do not think that it follows from a spiritual exprience that the context of that experience (in this case Catholicism or Buddhism) is a confirmation of the individual beliefs of each religion and therefore, an argument against religions that disagree with those beliefs.

      More importantly, I reject that an objective view of those expriences leads to the conclusions that you are making.

      • David Hardy

        More importantly, I reject that an objective view of those expriences leads to the conclusions that you are making.

        My objective conclusion is that a strong religious experience, like the one I had, does not prove the religion and practices that produced it is true (Buddhism in my case, other religions for many other people). You seem to agree with this conclusion in your previous paragraph, repeated below.

        I also do not think that it follows from a spiritual exprience that the
        context of that experience (in this case Catholicism or Buddhism) is a
        confirmation of the individual beliefs of each religion and therefore,
        an argument against religions that disagree with those beliefs.

        • ClayJames

          Got it, I misunderstood your point.

  • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

    The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil

    Postado por João Carlos Holland de Barcellos em Ateus e Ateísmo

    The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil
    João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
    translated by Debora Policastro

    In my many years of atheism, since I was about 12, I could gather many arguments against God’s existence. Some refer to the Catholic God, which has very well-defined features, some to gods who have a more blurred definition, therefore harder to be logically analyzed. Anyway, in almost every case, God has always the characteristic of, at least, being the creator of the universe and being endowed with awareness and intelligence.

    Among the arguments I gathered, the most recent and what I consider to be the most stunning one because it is extremely simple and yet devastating, is the “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil”. Below, you will see the summaries of the main anti-God arguments and evidence, starting with the one that entitles this text. (The names in brackets '[]' next to each argument are the names of the probable authors of the original idea or the person from whom I got to know the idea).
    1 - Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

    It is said that God is an entity necessary to answer the question:

    "How did the universe begin?"

    If we answer with the same question "How did God begin?” the theist would say that God does not need a creator, for he is his own cause, or that he has always existed, or that he is beyond our comprehension. And it is no use trying to counter-argue saying that we can use the same arguments replacing the word "God" with “universe ". The theistic mind requires a creator for the universe, whether you like it or not. However, there are other qualifications that are attached to this god-creator and are usually ascribed to God as a way to satisfy our psychological needs (i.e. goodness and/or omniscience and/or omnipotence, and/or perfection, among others). But, from the finding that this is not absolutely necessary to create the universe, comes the “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil" argument.
    If you say that God created the universe, I MAY EQUALLY SUPPOSE that it was not God who created it, but the "Little Blue Devil". But this little devil is not as almighty as God, he does not have God’s omniscience, he is not as good as God, not as perfect as God and, in order to create the universe, he ended up dying due to the amount of effort he made.

    My little devil, being much less complex than your God-Almighty, should be PREFERABLE in “Occam’s razor” terms to God! Therefore, before evoking God as the creator of the universe, you should evoke the “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil”. Otherwise, you would be acting illogically by adding unnecessary assumptions to the 'creator of the Universe'.
    Comment: there is no need for a creator with all the features of a “God” to create the universe. It would be enough having power to create it. Thus, the affirmation that says that a "God" is needed so the universe can exist lacks rationale.

    2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

    If God is Good, then God does not want unnecessary suffering.
    If God is powerful, then God can do anything.
    Logic: If God can do anything and does not want suffering, he can prevent suffering.
    Fact: 40 million children died recently drowned by a tsunami (death with suffering).
    Conclusion: The hypothesis (good and powerful God) cannot be true, once it contradicts the observed fact.
    Comment: Some may argue that the suffering was necessary because some people needed to "learn". It is possible to counter-argue that by asking what the children learned by drowning. It is possible to counter-argue against the "original sin" by asking if it is fair that the innocent pay for the guilty. But that would not necessary, once a good and almighty God could teach anybody anything without having to sacrifice innocent lives with tragic deaths. If God had to sacrifice so many lives, it means he is not powerful enough or not good (in the human sense of the term). It seems that the original argument refers to Epicurus, though its formalization is from Hume.

    3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

    God is OMNISCIENT, therefore he knows everything that happened and will happen.

    God gave men freedom; therefore men are free to choose.

    Contradiction: If God knows everything that men will choose (factual knowledge) it means that men have NO freedom of choice. (Everything was planned in God’s mind and men could not change it).

    Follow the demonstration [by Jocax]:

    Suppose the existence of God Almighty. Then, it logically follows that:

    1- God is omniscient.
    2- Being Omniscient, God knows EVERYTHING that will happen.
    3- Knowing EVERYTHING that will happen, he knows everything you will do and choose, even before you existed.
    4- If God knows everything you will do and choose, you cannot do anything different from God’s prediction.
    5- Since you cannot do anything different from the divine prediction, you must necessarily and mandatorily follow it.
    6- If you are obliged to follow God’s prediction, it is impossible for you to choose or do anything different from it.
    7-If it is impossible for you to choose or do anything different from the divine prediction, you do not have free will!

    As we wanted to demonstrate.
    Comment: before a man is born, even before he gets married or does any kind of choice, his fate would already be planned in God’s omniscient mind. So, nothing the man could choose would be different from the path already laid down by God. Thus, the so-called "Free Will" would be nothing more than an illusion. This means that either the man is not free to choose, or God is not omniscient. This is one of the most striking logical evidence against the existence of God.

    4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

    -There is no evidence that God exists.

    - The set {Universe + God} is more complex than the set {Universe}.

    By the Occam’s razor, we should discard the first hypothesis of a universe with God in favor of the second, which is very simple, once it requires at least one hypothesis less.

    Comment: We can make a metaphor of this argumentation through the "Nail Factory" argument:
    First, we must agree that if we had to choose between two hypotheses for the origin of everything, we would have to stick with the more likely one. And if we wanted a more scientific explanation, we should stay with one of several physical theories about the origin of the universe, like the one that says that the universe emerged from the quantum vacuum: the particles would have been created from a "quantum fluctuation of vacuum”. This is only a theory, which cannot be proved, but it is much more reasonable than the premise that there was a HUGE Nail factory (God) that made all the nails, but no one dares to ask about its origin.
    The idea of comparing God to a "nail factory” is described below:

    There is evidence of "nails" (elementary particles). Someone says that there must be a creator for these nails, and proposes that there must be a huge and complex "Nail Factory" (God). But this is NONSENSE. Besides the fact that there is no evidence on the Nail Factory existence, it would be FAR more complex than the nails found. So, by the Occam's Razor, it is much more logical to assume that the nails have always existed than that the great "Nail Factory" has always existed and is hidden somewhere that can only be known after death.

    5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

    - God is omniscient, omnipotent and knows everything that happened and will happen.
    - He also knows * all * of his OWN future actions.
    - It means he should follow all his already planned actions, without being able to change them, exactly as a robot follows its programming.

    Conclusion: God, if he existed, would not have free will. It would be a robot, a kind of automaton that must forever follow his programming (his own prediction) without being able to change it.

    Comment: God's omniscience would lead himself to a tedious prison from which nothing could go out even if he felt like doing it. He would be stuck in his own cruel omniscience.

    6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

    If God existed and was perfect, everything that he created would be perfect.
    Mankind, being his creation, should also have been created perfect.
    But how could a being created perfect be corrupted and become imperfect?
    If mankind was corrupted, it was not perfect, it was corruptible!

    Conclusion: God could not be perfect, once he generated something imperfect.

    Comment: A perfect being wants perfection, and even if God had created men with free will - we have demonstrated above it is an illusion -; if men were perfect, they would have made perfect choices and would not be corrupted.

    7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

    The argumentation of the intelligent design according to which the complexity of nature requires an intelligent creator collapses when no one offers any explanation about the origin of God. Once again according to the intelligent design argument, God, as an extremely complex and intelligent being would need to have an intelligent creator, who would be the "God of God": the creator of God. This “Creator of God ", once he is smarter than God, accordingly to the same argument, should also have an extremely intelligent creator: “God of God of God ". And so on, ad infinitum. It is possible to see that the argument that something complex needs a more complex being to be created is NONSENSE.

    Comment: the Intelligent Design is largely used nowadays to teach religion courses in some Brazilian and American states, as if it was science.

    8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

    Suppose God exists. If he had an infinite intelligence, he would not need to spend time deciding something or processing information. Thus, he would not spend any time deciding to create the universe. That is, the Universe would have to be created in the very moment God was created. If God was never created, then the universe could never have been created as well.
    Comment: If there is movement, there is time. If there was no time, nothing could have moved.

    9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

    If God was perfect, he would not have any needs; he would be self enough. However, if he decided to create the universe, it happened because he had a need for this creation, therefore he was not self enough, he was imperfect.

    10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

    Many believers take physical laws and their “magical” constants as evidence of the divine wisdom once it is supposed that a little alteration in them would cause the universe to collapse and be destroyed.
    However, they forget THESE laws, specially the second law of thermodynamics, provide the inexorable, slow and agonizing collapse of our universe, showing that there has been a SERIOUS FLAW in its conception, what would make it unfeasible in the long run.
    Comment: the second law of thermodynamics is known as the law that says that the entropy in a closed system is never reduced. We can consider the whole universe as a closed system once nothing enters or leaves it.

    11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

    God, hypothetically omniscient and omnipotent knew everything that would happen BEFORE he decided to create the universe. He knew everyone that would be born and what each person would “choose” for his/her life. He even knew that a huge TSUNAMI would come and drown 40 thousand children. If he had the power to make the universe slightly different, maybe he could have prevented this tragedy. But, knowing EVERYTHING that would happen in the future, knowing all deaths, all the disasters and calamities, God put his plan into practice and started watching from the front row seat. This is not worthy of a generous being.

    12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

    noun
    •everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space
    So, the universe can be defined as the setting of all that exists. Therefore, if God existed, he could not have created the universe, as he would be a part of it!
    Comment: The believer could then only set God as the creator of matter/energy and not of the universe itself.

    13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

    Quantum mechanics has a fundamental law called “Uncertainty Principle”. According to this law, it is IMPOSSIBLE, regardless of technology, to know the exact position and speed of a particle. That means that physically it is impossible that a “Omniscient God” exists, once he would know the exact position and speed of a particle and that would violate a fundamental pillar of modern science.

    14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

    It is intended to show that God needs to create an imperfect world; otherwise the world would be himself. It would be possible to argue that creating a clone of himself would be better than creating an imperfect world to, sadistically, watch it suffer. However, knowing that the world is not perfect does not imply that one must refuse assistance when necessary, as long as there is enough power for that and one does not desire that evil happens. If God had really created imperfect beings like us and different from him, he would be selfish, as he wanted to be the only perfect being and owner of power. And selfishness is definitely not a good thing.

    15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

    If we had to choose one of the options below, which one would be more likely or easier to happen?

    A dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

    Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

    Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

    Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

    A totipotent being (God) existing and creating the universe or

    Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

    Comment: This text is a simplication of Hume’s argument:
    […] “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish” David Hume «Of Miracles» (1748)

    16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

    The Kalam’s theorem claims that nothing can be extended in an infinite past time because if there was an infinite time in past, it would take an infinite time since this past until our present. So, an infinite time means never. That way, we would never have our present. But this is an absurd once we are in the present. Similarly, if there was a God whose existence extended until an infinite time in past, we would never have this present. Therefore it is not possible for a God that exists in an infinite time in past to exist.

    17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

    The origin of the universe and its laws can be satisfactorily explained through the Jocaxian-Nothingness (JN). The JN explains in a logical way that the cosmos could emerge from the Jocaxian-Nothingness, once this Nothingness would not have laws that restricted whatever. Thus, due to the lack of laws, events could happen. That eliminates the necessity of a conscious creator like God to explain our cosmos.

    • ben

      This post is excessively long; it seems to be copied and pasted from elsewhere.

      • OLF Youth Group

        And it's awful as well. Many of these arguments are patently fallacious and can be dismissed out of hand. The rest can easily be refuted... for someone who has a lot of time to kill.

        • Craig Roberts

          Anything that starts with, "Since I was about 12" should be treated as if it were proffered by a twelve year old.

    • D Foster

      Okay, I’ll go ahead and nock through these.

      But, in the interests of keeping things short, I’ll not get to every permutation or draw out the conclusions. Apologies in advance if that makes some things unclear:

      1 - Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

      This argument simply asserts that the concept of a “Little Blue Devil” is less complex than God. God, as traditionally defined, is far simpler than the proposal of a physical creature (i.e. “little” and “blue”). The Little Blue Devil is composed of parts in a way that God is not.

      2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

      This argument is based on the assumption that there can be no necessity for suffering unless there exists a reason for suffering that is obvious to onlooking human beings.

      3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

      This assumes that knowing what a person will choose is synonymous with forcing that person’s choice. That is simply sloppy thinking, as one can produce many examples of successfully predicting choices without forcing choices upon a person.

      4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

      This is fairly blatant question begging, as it takes as it’s premise that there is no evidence that God exists. As often as that statement is proclaimed across the internet, it is indefensible (and would be a bigger project than disproving God’s existence).

      5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

      This suffers from the same error as argument #3.

      In addition, it assumes that God’s thoughts and decision-making process occurs successively through time (as ours does)—a highly controversial premise, to say the least.

      6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

      This simply assumes that a perfect world of finite creatures is both possible and feasible given free choice. Both of these assumptions are dubious at best.

      7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

      As with argument #1, this assumes that God is complex.

      It also fails to address the issue raised by the argument it claims to be answering—if complex explanations will result in an infinite regress, and rejected for that reason, then the only proper response is to accept a metaphysically simple explanation (which is precisely what the theist is arguing).

      8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

      As with argument #5, this assumes that God’s decision-making faculties operate in the same successive fashion as humans’. Classical theists have denied this for centuries.

      In general, the problems with these arguments come back to a horribly misconceived notion of God.

      9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

      This simply asserts that God created the universe out of need. As no theologian has ever claimed this, it amounts to another misconception issue.

      10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

      This argument makes a number of assumptions about God’s purpose for the universe, making accusations of imperfection based on the fact that the properties of the universe don’t support the assumed purposes.

      Given the lack of any reason to think these are God’s actual purposes, this is another straw man fallacy.

      11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

      This is simply a repetition of argument #6, and fails for the same reasons.

      12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

      This is an excellent example of the reason why one should never argue from definition.

      Among other problems, a position will almost never make sense so long one insists on defining terms uncharitably. The term “universe” does not traditionally include literally all things. And, even if it did, the theist could easily sidestep this objection. All she would need to do is invent a new term to refer to what is typically meant by the term “universe” and restate her position accordingly.

      13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

      This is simply a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics. In general, the Copenhagen interpretation is probably the most abused piece of science in modern culture—one should probably reject all arguments based on it out of hand.

      Quantum Mechanics implies that it is impossible for finite, temporally bound creatures to know all things. This has no bearing on God.

      14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

      This is a repetition of argument #2, and fails for the same reasons.

      15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

      This argument has been refuted many times, and thrives only among those ignorant of the probability calculus. More directly, this is the “Holocaust Denier” argument—in that it ultimately discredits all evidence based on testimony (which is over 99% of what any one person knows).

      16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

      Baring unknown angry high-schoolers on the internet, no proponent of the Kalam ever claimed that God has existed for infinite time. This is simply a straw man.

      17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

      The reason why all educated persons (other than materialists facing the evidence for the origin of the universe) have rejected the idea that things can be created from nothing has never been a matter of logical possibility. Rather, it has been a matter of metaphysical possibility and plausibility.

      There are good reasons for that position, none of which are addressed by speaking about mere logical possibilities.

      • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

        1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

        Not because the creature's name is blue devil this creature has to be blue. It has the power to materialize only blue. This simply means that not always be blue.

        Moreover, it is because something is not done in parts (which is not necessarily the case) that necessarily can not create the universe.

        2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

        If a creature leaves 40,000 die innocent children drowned when she could avoid this creature is to be kind? In my opinion is bad. And why this same creature attend a prayer if it is not saved from death inicente one child?

        3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

        It is not a matter of force. And rather a matter of not having free will.

        If all actions are determined, even if not force, also there is no free will.

        You can choose or do something else that God predicted would you do?

        4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

        All shows that there are about God's existence can also be attributed to JN blue imp.

        5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

        You're telling me that God does not know exactly what it will do in the next 1 million years?

        6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

        You are saying that man is the most perfect finite creature that can exist?

        7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

        The infinite regress does not end with a being of high complexity but with a being of minimal complexity as the "Jocaxian Nothingness"

        8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

        So why God would take some time to create the universe? Why it would take seven days to have infinite power? And why you need rest? God tired?

        9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

        If God needed something it was because he was not perfect. Something was missing to him.

        10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

        Then what is the purpose of creating something and then destroy it?

        11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

        Why God would create something that he already was sure, because your omniscience, which would cause much suffering?

        12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

        So the theistic change God's definition, not as creator of the universe but of the cosmos.

        13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

        The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental * * principle of quantum mechanics. This principle is incompativem with omniscience.

        14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

        God could not create himself clones?

        15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

        There is evidence that the Holocaust existed, but there is not even evidence that Jesus ever existed!

        16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

        If God does not exist an infinite time in the past so it came at time zero.

        Or he created you own, or does not exist, or anything JN created :-)

        17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

        And why is not plausible the cosmos have stemmed from nothing? Since this is possible?

        • D Foster

          Okay here we go. Best wishes to you.
          But, to answer:

          1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]
          Whether or not the "Little Blue Devil" is blue, or sometimes blue, or never blue, the point is that absolutely nothing has been done to show that it is less complex than the God of Classical Theism.

          2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]
          You're allowed that opinion, of course, but (if this is to be a rational argument) we need a reason to conclude that such a God would be evil other than "I can't personally think of a reason why he wouldn't do X".

          3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

          Please explain how my knowing that my wife will choose tea over coffee is proof that she has no free will to choose coffee.

          Formally, this is the fallacy confusing "chronologically prior" with "logically prior".

          4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

          There was nothing here that the theist was trying to "show" about God. This was supposed to be an argument disproving God's existence.

          Moreover, this is just appealing back to argument #1. As such, it shouldn't be listed as a separate argument, and therefore stricken from this list.

          5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

          Not remotely. I'm simply wondering how the conclusion "robot" follows from that knowledge. Even people have some idea what we are going to do in the future. If anything, this makes us less like robots (which have no idea what they are going to do). Again, be careful to keep chronological priority and logical priority distinguished.

          6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

          No, I am not saying that. I have no way of knowing what other finite creatures exist. Rather, I pointed out that there is no proof that the concept of a perfect finite creature is even coherent, let alone feasible given the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

          7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

          The God of Classical theism is an entity of minimal complexity—and has been understood as such for centuries.

          I see absolutely nothing here which shows that the "Jocaxian Nothingness" is either more simple than the God of Classical Theism or capable of creating the universe.

          There might be an argument there but, so far, I've not heard it.

          8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

          There are a series of problems here, which go back to misunderstanding what theists are actually claiming. First, this is another demand that the early section of Genesis be read literally. Second, even a literal reading wouldn't support the idea that God took time to create the universe (it was the Earth that was created over time). Third, though there are specific and interesting theological reasons for mentioning the resting of God, it seems rather pointless to answer that question—as it has nothing to do with this topic.

          9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

          Who ever claimed that God needed something? I specifically challenged that idea.

          10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

          Personally, I can think of quite a few possibilities. But the point is that you need to show that there could be no such purpose, not simply base an argument on the fact that one hasn't yet occurred to you.

          11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

          The response here is just a repetition of the original argument. It is also (again) a repetition of another argument (#6), not a new point.

          It is also a repetition of the idea that God cannot possibly have any reason for doing anything unless you, personally, can think of one. I could suggest possibilities to you, but the bigger point is that this whole idea is flawed.

          12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

          I'd call that "what the definition has always been" but, if you want to call that "changing God's definition", I won't make a fuss about that. The point is that you need to address what the theist is actually claiming (creator of all that exists other than God himself)—not what you (previously) understood the theist to be claiming.

          13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

          There is absolutely nothing about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which excludes the possibility of omniscience. I know lots of science documentaries and amateur science websites like to "blow our minds" with claims about the lack of truth regarding future conditionals. But the actual principle qualifies itself that it is referring only to the finite perspective of science.

          14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

          Actually no. He couldn't. This is a well established part of Classical Theism.

          Nor does that really have anything to do with the point. Even if God could, and did, create copies of himself, this doesn't mean that it is sadistic to create finite creatures. Nor does it mean that this argument isn't a repetition of #2 (which it is).

          15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

          No legitimate historian has ever claimed that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. And that is already a much smaller claim than the vast proclamation that there is not evidence that God exists (a much harder claim to prove than the atheism it is supposed to be supporting).

          The evidence that the Holocaust happened (as opposed to people simply dying in war) is testimonial. Simply universally dismissing all testimonial evidence is a mark of ignorance about the actual historical method.

          16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

          Yes, proponents of the Kalam believe that the universe was created at T=0. This is pretty standard. Have you watched any of William Lane Craig's debates on the subject? He's very clear on that point.

          17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

          For quite a few reasons. In fact, there is no good metaphysical reason to think that anything can come from nothing. There is no experimental evidence, anywhere in science, of something coming from nothing (and, yes, that includes virtual particles in a vacuum state). There are many metaphysical principles based on the idea that something cannot come from nothing, such as the following: proponents of "something can come from nothing" have no good explanation as to why anything and everything doesn't simply pop into existence out of nothing all the time.

          Whether or not the claim that something can come from nothing is, strictly speaking, a logical contradiction, that is simply not the reality we inhabit. And everyone (save atheists trying to explain the origin of the universe) has always agreed that something doesn't come from nothing for these rather straightforward reasons.

          Also, whether or not this is a successful argument (it isn't), it is not a proof of God's non-existence. It is, at best, an argument that the Kalam doesn't prove that God exists. It says nothing about God in general.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Hello ! Here we go :-)

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Why do you think somethink has infinitelly less intelligence, less power have the same ou more complexity than god?

            Moreover I show you that god is not necessary.

            The litlle blue deamon is sufficient enough to create the universe and therefore god is not necessary.

            Do you agrree?

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            Tell me what the mean "God is good" if He allow innocent child suffer until dead.

            What is the mean "good" ?

            So, are the people wrong to think they pray to God and God do some think bad to them? ( as it does with the children who have suffered )

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You said: "Please explain how my knowing that my wife will choose tea over coffee is proof that she has no free will to choose coffee."

            Your known is not a 100% real forecast/prevision if you have a 100% certainty she would not have choice.

            Because if she could choice another option your prevision was not true.

            Answer: "you can choose something different that God predicted for you?"

            4-Argument: By the Occam’s Razor [Jocax (?)]

            Ok this argument is similar to argument #1, ( but not equal ).

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            If god have mandatorily to follow *exactly* you prevision for yourself he do not have free will.

            He has to follow your prevision for yourself until the end of the time like a robot that follow its programmation.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            If finite creature can not be perfect why god would create them?

            If finete creature can be perfect, (and god make them), why the human being was corrupted?

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            What reason do you said god is minimun complexity if he has infinite intelligence?

            The litle blue devil has less intelligence and the Jocaxian Nothingness has no intelligence at all, so

            both are less complex than god and both can create the universe.

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            Even god not need to rest.

            There is no reason to god spend time to create the cosmos.

            If got spend time to think he has no infinite intelligence.

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            "Who ever claimed that God needed something? I specifically challenged that idea."

            Why god would create the cosmos if he did not have necessity to do this?

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            The fact that someone create and after destroy something is incompatible with infinite intelligence.

            Because schizofrenic people create and after destroy.

            I think it is an evidence to theist explain the reason of this schizofrenic behavior.

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            Is different argument because perfection do not implies goodness .

            If god is omniscient he knows millions of innocent child would suffer until dead *before* create the universe,

            therefore he is guilty to that badness.

            12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

            "creator of all that exists other than God himself" this definition is better, including creation of evil :-)

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I do not agree. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle places *no restrictions* on its applicability.

            ".. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously."

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            It is a different argument because claim god could help and avoid childs to die with a lot of suffering.

            Namely god could help people but not do this. He knows children is suffering burned, drowned, suffocated, raped, cut, live food etc. but does nothing despite its infinite power.

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion?nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

            http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            I Agree that nothing, not God can exist an infinite past because infinite past is impossible.

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            It is wrong says that something can come from JN is erroneous.

            Because in nothing theire is no physical laws , nor restrictions laws.

            So we can use only logical to analize the JN.

            The tautological sentence is always true: "Something happen ou sometihng not happen"

            It is illogical claim only "something not happen" is true.

            By the logical "something happen" can be true because there is no other premises.

          • D Foster

            Greetings once again, and otherwise diving right in here.

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Simplicity is not defined in terms of amount of intelligence, but in terms of the number of parts which compose it. God is absolutely simple in this sense. Anything which is composed of distinct parts (as anything which could reasonably be called a "little blue devil" would have to be) would be more complex, in the proper sense, than God.

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            God seeks what is, ultimately, the greatest good. This does not mean that this will not require suffering.

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I don't see how a 100% certain prediction does any more to rob a person of free will than any other prediction. That someone could know what a person will freely choose does not mean the person didn't freely choose it.

            So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this). They have every power to do that. All omniscience means is that God would know that these people will change their minds.

            This is what it means to keep chronological and logical priority distinct.

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            The response here was just a repetition of the original claim, and doesn't address the response given. As above, this confuses chronological and logical priority. Knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it. It simply means being confident about one's choice.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I strongly doubt that finite creatures can be truly perfect. That seems a contradiction.

            But, is it better to create someone who is good, if imperfect, or never create that person at all?

            I'd lean toward the former. This argument works only if we can establish that the latter is true.

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            God does not have "infinite intelligence" in terms of knowning an infinite number of discreet facts. God possesses his knowledge in a very different way than humans do: all at once, not as successive thoughts.

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            How do you know that God would have no reason to create things over time?

            I personally don't know why there couldn't possibly be a reason for this.

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            For any number of reasons. I could suggest some possiblities, but the fact that you, personally, haven't thought of any does not mean that God does not have reasons other than a need.

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            There are many rational reasons to create something for only a given period of time. There is no reason to think that this is a reason to assume perfection cannot exist.

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I don't see how "created the universe knowing bad things would happen" and "allows bad things to happen" are really seperate arguments.

            I also don't see how one can be so confident that refusing to create the universe would have been the nobler choice.

            12-Proof: by the universe definition, God could not have created it. [Jocax (?)]

            If we agree on the definition, great. I'll not address the side comment (which is apparently ignorant of the privation view of evil), as that seems to have nothing to do with the argument here.

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I'd say that you've simply misunderstood Heisenberg. The term "known" specifically refers to mathematically quantifiable measurements taken via spacio-temporal object displacement. This is a far cry from omniscience.

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I don't see how "God could help and avoid childs to die" is different than "God could prevent imperfection". Suffering would be an imperfection.

            As such, I'll give basically the same answer as above. You need to show that there are no reasons for this suffering—not simply that no reasons have occured to you.

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Of course there are historical references to Jesus' life and death. Setting aside the other things that Remsburg conveniently leaves off his list, that is what most of the New Testament is about.

            Whether or not you believe that these references are valid, they are references. The fact that these books were later compiled into an anthology called "The New Testament" doesn't suddenly make them not references.

            Nor is John E. Remsburg a valid historian. Not only was he writing before the tools of modern historical criticism were developed, but he was a school teacher and superintendent—not a legitimate historian.

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            That is the position of the Kalam. William Lane Craig, for instance, is very insistent that God has not existed for an infinite amount of time, but that time began at the first moment of the universe's existence.

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            Absolutely none of the arguments I gave against something coming from nothing relied on the idea that there are some sort of restrictions on nothing.

            Rather, I said that nothing is simply not a thing—and therefore does not create other things. I also noted that there is no good reason to think this could happen, that there are no examples of it happening (ever), that many obvious metaphysical principles are based on it, that every experience anyone has ever had has disconfirmed it, that no one (save materialists trying to explain the origin of the universe) has ever believed it, and that it would mean that anything and everything should be popping into existence all the time.

            None of those reasons are based on the idea that "nothing" must somehow be "restricted" by "laws".

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Hello ! Nice day ! :)

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Is wrong your definition of simplicity

            Because a lot of sand grains linked with glue would be but simple than a fly brain.

            In the same way an human brain will be simpler than a sand and cement statue if this statue has sand enought.

            Of course the brain is more complex than a lot of sand glued . So your definition of complexity is not right.

            Moreover, I did not say how many pieces that "the litle blue evil deamon" are made.

            He can be made like a piece of your god. So it is less complex than god and if god was very simple ,

            anyone could create a god to yourself, like a lamp genious to personal user rsrs.

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            Then you are tell me every suffering in all histoty of the world is good and necessary to a greater good?

            So if someone shut a lot of child in the school he is doing a great good?

            Because if not, god do not allow, so no one would be arrested because they doing a well.

            So , your logic implies every prisoner should be released because the suffer he caused is necessary to a greater good.

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You said "I don't see how a 100% certain prediction does any more to rob a person of free will than any other prediction. "

            Ok let's clarify some points first when I say 100% sure I do not mean a human and fallible certainty but a sure and infallible God.

            Second, it is not a prediction of only one or other choice but absolutely all about a person's choices.

            Therefore, there is no possibility of this failure and therefore be sure the person has no will to change these predictions it should act exactly like a robot following your schedule, only that the programming would be the divine predictions.

            You said:

            "So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this)"

            If this is true than God fail and He is not omniscient. Because He does not really knows about the future.

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said "Knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it."

            And so the God of knowledge is flawed and he did not really know what will happen in the future.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            Why God created imperfect beings if he could create clones of himself? he does not have the power to this?

            Create imperfect beings proof god dont have power or he is imperfect too.

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            But this does not alter the reason that something intelligent is found requires an intelligent creator. In this case God would need a creator too, God's father.

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            If God needs time to decide and then create things so he does not have infinite intelligence or infinite power. A being with infinite intelligence spends no time to settle create something. And a being with infinite power nor spends nehum time to execute what you want.

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            The fact that he created things besides himself proves that he had needs and so he was not perfect, he had shortcomings.

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            If God has an infinite power and intelligence he would not wait any long to get what he wants. If only because he already knew everything would happen in the universe, not even have to create it. Is not it?

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            If God knows which souls go to heaven and which will not by creating the universe and then destroy it and let the good souls in heaven?why it simply did not directly put the good souls in heaven? He did not have knowledge of it?

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            Nope, the heisemberg principle do not make restriction about omniscience, on the contrary, proves that such oniosciencia can not be true.

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You said "I don't see how "God could help and avoid childs to die" is different than "God could prevent imperfection". Suffering would be an imperfection."

            well, first you have to explain why finite beings can not be perfect.

            second, if humans beings like firefighters, caps, etc can help humans why god can not? He does not have power enought?

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            If God does not exist in an infinite amount of time then it was created. Then who created God? Nothing JN? lol

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You said: " I said that nothing is simply not a thing—and therefore does not create other things."

            this premise does not exist on the contrary the tautology "may or may not happen" lets things happen

          • D Foster

            Okay, next round:

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            My definition of simplicity is the one used to support Ockham's Razor. You are free to use a different one if you'd like, but then you cannot then make the argument that something is a better explanation on the grounds that it is "simpler" (in some other sense than the definition used in Ockham's Razor).

            As to how many parts your "little blue devil" has, that is more relevant. But, if it has more than one, it is more complex than God. If it is simply one part, then you need to explain how it is different from God.

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            In this argument you are making the claim that God doesn't exist because there is at least some suffering that serves no good purpose. As such, you need to show us how you know that there is such suffering.

            But this doesn't mean that people are always doing good. The intended and immediate results of actions are distinct from the long term effects those actions happen to have.

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I'm aware that you mean that God would know things infallably. I don't see how being 100% infallably sure that a thing will happen is the same as making that thing happen. Those are clearly different.

            Nor does it matter whether it is one or all of a person's choices. The idea is the same. God knows what people freely choose. This doesn't mean that we don't freely choose them. Of course we can make different choices. The only caveat is that God knows which ones we will actually make. That isn't remotely to say that we couldn't make others, just that we don't.

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            Not remotely. As I said, knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it. It doesn't mean "not knowing", it means "I have a choice, but I will chose this". Humans do this all the time. I don't see why it should be a problem that God does the same.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            As before, I could suggest any number of reasons, but that is not the point. Rather, the point is that there is a difference between you not being able to think of a reason, and God not having a reason.

            So, you can't simply ask "well, why did God do that" and expect that to support your claim that God can't have a good reason.

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            Who on Earth ever suggested that everything intelligent requires an intelligent creator? The ID group (that I'm not much of a fan of, by the way) has never said that. Nor has anyone else, so far as I know.

            Theists have claimed that all contingent things need an explanation, and that all things that begin to exist require a cause, and that all composites of act and potency require an intiator, etc. No one has ever said that all intelligent things require an intelligent creator.

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            Who ever claimed that God needs time to decide and then create things? I've never suggested this—and I've never heard anyone else do it, either.

            This keeps going back to arguing against a gross distortion of what it is that theists are actually claiming.

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            Why does that "prove" that God "had needs"? How do you know that there cannot possibly be any other explanation than that?

            I personally know of a few other reasons why God might have created other beings. And, it seems to me that I've been given no reason at all to think that "he had needs" is the only possible reason.

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            This is another argument from "I can't, personally, think of a reason". That is a far cry from there not being a reason.

            But, rather than throw out the possible reasons I know about (that apparently haven't occured to you yet), I'd like to ask why you are so confident that there can't be any reason for anything unless you can think of one.

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            Again, I'm aware of several reasons why this might be the case. And, again, I'm going to forego listing them in favor of asking you how you know that God can't possibly have reasons that haven't personally occured to you.

            Really, could you please tell me why you are so confident about that?

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            Then I'd argue that you've simply misunderstood. If you'd like to make your case, please give me the reasoning behind the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that you feel supports this conclusion.

            As a scientific principle, I find it hard to believe that it would make such a non-scientfic claim as that. This is over and above the fact that I happen to understand the principle, and know that it assumes a background of spacio-temporal displacement as intrinsic to observation.

            But, if you say that I am wrong, what mathematical definition of observation do you feel that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is based on?

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I didn't say that finite beings couldn't be perfect. I said I leaned away from believing that, and that your argument claimed that finite beings could be perfect.

            That is to say, you need to explain why they can be.

            Nor did I say that God cannot help humans. This is, again, arguing from something that no theist has ever said.

            I'll grant you that you have made some good points against a God that no one actually believes in. But this is not a response to what I actually said. I said that no one has made the case that the actions you demand would result in a net good.

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            I asked for legitimate historical research. I'm aware that many newspapers don't find traditional, common sense claims exciting enough to sell advertising. And I'm not going to bother quoting other junk articles supporting the historicity of the texts.

            Rather, I'm going to point out that even this article agrees with my point: that there is evidence. None of the scholars mentioned within the article would claim otherwise. So, if you're agreeing to that, we can move on to the question of whether the evidence is sufficent.

            In fact, even Bart Ehrman (one of the scholars from the article you reference) has directly taken my position on this:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            Again, simply saying "I can't think of anything" doesn't mean anything other than that you can't think of anything. It is a statement about you, not God.

            But, in this case, I'll give you the alternate explanation. Proponents of the Kalam claim that God existed timelessly apart from the creation of the universe—not that he was created at some point within time.

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            "May or may not happen" is not a tautology, it is a claim regarding contingent facts.

            In the case of nothing existing, there is no reason to think "may or may not happen" is true. And I gave quite a few reasons why it is not true.

            This is why no one ever believed it before the evidence for the beginning of the universe came in from science, and materialist atheists began scrambling for a reason to explain it without giving up their materialist atheism.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Hello ! Nice day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You said "My definition of simplicity is the one used to support Ockham's Razor. "

            Me too!

            However the Occam's Razor does not say that the complexity or simplicity depends diretamentedo number of shares that something is formed.

            Anyway I never said anything about how many parts is formed the "JN blue devil" in the same way that you did not say how many parts is formed god.

            Still, the razor of Occam says you should ** not add unnecessary hypotheses ** to a theory or concept ..

            If the creator has the power to create a universe is unnecessary to state that it can create a million of them, like your god.

            Thus, by Occam's Razor blue devil is simpler!

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I asked, and you still have not answered why firefighters, police officers, doctors, nurses can help children burned morrerm, estrupradas, drowned and etc. and God can not do it? Men have more power than God? or God has no power?

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You have said "So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this). "

            I said : "If this is true than God fail and He is not omniscient. Because He does not really knows about the future."

            Do you agree god does not know about the future ( what a person will do in the future ? )

            and therefore he is not omniscient?

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said " As I said, knowing that you will do something does not mean having to do it."

            Of course in this case the knowledge is fake because the prevision fail.

            So, god fail in his prevision then he is not omniscient!

            Otherwise it would necessarily follow that what he foresaw for him,

            ie he would have to follow his predictions about their actions as a robot follow your schedule.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            You say without any proof that finite beings are always imperfect.

            I god is perfect and have power to create perfect beings (like clones of himself ) and do not this

            then he is imperfect. He had prefered create imperfect beings so he is not perfect.

            unless you think that sadism is part of perfection

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            You are saying that there may be smart things that do not need an intelligent creator?

            If yes , I agree ! The darwin evolution say the same :-)

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            You said "Who ever claimed that God needs time to decide and then create things? I've never suggested this"

            Yes! it is what I am saying:

            Exactly. All that would need to be created should be done instantly, without any outlay of time.

            "In other words, the universe would have to have been created at the time of God's creation. If God has never been created, then the universe also could never have been created."

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            Why God would create something if he does not want to create something?

            If he criu something unintentionally he is a clumsy and therefore is not perfect.

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            There is a lot of reason to create some life and after kill all of them, one of them is the person is sadistic.

            If you agree that god can be sadistic then I agree with you,

            Otherwise if he is good and omniscient it is not the case because theres paintfull in this process.

            So, you have to give a reason to god-good make people suffer and after a long time destroy all.

            Becausse a sadistic god would do this not a good one.

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I do not agree with you that if someone creates millions of innocent children knowing beforehand who will die painfully and then puts his plan into practice killing them with suffering is a being good. Rather it proves that this being is not kind. If you have a good reason for this god of psychopathic behavior you must show us.

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            See, an electron is fired and will hit a bulkhead. During the course if God says to the scientist the position and the * exact * speed of the electron, Do you think this does not hurt the principle of Heisenberg uncertainty?

            Of course it hurts because the principle says that you can not know this accurately.

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            If any being who * can * help a child to be burned or raped or drowned or eaten by worms or bacteria and * does nothing * and makes them suffer until death is a clear reason to be judged * guilty * for crime omission.

            So God is to blame for all this suffering and death as would have the power to prevent such atrocities.

            Moreover, as said before, I say that all evil is necessary for the greater good in the future then the rogue killers and rapists should be released since they promote a greater good for the future.

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'

            Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html#ixzz3m7M2OgGi

            Besides these almost no evidence of the existence of Jesus we can use the Occam's Razor and choose:

            A- A dead resurrected and ascended to heaven (no rocket) or

            B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and people believe?

            A- Someone has done miracles that contradicted the laws of physics or

            B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and people believe?

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            God can not be out of time because the time is the amount of events that hapenned.

            If God was out of time it is why God did not exist or did nothing.

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You are wrong see Wiki:

            A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.

            There are infinitely many tautologies. Examples include:

            (A lor lnot A) ("A or not A"), the law of the excluded middle.

            This formula has only one propositional variable, A. Any valuation for this formula must, by definition, assign A one of the truth values true or false,

            and assign lnotA the other truth value.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

            If A='something happen' then

            (something happen) or not ( something happen )

            so you can NOT say ONLY "not ( something happen )" is true.

            eventually "can happen" can happen

          • D Foster

            Greetings once again to you.

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Ockham's Razor states that one should not "multiply entities unnecesarilly". That is, a theory requiring fewer entities should be prefered over one requiring more. God is a single, unified entity.

            God's power would only be more complex than a weaker being if it came in descrete parts (which it does not). As such, saying that the "little blue devil" is weaker is not to say that it is simpler.

            Moreover, I'm aware that you've never said how many parts the "little blue devil" has, but (for this to be a good argument), this should be said. So, which parts does a "little blue devil" have? Is it physical? Is it's power composed of discreete units? If so, why does it have the exact number that it does? If not, why does it have limitations on the amount it can create?

            These are all complexities of the "little blue devil" hypothesis that would have to be addressed before anyone could rightly claim that it is simpler.

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I've not answered why "God can not do it" because I never aggreed that God cannot. Rather, I suggested that God would have good reasons for not doing what you think he ought to do.

            Granted, I've abstained from telling you any of the (several) reasons why I think he might not do so, because that is not really the point. Rather, the point is this: The fact that you don't, personally, have an answer to this question doesn't remotely mean that "men have more power than God". It means that the answer hasn't occured to you yet.

            That is fine, so long as we recognize that this is what it means, and don't take it to be saying anything about God.

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            No, I would say that God does indeed know about the future. I never meant to suggest otherwise. I feel that this should be obvious enough from my past comments.

            In fact, if you search for the place where I made the quoted comment, you will find this immediately following what you've quoted: "All omniscience means is that God would know that these people will change their minds."

            So, people can choose something different. Omniscience means that they won't, actually, choose something different. This seems to me a very simple distinction. We shouldn't be making an argument based on confusing the two.

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            Why does not being required to choose something, but still knowing you will choose it, mean that "the knowledge is fake"? That seems patently false.

            Again, there is a difference between being able to choose something else, and actually choosing something else. This entire argument hangs on not understanding that difference.

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I didn't say that finite beings are always imperfect. I said that I personally suspected that this was true. I never claimed it as fact. I also never said that God never created perfect beings.

            What I did say is that I know of no reason that creating beings like us (who are imperfect) is automatically worse than refusing to create us. From what I can tell, you seem to think that God (if he exists) could have made us, only perfect, but chose not to.

            I don't see why you should think that such perfect beings would really be us. If you claim otherwise, then please explain how you know this. If you don't claim otherwise, then you aren't claiming that the premises supporting your argument are true. In that case, you yourself would reject the argument.

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            There seems to be a tone here that is drifting toward rhetorical victory over logical analysis.

            If you agree that intelligent things to not need an intelligent creator, then you have rejected the arumgent that God would need an intelligent creator simply on the grounds that he is intelligent.

            If so, great. We can scratch this argument off the list and move on to the others.

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            You seem to have a hidden assumption here.

            I completely agree that God would not need time to decide about creating things. But you seem to think at least two other things that I do not agree with:

            A. That needing time to decide is the only reason why God would create something over time, rather than instantly, and

            B. That God "was created" in a specific moment, rather than existing timelessly.

            Yes, if we accept those two additional statements, you have a good argument here. So, what reason is there to accept those claims?

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            I don't remember ever saying that God would create something when he does not want to create.

            I did say that having needs is not the only reason to create a thing. But suggesting that there are reasons other than needs is completely different than saying that God does not want to create.

            Really, this reads a bit like you aren't trying so hard to understand as score a rhetorical point. I'm not saying for sure, but please do be careful to respond to statements I've actually made. This is my chief frustration with the list in general. It is an attack on things that no theist I know of has actually claimed.

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            First, this is more misunderstanding of what theists are saying. When did I claim or agree that God will destroy all life? That doesn't fit in with Christian theism at all.

            Second, and much more importantly, this seems like more rhetoric over logic. It's no more rational than this horrifically bad argument:
            "There are lot's of reasons why someone might not believe in God, one of them is that the person is too stupid to understand the concept. If you agree that atheists are too stupid to understand the concept..."

            Do you see why that would be a terrible case of me resorting to rhertorical attacks over addressing the issue logically? The same goes for your statement about God.

            You claimed to know that God does not have such a reason. That is the whole basis of the argument here. You need to support that claim with something better than the demand that I offer a specific reason and prove that that is the correct one. This argument does not succeed until I can prove otherwise; that's not how logic works.

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            Personally, you are allowed to believe that any good being would not create people knowing that they will suffer. If you simply claimed that you believe this, I would not have objected.

            Rather, what you claimed was to know, objectively, that this is not what a good being would do. That is what it would take for this to be a good argument. If you have a way of knowing this, please let me know what it is.

            Personally, I don't see why it isn't entirely possible that (given an infinite timeline) any finite amount of suffering could be morally offset by the infinite amount of good it will create later. That definitely seems a possibility, and simply insisting that I prove that I know exactly how that would work out does not prove that this isn't a real posibility.

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            If God "says" that to the scientist, then we are dealing with spacio-temporal displacement of material objects. So, we're already beyond what I've claimed.

            But, no. I don't find this a violation of the principle. After all, it is a principle of measurement—not some absolute metaphysical law that works like some kind of magical barrier against what God could say.

            To take one interpretation: it isn't actually possible to measure both of these things on the same particle at the same time. This is because the particles are so small that measuring the speed of one of them (by, say, bouncing photons off of them) would change its position.

            That's a rough summary, to be sure. And there are other interpretations of the mathematical core of quantum mechanics. But the point is that there is no proof at all that a form of knowledge that did not rely on measurement (such as omniscience) would be even remotely subject to this principle.

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            This strikes me as far too manechean.

            That is, you claim that anyone who suggests that suffering is sometimes necessary for the greater good must then conclude that "the rogue killers and rapists should be released since they promote a greater good for the future". But this assumes at least two things that I find dubious:

            A. That intent has absolutely nothing to do with moral character (that is, a doctor who accedentially causes death when trying to save someone is evil, whereas a would-be murderer who accedentally saves someone is good). This strikes me as very questionable at best.

            B. That releasing "the rogue killers and rapists" would actually promote a greater good. Perhaps their being locked up is part of what promotes the greater good?

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Michael Paulkovich is not a real historian. Anyone can write a book, throw in some distorted claims backed up with cherry-picked or flat-out false data and make yet another sensationalist claim that panders to conspiracy theorists and those with a vested interest in attacking Christianity. This does not make the claims in that book true.

            Really, this is the atheist version of Young Earth Creationism. Yes, we see sensational headlines and book titles from time to time claiming to "explode" the "myth" of Darwinism. I just roll my eyes and pick up the book written by a real scientist. One should do the same with Paulkovich.

            Second, even if we rejected the opinions of experts (including atheists like Bart Ehrman) and claimed that Jesus never existed, this doesn't remotely mean that "there is no evidence". That is an even harder claim to justify. As Ehrman himself puts it "you can systematically reject anything, but if you want to do real history, you have to actually look at the evidence".

            As to your alternatives on offer, this is mostly a subject change. Those questions are fairly easy to answer, provided one doesn't go into the conversation with the pre-conceived attitude that Christianity is almost certainly false. (Yes, that will lead one to the conclusion that Christianity is almost certainly false. No shock there.) But, mostly, they are beside the point. Once you've either:

            A. Established that many expert historians specializing in the first century believe that Jesus did not exist,

            B. Made a sound historical case that addresses their reasons for rejecting that claim, or

            C. Agreed that there was actually a person named Jesus of Nazareth who was believed my many to be the messiah, was arrested and crucified, and whos followers believed was resurrected,

            Then we can move on to the question of what the most plausible explanation of the texts are. But we shouldn't be trying to draw massive conclusions before we've even settled the question of what the evidence is. This is not how rational inquiry works.

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            I don't see a reason here why a God that exists out of time cannot affect events within time. This should be completely possible for God.

            Nor do I see a reason why (as Craig himself believes) God cannot exist outside of time without the universe, and within time once the universe was created.

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            Of course, I can say that "only not ( something happen )" is true. If we couldn't say that, then theism would be true automatically.

            That is, all things that could possibly happen would eventually happen. This would mean that every possibility is realized sooner or later, even the spontaneous creation of a God who exists outside of time and is otherwise exactly what I've been arguing for.

            So, if you can't say "only not (something happen)", then that has happened or will happen and God (being outside of time) does exist.

            Not that I believe any of that, but it is certainly not to defend theism that I believe one can sometimes say "no, this (may not) happen, (may) can be taken off the table". Rather, my reason is as follows:

            I didn't claim that there aren't infinitely many tautologies. I agree with that. I also agree that "If something can hapen, then something may or may not happen" is a tautology. But that is not what you claimed.

            Rather, you claimed that "if in a state of nothingness, then something may or may not happen" was a tautology. It isn't.

            "If in a state of nothingness, then nothing" is a tautology, of course. That is what I've been arguing. It is one more reason to think that the universe was not created from nothing.

            And, in a state of nothingness, I see no reason to think that the consequent "something can happen" is true. In modal terms:

            (A ∨ ¬A) ¬(A) ⊢ (¬A)

            Or

            (n ⊨ N) ⊢ (n ⊃ N)

            Or, slightly more explicitly

            (A ∨ ¬A) (n ⊨ N) (N ⊃ ¬A) (n) ⊢ (¬A)

            That is, the condition "may or may not" is a logical starting point before determining truth, not an ontological reality about a condition of "nothingness" (as if nothingness could be reified).

            To put it another way you aren't claiming "may or may not" (as in "it is either possible or impossible). You are claiming "nothingness may" (it is possible). That is not a tautology. The law of the excluded middle states that, in a state of nothing, like all other states, one must select either A or ¬A (possible or impossible). I gave a list of reasons for selecting ¬A ("may not" / impossible). You seem to think that the expression "may or may not" means "(may or may not)" [possible, but not certain], when it actually means "(may) or (may not)" [either possible or impossible]. I'm saying (may not / impossible) is the true option. You are saying (may / possible) is the true option.

            Moreover, none of this even address any of the reasons I gave for selecting "may not" / impossible. I offered a list, and have only ever had this argument regarding tautologies repeated. For anyone who believes in the value of science, the fact that there is no evidence supporting the idea that something can come from nothing, and mountains of evidence supporting the claim that it cannot, this speaks strongly in favor of my view.

            Okay, apologies for the length of some of those. I hope it helped with clarity. A second round of apologies if it didn't.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Hello god Afternoon!

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You said God is "God is a single, unified entity." and because this is more ocan's razor compatible.

            How do you know how god is made? You do not know this.

            If you do not have a "X-ray" of god you do not know how god is.

            More over pimitive people think a black-box with a hyper-computer inside is unified entity because theys can not see inside computer.

            You can not see inside god to say he is simple and *unified*.

            Is a black-box computer unified for you too?

            Moreover, we do not knows how is formed god or litle blue !

            The ONLY things we know about god and the litle blue is about their capacities , their power.

            Then we have to analyze through their capacitys or power. See this two hipoteses:

            -A being 'D' has power to solve only a QTD mathematics and logical problems.

            -A being 'G' has power to solve QTD + ILIMITED mathematics and logical problems.

            Of course , 'G' has more hipothesis than 'D'.

            So, God is more complex than the litle blue Daemon.

            If do not agree with this I have a better:

            -A being 'G' that is always a good being.

            -A being 'D' not necessary is good

            So 'G' has an extra hipothesis : he is good being.

            --------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            you're always telling me :

            "The fact that you don't, personally, have an answer to this question doesn't remotely mean that 'xxxxx' have no answer. It means that the answer hasn't occured to you yet."

            The prosecutor says:

            "You were caught with the knife bathed in blood on the victim still dying."

            Defendant says:

            "The fact that you do not find a solution to my innocence does not mean I'm not innocent.It means that the answer hasn't occured to you yet."

            **** The onus of proof is yours **** because the evidence points to his god is guilty.

            So, every thing/evidence that point God is very evil you will say " I suggested that God would have good reasons for not doing what you think he ought to do."

            In any case the evidence is there and it's up to you to make the defenses of your god or simply agree that it does not exist.

            You have some defense to solve the contradictions of a good God and the wickedness that He could avoid?

            --------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You're contradicting yourself. Or God knows what you will do in the future or do not know.

            I ask you again:

            You can choose something other than what God predicted that you would choose?

            For example, if God foresaw, even before you were born, that you would kill a person, you could choose not kill that person?

            Yes ou No ?

            -------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            Do You agree that if, for example,

            God predicted that he would create Andromeda on the second day so he necessarily would have to build Andromeda on the second day?

            And if he does not do it ( this prediction ) he would have predicted wrongly?

            -------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            Again the evidence points for god imperfect.

            The onus of the proof is yours.

            If God make imperfect beings (we) then he is responsable for this act.

            If God made imperfect men he is responsible for it and for all the consequences that their actions are leading. If these imperfect beings he created are leading to much suffering then it is his responsibility to these sufferings because he knew that this would happen when you created them, including the death of several innocent children Murders committed, raped, burned alive, eaten alive by bactétias and worms etc ..

            And do not tell me that I have to find an answer to these contradictions of a good God !!! rsrsr The onus of proof is if I ever I pointed out that it is bad or does not exist.

            ------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            I agree to withdraw this argument if you agree that Darwin's theory is sufficient for the evolution of intelligent life without the need for an intelligent creator.

            ------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I do not quite understand what you mean but, you agree that everything that God did not need time to do it? or rest? So if he needed time or rest it is because it really is not all-powerful?

            -------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            Here you are being confused by the word "want" just means the will, or the need to satisfy a desire. If God wanted something, it will, is because it was not complete, was imperfect.

            Because something perfect is complete.

            -------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You answer :"When did I claim or agree that God will destroy all life? "

            Not you! The science tell this, especifically The entropy law says it.

            If god already knows everything will happen and that the universe he created will end

            and all life would dead then I'm accused him to be bad (imperfect ) because all live will be died for His guilty.

            ----------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I tell you be a kind not allow innocent ceianças were raped, burned alive, drowned and dead with a lot of grief if he had the power to help them and yet do nothing. Do you think being a kindly allow these atrocities without reacting?

            -------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            The origin of the idea of the principle of uncertainty is about a thought experiment on measurement, however, it became a postulate of quantum mechanics and is independent of any measurement.

            So if God knows the position and velocity of the particle it would be violating this principle of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics does not talk about infirm exception * type it is valid only for humans, not gods!

            ---------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You are saying every thing that hapen , does not matter how much suffer is involved,

            everything that happen is *always* good for the good of the future.

            Is not it?

            Then, for this kind of thought, if you release prisioner, or arrest them, does not matter, is the same

            because everything happen will be good at end.

            For example if you see some child being rapped you would think :

            "if I not help her it will be good because this suffer is good to the future.

            because nothing that happens is actually evil. Everything has a purpose for a better future."

            So this kind of thoght leads for no etic behavior.

            -----------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            To be or not historian does not mean that what one person wrote is false or correct. Moreover who wrote the Bible were also not historians.

            But this does not invalidate the argument:

            It is more likely that the Bible is false than many physical laws have been violated. A magic today, at that time, one could also go through messiah very easily :-)

            ----------

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            God could not be out the time:

            "The Jocaxian time of the leak Theorem states that:

            If two systems are not isolated from each other, and if one of them there is time, then the other will also time.

            Proof:

            Time is the relationship between events. If one of the systems is time and they are not isolated from each other, then these events may also be correlated from the other system. Therefore, the first system in which there is time can serve as a time stamp for the second system. So, the second system will be time well.

            We can use these two theorems to argue against the existence of God:

            God can not be timeless, because it would violate the JN theorem of time leakage: If in our universe time occurs, and how our universe is not isolated from God, it follows that time also occurs to God. In addition, at TJPC there is no need for God to create the first phenomenon, and this refutes the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas according to which the movement requires a first mover that would be God. It also refutes the idea of ??an eternally existing God, as this would contradict the corollary of the beginning of time."

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You are wrong because in a Jocaxian Nothingness State

            only the tautologies we can applied in this state because there is no rules i.e. no premisses.

            We can analize only with the pure logic without premisses .

            You are wrong to use any premise (metaphysics or not) beyond the very logic precisely because the state does not allow assumptions because there are no laws. So all we have is the logic. So you can not choose the option (not happen) as the only possible because a premise is necessary:

            (A v ~ A) ^ (~ (A)) -> ~ A

            You would be postulating the premise ~ (A) and you can not use the laws of our physical universe to deny that nothing can come into nothingness.

            So the logical tautology (A v ~ A) ém possible for something to happen. (A)

          • D Foster

            Greetings!

            And, otherwise jumping back into this:

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            There are a number of reasons for knowing that God is a unified entity, but I can't say I understand the point of getting into those arguments.

            After all, this entire argument was based on rejecting God on the grounds that he was too complex. Thus, we need to show that God is complex in order for this argument to work. Simply insisting that we should assume that the argument works until we can show that God is not complex is fallacious reasoning (argumentum ad ignoratium).

            We've also seen no reason to suppose that the little blue devil is a simple entity. If you are claiming that it is simpler than God, you need to answer the questions I've already posed about it—explaining that it is simple in the techical sense required by Ockham's Razor.

            Nor do I know why you assert that his capacities are the only things we know about God. There are a number of philosophical demonstrations which draw out God's other traits. Are you claiming that you know of a way to show, decisively, that all of these demonstrations are wrong?

            If so, please explain. If not, then we can't simply assert that this is all we know.

            ------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            Actually, the onus of proof happens to be yours, on this point, because you are the one claiming to know something.

            Whatever we might assume from a legal analogy, in logical discourse, it is the person making the claim which has the burden to support that claim. You have claimed to know that God does not have a valid reason for allowing suffering.

            I'm open to hearing support for that claim. (I'm not even demanding that it rise to the level of a logical proof, as this argument claims to be.) But, so far, I haven't recieved anything.

            But let me know if you are abdicating that claim. That would put us into a different conversaion.

            ------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            Okay, let me try this again.

            Yes, you COULD choose differently than God knows you will, but you WON'T (because, if you did, that would change God's knowledge so that he would know that you made that different choice).

            This strikes me as rather elementary. It is the difference between logical and temporal priority. There is absolutely nothing about foreknowledge (perfect or otherwise) that contradicts free will. That is, knowing what someone is going to freely choose doesn't mean that the person doesn't freely choose it. I simply don't see the problem here, and neither does any philosopher I've ever read (and, yes, that includes many atheists).

            ------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            This is the same argument as above and has the same answer. If God predicted that he would do something, then he would do it—but this is not because his prediction is making him do things. Rather, it is because his doing something in the future informs his prediction.

            To assume otherwise is to get things precisely backwards. It also assumes that God exists within time, which is another thing I don't accept.

            ------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            Again, the onus of proof is on the person who typed the word "Proof" followed by a claim (in this case, the claim that God cannot coexist with imperfection).

            It is simply not true that this claim is correct until we can prove otherwise. That isn't how logic works.

            I simply reject the claim that God is responsible for the decisions of whatever free creatures he creates. This is like saying that, even though you are an adult, your parents are responsible for every decision you make because they knew you'd be imperfect when they created you, and it is their responsibility if you were to choose to murder someone. I don't see a logical connection here.

            ------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            You write:

            "I agree to withdraw this argument if you agree that Darwin's theory is sufficient for the evolution of intelligent life without the need for an intelligent creator."

            How does this follow? If I were to agree to that, that would suddenly make your argument bad?

            I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but this reads as if you are more interested in debate points than taking logic to the questions at hand.

            If you have anything to say in defense of the claim that all intelligent beings require an intelligent cause, please say it.

            If you don't, then this argument has not been defended, and should be considered a failure. At that point, I'll happily move to a discussion about evoulution (you might find that I agree with more than you expect), but that has absolutely no bearing on the current argument.

            ------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            Yes, I agree that God does not need time to decide to create a universe.

            The only thing I added to that was that there is a difference between not needing time, and not taking time. I'm suggesting that, sure, God could have created everything instantly, but chose not to.

            -------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You say that "want" means "the will, or the need to satisfy a desire". Okay, great. So, one or the other.

            I'd say that, in this case, "want" means "the will".

            But you are asserting that it always means having a need, to which I ask "what happened to the one or the other approach above?"

            Again, the title here claims to have proof that God cannot be perfect. As such, I'd like to see proof that "want" always, in all cases, requires having a need.

            -------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            Yes, I understand the concept of the thermodynamic heat death of the universe.

            But I simply don't agree with the notion that God is bound by the laws of thermodynamics. Again, if this is a proof, where is the proof that God must abide by that law?

            ----------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            This is another rhetorical statement without a logical case to support it.

            First, who says God did nothing? How do we know that God isn't highly providentially active: allowing suffering, but arranging things in such a way as to bring about an even greater good?

            Sorry to be redundant but:

            This claims to be a proof that God is evil (provided he exists). So, where is the proof that he has no good reason for what he allows to happen?

            -------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I'd like to see the experimental verification of the claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to cases that do not involve measurement.

            Or, if you'd prefer, you can attempt a metaphysical demonstration to that end (but, of course, we'd no longer be talking about the laws of physics). I've never heard a legitimate scientist support that claim, or anything like it (and I've read quite a bit on quantum mechanics).

            Nor does it make any sense to say that God is bound by the laws of science. That is simply a completely wrong-headed way to think about God in the first place. God is not a physical entity.

            ---------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            No, I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out that this proof claims that there is no good reason for the suffering in the world, but offers no support for that claim other than to point out that suffering exists.

            We can agree that suffering exists, but that does nothing to show that there is no good reason for it.

            -----------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Ig or Silva (?)]

            I never claimed that the authors of the Bible were historians. I claimed that historians are the experts on how to verify documents from the past, and they agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

            Now, I agree that this isn't true simply because they say it is, but it is worth mentioning. After all, what would you think of this argument:
            "Yes, I know that every scientist in the world says I'm wrong, but look at this high school principal, he says I'm right."

            That's basically the argument from outsiders. It's also a common argument among Young Earth Creationists. If one is going to oppose all the experts on Earth, one needs to offer a very good reason for doing so.

            ----------

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            All you've done here is articulate one of William Lane Craig's reasons for taking the view that he does about God's relation to time.

            Even if I agreed with what is written here, all it does is show that God would have to be in time as of the moment of creation, it does nothing to show that there had to be a time that preceded the universe.

            But that's assuming that I accept this line of reasoning in the first place.

            ----------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            Of course there are premises regarding a "Jocaxian Nothingness State". For starters, "A Jocaxian Nothingness State is instantiated" is a premise. And it would have to be accepted (at least hypothetically) to even begin to apply logic.

            There are others I could name, but (more generally) logic only addresses relations between premises. Logic cannot be applied without premises. This is a basic variation on Descartes' famous insight.

            You also seem to think that metaphysics does not apply because "there are no laws". This is just confused. Metaphysics is not dependent on scientific laws. It is the basis of science, and has a broader reach. Quite a bit is accessible via metaphysics, but not to scientific laws.

            Nor did I simply postulate the premise ¬(A). I postulated the premise "there is nothing" and drew from that the tautological conclusion that "nothing exists". Hence, "if there is nothing, then nothing exists". Or, more directly, nothing cannot create something.

            This is a rather elementary point, and it stands logically, regardless of whether or not there are "laws".

            It also stands whether or not one wants to argue that there is a difference between "nothing" and "Jocaxian Nothingness". This is for at least two reasons. First because, if there were, then the later is not nothing. Second, because that would mean you're offering more premises ("not just nothing, but this specific kind of state of nothing").

            It is not possible for "nothing exists" to logically entail that "something exists".

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Nice Day !

            (Sorry if some times I use the google tradutor ).

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Well,

            if you can say your god is a unified entity why I can't say the same?

            You said: "this entire argument was based on rejecting God on the grounds that he was too complex."

            No!

            You do not got the argument. The argument is based in Ocan's razor:

            I am saying that "The Litle Blue Devil" ( LBD ) is * simpler * than God and can create the Universe.

            So you should choose the LBV and not God as the creator of the universe.

            This is the real argument.

            Thus, for example,

            you claim that GOD is good , well, this is a not necessary hypothesis and LBD do not need to have it.

            So LBD has at least one hypothesis less than God. Therefore it's preferable than God.

            -------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            In reality the onus of proof is on who goes against the ocan's razor.

            There is suffering of innocent children dying and there, on one side,

            the unnecessary hypothesis of a good ghost and Almighty,

            on the other hand that there is this god ghost.

            Thus, by Occam's Razor should choose the theory under unnecessary hypotheses in the case, the second hypothesis.

            In other words:

            The fact is that there are innocent children suffering and dying.

            And there are two theories:

            The first theory says that there is a good ghost, omniscient and almighty that does nothing for these children.

            The second theory says that such a god ghost does not exist.

            Thus, as the first theory involve unnecessary assumptions, we get the second theory: God ghost does not exist.

            If you claim the first theory is true you have to proof this.

            -----------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            No, you are wrong.

            If you did something different than God's knowledge (destination) then God fail his knowledge and he is not omniscient.

            If you can not do anything different you have no choice, all 'choices' are prohibited and you never could choice any of them.

            And you still not answer the question:

            If god predict, before you born, that you kill some person, you can change this destination. You have to kill this person.

            So, you do not have free will. You must follow your destination ( inside mind of god ) .

            And one more question : you disagree you said before? :

            You have said:

            "So, yes, any person can choose something different than what God knows that person will do (as in, they have the ability to do this). They have every power to do that."

            If the person do this , than implies that god *fail* the forecast He did.

            --------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said: "If God predicted that he would do something, then he would do it—but this is not because his prediction is making him do things.

            Rather, it is because his doing something in the future informs his prediction."

            No, prediction is knowledge *before* happen.

            So, if he knows everithing he will do , then he can not change this forecast. He must follow it until the end with not change. Like a robot.

            --------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            Again, the onus of proof is on who goes against the ocan's razor.

            We have as fact the universe is not perfect because the men is not perfect.

            So, we have 2 theorys:

            1-a ghost with super powers and super knowledge , a perfect one, creating imperfect beings.

            2-A universe only ( without this ghost )

            The second theory has less hipothesis so is preferable than first one.

            because this we have to choice the second theory.

            If you choose the first you have to poof the extras hipothesis (god + superpower+super knowledge ) is true.

            -------------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            Do you agree that Darwin's theory is sufficient for the evolution of intelligent life without the need for an intelligent creator ?

            The theist of intelligent design says not. See wiki:

            "..Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that

            "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3.."

            If you agree with me we can delete this topic.

            -----------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            You said :"God could have created everything instantly, but chose not to."

            This sentence is something like:

            "He's strong but decided not to use his strength" or

            "He's smart, but chose not solve problems" or

            "He's good, but solve be bad this time" or

            "I could do quickly, but chose to delay"

            I think the onus of proof is yours.

            Because the second hipothesis is "there is no god". It is simpler than these.

            ------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            if a being wants something it is because something is not perfect.

            If everything perfect would not want that. So if God wanted something it's because not everything was perfect, something had to be done to improve.

            Something is perfect when there is room for improvement, so God was not perfect, there were things to be done to improve.

            ----------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You are saying that god will break the physical law to stop entropy?

            ----------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            The fact is that innocent children in every age every year are abused, raped, drowned, cut, eaten by bacteria, dead from hunger and etc .. all with much suffering and pain.

            So we have two theories:

            1-There is a good all-powerful god that could help these children wanted.

            2-There is no such ghost-god.

            By Occam's razor we should stick with the theory 2 unless there is evidence that such atrocities are necessary and a good explanation of why ests million children had to suffer. The onus of proof lies on those who contrary to Occam's Razor.

            -------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            "I'd like to see the experimental verification of the claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to cases that do not involve measurement."

            here is:

            "...Minimum kinetic energy

            An important consequence of the uncertainty principle is that a particle confined to a particular region of space has a minimum average kinetic energy...."

            Another:

            "This is ** not ** a statement about the inaccuracy of ** measurement ** instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

            --------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You are not clear what you are saying.

            Choose one:

            1-Every suffer on the word had and has a proposal for the future good, in other words:

            all the suffering that exists or existed in the world has a purpose for the greater good in the future or now.

            2-There is, or was, a suffering that * not * caused, and neither will cause, a greater good.

            In the first case, every thing any person do is good. If someone raped another one is good !

            So theres is no moral everything happen is good!!

            In the second case, God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission.

            ------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Ig or Silva (?)]

            Not all histoprians agree Jesus existed.

            And who wrote the bible were not historians so they were not experts on how to verify documents from the past !

            what you tell me this phrase "all religious and nonreligious believed that the earth was flat"

            Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

            Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

            http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

            The reason is because there is not any evidence from his existence.

            Even the "Shroud of Turin" fail in carbon test.

            Moreover, you do not show how percent of historians that make searches agree with jesus existence.

            ------------------------------------

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            If you agree we can delete this point.

            ---------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            Nope.

            JN is not a premisse.

            The JN is a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic.

            If JN was a premisse than it is true and end.

            If the JN was a premise it should be considered true and would be the end of the analysis.

            You said " Logic cannot be applied without premises. "

            You are wrong see the site:

            "...They tend to specify that an argument starts with a set of premises, and I have never seen any restrictions placed on the cardinality of that set. Disallowing sets with exactly zero premises strikes me as exactly as unnatural as disallowing sets with any odd number of premises. ..."

            "...For example, the argument

            P or not P

            has zero premises and arrives at a tautological conclusion (as must all valid arguments with zero premises).

            And the validity can be expressed syntactically, as its sole step is justified as the introduction of a known tautology...."

            "...some logic texts allow that an argument can have no premises, though as others have noted, it is a matter of convention whether we extend the definition of “argument” to include single sentences or not...."

            "..One example of a contemporary logic textbook which includes single sentences under its definition is Nicholas J. J. Smith's Logic: The Laws of Truth (2012):

            In our usage, an argument is a sequence of propositions. We call the last proposition in the argument the conclusion…. The other propositions are premises ….

            There may be any finite number of premises (**** even zero ****). (page 11).."

            "..So, in summary: An argument with no premises is reasonable and meaningful...."

            http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21144/can-there-be-an-argument-without-premises

            You said "You also seem to think that metaphysics does not apply because "there are no laws"."

            No only physical laws , but even metaphisical laws.

            You said " I postulated the premise "there is nothing" "

            Its is wrong because there is the Jocaxian Nothingness. Its is nothing its a being.

            You said " Or, more directly, nothing cannot create something."

            Here are two mistakes:

            1-There is something : the JN

            2-Is not part of the logic this premisse ("nothing cannot create something"). So you can not conclude this.

            only we vae is ( P or NOT P )

            and we can not conclude "P is true" or conclude "NOT P" is true

            eventually P can be true ans eventually "NOT P" can be true.

          • D Foster

            Greetings once again.

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            I can say that God is a unified entity because that has always been the understanding of what God is. Many philosophers (most famously Thomas Aquinas) have detailed out exactly what that means.

            Now, if you want to say that the "Little Blue Devil" is also a unified entity, then you have to explain how it is different from God. The only thing you've said is that it is less powerful than God, but (as I've explained earlier) this would make it more complex than God, not simpler.

            Certainly, there's no reason to think that whatever it is you've proposed is simpler than God. Being less powerful doesn't automatically make a thing simpler. A volcano, for instance is simpler than an insect.

            But you do argue that God's being good also makes the idea more complex. This, again, is an argument from misunderstanding what theists have actually said. Goodness is not a seperate "hypothesis" that is added on to the idea of God. God's goodness and power are one and the same thing, according to divine simplicity. (Nor would it be a "hypothesis" anyway, but that's a different point) This has been well known for centuries.

            But, if you're claiming that the "Little Blue Devil" doesn't have goodness, are you claiming that it is evil? That it is morally neutral? That it is partially good?

            Regardless of which of these you picked (or even something else), why should anyone who thinks that "goodness" is an additional trait not think that evil, moral nutrality, or whatever is an additional trait?

            -----------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            First, God is not a ghost. This is still more arguing against something that theists have never claimed.

            Second "the onus of proof" is most certainly not on whomever "goes against [Ockham's] Razor". It is on the person making the claim. That has always been the nature of logic. We can't suddenly rewrite logic here.

            Third, this is an abuse of Ockham's Razor. No one is offering God as an explanation for the suffering of innocents. Theism only contradicts Ockham's Razor if this were the basis for claiming the God exists.

            But no theistic thinker has ever done that. This is yet another case of arguing against something that no one has ever claimed.

            So, I will agree with you that a "god ghost" who was invented to explain why innocents suffer doesn't exist, but I have no idea who you think ever claimed otherwise.

            -----------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I didn't say that I would do something different that God's knowledge. I said that I have the ability to do something different. I also said being able to do something different doesn't mean that I will actually do that thing.

            I keep pointing this out, but you never address this possibility. Your entire resonse here assumes that "can" and "will" mean the exact same thing. They do not.

            And I've already answered the question. I wrote:

            "Yes, you COULD choose differently than God knows you will, but you WON'T (because, if you did, that would change God's knowledge so that he would know that you made that different choice)."

            You are free to answer, but don't simply write more that assumes that "can" and "will" are the same thing. Please explain why you're convinced that they are the same thing.

            --------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            This is, again, confusing temporal priority with logical priority. If God knows the future, then the future informs the knowledge, regardless of the fact that it happens "*before*" (as you put it). This is rather elementary. If we are talking about foreknowledge, then effect precedes cause.

            It is a basic logical distinction, not something to be confused with efficient causation.

            --------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            No, the "onus of proof" is on the person making the claim. This is absolutely basic. You can look this up in any textbook on philosophy.

            Or you could check the Wikipedia article:

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

            "the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim"

            You are affirming that God and imperfection cannot coexist. You claim to know that. All I've been doing is asking you to explain how you know that. Simply telling me that I have to prove you wrong doesn't do anything to show us how you could know that.

            You claim above that you ahve proof. I'm simply asking you for the proof.

            Moreover, you're attacking more strawmen. From what you say about God, it is clear that you've not read any theologians or theistic philosophers on the subject. No one is proposing the sort of "god" that you keep arguing against.

            -------------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            Okay, you seem to have dropped the claim that intelligent beings always require intelligent creators.

            You aren't willing to say this, however, it looks like you're trying to distract from the fact that this argument has failed by talking about evolution.

            If you think this was a good argument, explain why.

            If not, tell me that you've changed your mind about it.

            Until you've done one of those two things, I'm simply not going to answer your questions about evolution.

            -----------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            Yes, my statement is very much like the sentences you list.

            But I don't need to prove that is true, because I merely suggested it as a possibility. I wasn't the one who typed the word "Proof" followed by a claim.

            Are you no longer claiming that you can prove that God couldn't have made the universe?

            If not, you aren't making an argument against God's existence.

            In general, I'm strongly considering ignoring some of these points in the future. I mean no disrespect to you as a person, but this is going down a disappointing path. I answered these arguments because someone was claiming to know some things about whether or not God existed. I thought you might have some support for what you claimed.

            Instead, I keep being told that I suddenly need to prove everything. Not only is that incorrect (as I am the challenger in this situation), but I can have that conversation with myself. I know why I think what I think, and I see no point in repeating that here. We haven't been talkning about my reasons for thinking what I do. We've been talking about yours. As such, I thought you would give me your reasons for what you think. Simply demanding that I prove mine doesn't help or interest me at all.

            ------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You claim:

            "if a being wants something it is because something is not perfect.

            If everything perfect would not want that. So if God wanted something it's because not everything was perfect, something had to be done to improve."

            But I'm not sure how you konw that there are no other possibilities. How do you know that it is completely impossible to want to help because someone else needs it (and not simply because you need to help someone)?

            Perhaps someone could make the case that this is true of humans (I'm skeptical, but perhaps). But this just assumes that God's psychology is basically like our own. This is another claim that I would challenge. I don't see why that needs to be true.

            I don't see any logical reason why there can't be a being that wants to do something for reasons other than having a need.

            ----------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            No, I'm not. I suppose that is a possibility. It is also possible that God will move the minds of some or all people to another universe. It is also possible that the introduction of energy and/or order to the universe would acheive the same effect without breaking physical law. It is also possible that there are other ways of achieving this state that haven't occured to me yet.

            What I am saying is that, because these things are possible, one can't simply assume that none of them are true when attempting to argue against theism. That would be the classic fallacy of begging the question.

            ----------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I agree that there is "no such ghost-god". I've never heard any theist (in any point in all of history) ever claim that there was a "ghost-god". To argue against that is just to show one's ignorance of what theists have actually claimed.

            Also, there seem to be many arguments that are all degenerating into a single argument.

            This is at least the third item on this list that has boiled down to "suffering is more simply explained by the absence of a god".

            But, again, this is based in an ignorance of theology. Who on Earth ever claimed that God was an explanation of suffering?

            Also, who on Earth decided that suffering was the only thing in life that God could possibly explain. You haven't even considered the possibility that God is an extremely parsimonious explanation of other things that don't happen to be on your personal list.

            That is, if theists are correct, God explains the universe, contingent reality, moral truth, meaning, history, fundamental metaphysics, minds, and an entire host of other things with a single entity. You can say that they are wrong, but not on the grounds of Ockham's Razor. You first need to show that God does not explain those things before you can use this argument.

            So far, you haven't even attempted to show this. That's fine, as long as you never claim that atheism is somehow a simpler view. No one has shown that.

            -------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            "An important consequence of the uncertainty principle is that a particle confined to a particular region of space has a minimum average kinetic energy...."

            I have no idea how this sentence shows that the uncertainty principle includes cases that do not involve measurement.

            "This is ** not ** a statement about the inaccuracy of ** measurement ** instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."

            This comes closer. But, if one reads carefully, even this reinforces my point. Please not the phrase "even with perfect instuments and technique". That is to say, this is still discussing cases in which measuring instruments and techniques are being used.

            I was specifically asking for a case in which they were not being used.

            Moreover, even if these were claims that non-measurement based knowledge is subject to uncertainty (they aren't), they would still simply be claims. I was asking for the experimental data. What is the supporting evidence?

            --------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I don't follow your reasoning with respect to the first option.

            How does supposing that good will come out of a bad situation mean that it isn't bad? I can (and I'm sure you can) name bad situations which later resulted in good. Are you claiming that all of those situations are now good? That the people who caused them did nothing bad?

            I wouldn't say that, but you seem to believe that criminals should be set free if something good results from their crimes. Even if this weren't every case, but only much of the time, you'd be in favor of releasing quite a few criminals.

            I don't see how that makes sense. Rather, I'd say that actions can still be bad, even if good things come out of them. One doesn't have to believe that this is the case with all bad situations in order to see the point.

            ------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Ig or Silva (?)]

            You write:

            "Not all histoprians agree Jesus existed.""

            Perhaps there is someone, but I've asked you to give me even a single name a few times now, and I've only recieved the names of two non-historians and a link to an interview with an historian who claims to have never met any legitimate expert who would disagree with this claim.

            So far, I think it is clear which case is more likely.

            But I didn't say that the writers of the Bible were experts in verifying past documents. I said that they were writers of ancient documents and that modern historians (the overwhelming majority, if not all, of whom agree with me on this point) are experts in verifying past documents (such as the books of the New Testament).

            You do mention Atwill's thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. But I'll not get into why he's wrong. Instead, I'll just point out that he isn't a professional historian, either. Not the least because he has no PhD in a relevant field.

            ------------------------------------

            16- Argument: By the Kalam’s Theorem [unknown]

            You write:

            "If you agree we can delete this point."

            Is that to say that you agree with me here? I had been arguing that this is not a refutation of the Kalam, and that you're simply expressing the same views as William Lane Craig (the foremost defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument).

            So, I'm a bit confused, but if you agree with Craig about the nature of time, then I suppose we could delete it.

            ---------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You write:

            "JN is not a premisse.

            The JN is a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic."

            And this is completely odd, because "a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic" is *exactly* what a premise is.

            (Or, almost exactly, there are some other kinds of premises.)

            And, yes, premises are required for logic. For instance:

            "P or not P has zero premises and arrives at a tautological conclusion"

            Is false. "P" is itself a stand-in for a premise. The modes of logic are often expressed with fillers (such as the letter "P"). But logic cannot be applied in any meaningful way without a premise.

            Also, "P or not P" isn't a tautology. It is the law of the excluded middle. "P is P" would be a tautology.

            You also write:

            "Its is wrong because there is the Jocaxian Nothingness. Its is nothing its a being."

            If it is a being, then it is definitely a premise. Why are you supposing that it exists? What explains it's existence?

            With respect to this:

            "only we vae is ( P or NOT P )

            and we can not conclude "P is true" or conclude "NOT P" is true

            eventually P can be true ans eventually "NOT P" can be true."

            The only way you can start using the word "eventually" is if you are also supposing that time exists. This means that there is yet another premise here ("time exists").

            I completely agree that the current state of the universe could have come out of some other beings some physical state (whether we call it "JN" or anything else) and time.

            But that was never what God was being proposed to explain. God is explaining the absolute begining (why is there a "JN", or time, or whatever was the first physical being?). Whether or not something physical could explain our current space-time bubble is a completely different issue.

            Okay, that is quite long enough. Good night to you out there.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You said "I can say that God is a unified entity because that has always been the understanding of what God is"

            It is not a logical good response.

            As I said before, in the past has always been the understanding the earth is flat, and they were wrong.

            Moreover , say it is a 'unified entity' do not means it have no parts:

            'Unified' means integrated not necessarily made in the a single piece.

            See dictionary:

            "u·ni·fy (yo?o'n?-fi')

            tr. & intr.v. u·ni·fied, u·ni·fy·ing, u·ni·fies

            To make into or become a unit; consolidate."

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unified

            Another site :

            unified means :

            unaided

            murky

            integrated

            implicated

            When people or groups are all on the same page, working for the same goals and doing the same thing, they are unified.

            http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unified

            SO you can not say God have no peaces only because he is 'unified'.

            You said the Jocaxian Litle Blue "JLB" is more complex than god because it is compose of parts:

            You said :

            "God, as traditionally defined, is far simpler than the proposal of a physical creature (i.e. “little” and “blue”). The Little Blue Devil is composed of parts in a way that God is not."

            As I've explained earlier I said the name of "JLB" not means he is necessarily little or blue. So your answer is wrong.

            Moreover Your GOD has 2 more hypothesis he is : (1)Omnscient and (2)Good

            So he has at least two more hypothesis than "JLB" then GOD is more complex than "JLB" in therms of occan's razor

            therefore "JLB" is prefereble than GOD as candidate of universe creator.

            You said "A volcano, for instance is simpler than an insect."

            The insect can do many things volcano can not.

            The insect can: Flying, walking, seeing, hearing, eating, sex, play up, solve thousands of problems for food or sex, deviate from obstacles, identify sexual partners, avoid predators Not to counting the thousands of metabolic processes occurring in your body to keep working. That is, the insect power is greater than the volcano.

            And the insect infected with a bacterium or a virus that wiped out an entire population or species. The volcano can just kill whoever is next. So the insect can be more powerful than the volcano.

            ----------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            God is a ghost because they say it exists but never appears, and when people say he acted no one sees.

            You said : "Second "the onus of proof" is most certainly not on whomever "goes against [Ockham's] Razor".

            It is on the person making the claim. That has always been the nature of logic"

            It would true if only *one* person did the claim. Not two.

            If two or more person claim the opposite the other(s) then the onus of proof is who "goes against [Ockham's] Razor".

            The evidence favor occan's razor,if someone goes against evidence then he goes against occan's razor too.

            Suppose two people A and B claim different things:

            They Claim:

            A-The box is empty !

            B-The box has an elf !

            A-The earth have air !

            B-The box do not have air!

            A-The earth has life!

            B-The earth has no life !

            A-The box have some air inside!

            B-The Box has no air!

            A-The guy is guilty!

            B-The guy is not gulty!

            A-There is no life in the sun!

            B-There is life in the sum!

            Did you see?

            All of this sentence are clains.

            If some onde clain : "The earth have air!" he do not have to proof this.

            The evidence favor occans razor, goes against evidence goes against occans razor.

            but if someone say "the box has an elf" this goes against occans razor because this goes against evidences.

            in the same way the onus of the proof is not of someone who claim "there is no life in sun" but some one says the opposite.

            There is suffering of innocent children dying and there, on one side,

            the unnecessary hypothesis of a good ghost and Almighty, the I said:

            A-God does not exist.

            and

            B-God Exists

            The onus of proof is "B" because god goes against occans razor.

            ------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            Even you have physical 'ability' to make something different ,

            It is *impossible* to you choose something different the god knowledge. Because if you did somethong different god had fail in his knoledge. Your physical ability is not your real possibility.

            Answer Yes ou NOT:

            If God knowledge forecast you will shot and kill someone in 11/11/2020 at 13:05.

            Could you NOT kill this person at 11/11/2020 at 13:05? Yes or Not?

            ---------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            I think you are rolling or not understand because the thing is quite simple.

            Lets start all over again, I will draw to you:

            If, for example, God makes a prediction that after him to create the stars it will create the Earth.

            Prediction: (before) Stars ----> Earth (after)

            It can change its own forecast? Create And first the earth and then the stars?

            Real Act: (before) Earth ----> Stars (after)

            Yes or no?

            Of course He can not change!

            If He changes he would have missed its own forecast.

            ------------------------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            You said: "No, the "onus of proof" is on the person making the claim. This is absolutely basic. "

            So, you said "God exist" therefore ** you ** have to proof its existence !!

            (If there is only one person yes but, NO if two person says two different claims !

            if person A says "X" and person B says "Not X" the onus of proof is who goes against occan's razor. )

            -------------------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            You said "Okay, you seem to have dropped the claim that intelligent beings always require intelligent creators."

            You do not understand: The theist of design intelligent think this way not me.

            *they* says : every thing intelligent needs an intelligent creator. ( I do not hink so! )

            So they have to conclude god needs an intelligent creator too.

            --------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            You said : "my statement is very much like the sentences you list. But I don't need to prove that is true, because I merely suggested it as a possibility. "

            We have a tool when there is two possibilitys : The occans razor:

            1-There is a being with super power + omniscience + goodness

            2-No necessarily was god that makes the universe

            By occans razor we have to choice the secons option,

            even as those who make the first statement (the onus of the proof ) has to prove it.

            You said "I keep being told that I suddenly need to prove everything."

            Ok, you do not have to *proof* but i am saiyng the occans razor is not a proof criterium but a tool to make logical choices.

            So, I am saiyng that there is no necessity of postulate the god existence. There are abnother simpler choices than god.

            ------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            I said : "if a being wants something it is because something is not perfect.

            If everything perfect would not want that. So if God wanted something it's because not everything was perfect, something had to be done to improve."

            You said "I don't see any logical reason why there can't be a being that wants to do something for reasons other than having a need."

            Because , at beggining , second theists, there is no universe, so * there is only God *.

            and if god is perfect all that existed is perfect.

            If all is perfect there is nothing to do!

            There is no reason to do something.

            That is the reason.

            If God did something then something was not perfect.

            ----------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You said : "I suppose that is a possibility. It is also possible that God will move the minds of some or all people to another universe. "

            If we fail to follow ocan razor we will fall into a crazy world where everything is possible. So we can say that actually live in the mind of a pink unicorn invisible galloping by hyper universes toward 29 dimension where paradise awaits us with 297 beautiful virgins ... This is also a possibility, right?

            ---------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            You did not understand. Who defined God were theists and He is set to be a kind and powerful. Unless you change the goodness criteria there is a contradiction between the facts and God's definition.

            You said : "God explains the universe, contingent reality, moral truth, meaning, history, fundamental metaphysics, minds, and an entire host of other things with a single entity."

            You speaks about god as an Indian would speak of a big computer: "He makes billions of calculations per second,

            makes prediction of the time, wins Chess anyone, designs bridges and buildings and thousands of other things all in one black box!"

            It's not because you put billions of capabilities in a single word or entity (god) that this automatically makes it simple.

            Just as the Indian sees the computer as something simple it actually is not.

            Of course there is another possibilities form all happen the universe as for example, The litle jocaxian blue , our the Big-Bang+Science or the jocaxian nothingness. God present contradictions.

            The atheism is more elegant and simple vision because need no god. So there is at leas one less hypothesis.

            And you do not answer the contradiction:

            suffering children until dead and a powerfull God-Good.

            --------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            You said: "I have no idea how this sentence shows that the uncertainty principle includes cases that do not involve measurement."

            Because this statement says that particle can not stop even no one do measurement in it.

            Wiki: "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously."

            "...Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects ** regardless of any observer ** .[9]..."

            The principle is inherent in the universe and makes no exception of some god or entity that could circumvent it

            -------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I said :

            "Choose one:

            1-Every suffer on the word had and has a proposal for the future good, in other words:

            all the suffering that exists or existed in the world has a purpose for the greater good in the future or now.

            2-There is, or was, a suffering that * not * caused, and neither will cause, a greater good.

            In the first case, every thing any person do is good. If someone raped another one is good !

            So theres is no moral everything happen is good!!

            In the second case, God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission."

            I think you did not understand anything about this topic.

            I said that there is suffering of innocent children that were inconsistent with the definition of a good and powerful God and

            that even humans as police and firefighters can help innocent victims then why a good God also could not help these children?

            You countered saying that maybe God would not act because we need this suffering occurs for GREATEST GOOD.

            So I argued that all suffering is for a "greater good" then everything you do, any evil any theft, any rape which causes suffering and pain in which God does not help its victims is why it is necessary for the greater good and

            therefore these actions are actually good and god left evil do this act because it would cause "greater good".

            This implies all evil anyone do where god do not help is because is good at end.

            Understood?

            If there is no "greater good" God is bad because coud help and did not. He is guilty for omission.

            --------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Ig or Silva (?)]

            I showed you two researchers who have done research and found that Jesus did not exist. And you do not even know that there is no proof given that Jesus existed. Even the holy dudario proved to be a fraud. And you did not show me a statistic of how many historians (not priests) who have researched and agree that Jesus existed. Note that the Bible was written over 100 years after the death of Jesus, so it was something written by people who did not live at the time. The evidence points that Jesus does not even existed.

            Besides this, there is 2 possibilityes:

            If we had to choose one of the options below, which one would be more likely or easier to happen?

            A dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            ---------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You said ""a theory of an object that we suppose to exist to apply the logic" is *exactly* what a premise is."

            No, the premisse is a statement we suppose true.

            If JN was a premisse then it was true and end. There is nothing to do.

            "P or not P has zero premises and arrives at a tautological conclusion"

            You said "Is false."

            You are wrong because

            (P or Not P) ==> (P or Not P )

            or

            (A=A) ==> ( P or not P )

            That is "P or not P" , can be a conclusion.

            You said : "Also, "P or not P" isn't a tautology."

            You are WRONG again, see:

            "...In formal two-valued logic (i.e. logic based on the two principles: (1) that nothing can be both true and false at the same time and in the same way, and (2) that every statement is either true or false), the statements ‘P ? P’ (interpreted in English as ‘If P then P’ or sometimes and less accurately as 'P implies P'), ‘P v ~P’ (in English, 'P or not P' or 'Either P is true or not P is true'), and ‘P ? P’ (interpreted in English as ‘P if and only if P’ or sometimes and less accurately as 'P is logically equivalent to P’) are all tautologies. Each of them is always true...."

            http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tautology

            You said "If it is a being, then it is definitely a premise. Why are you supposing that it exists? What explains it's existence?"

            I think there is a confusion between JN-object and JN-theory:

            There is no premisse it is a definition of existence ! See the text:

            "We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression.

            We are dealing with ** two ** types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”:

            the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above;

            and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text),

            ** uses logical rules ** to help us understand the JN-Object.

            But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey.

            Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object."

            Question : "Why are you supposing that it exists?"

            answer : Because it solve the problem of origin of universe.

            Question : " What explains it's existence?"

            answer : because the "nothing" is the simplest thing to exist.

            You said : "The only way you can start using the word "eventually" is if you are also supposing that time exists."

            No! The logic not says the time exists ! "P or not P" do not need time.

            I thing I used the wrong word :

            " eventually – finally

            Be Careful!

            Don't use 'eventually' when you mean that something might be true. Use possibly or perhaps."

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eventually

            In portuguese is different!

          • D Foster

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            I wasn’t arguing that something was true simply because people believed it. I was arguing that this has always been part of the definition of God. Definitions are a matter of convention, and are relative to belief in a way that the flatness of the Earth is not.

            Moreover, I did also point out that the details of this have been explained by theologians and philosophers. Simply dismissing their work is not a good response to them.

            Also, in this context, “unified” does mean “made of a single piece”. I agree that it does not always mean that, but it does here. Again, see Aquinas for details.

            For instance, you claim that Omniscience is a separate trait from power, but I fail to see this. Omniscience is simply one application of power (exercising an ability to know things).

            To put it another way, a being that is pure existence would not lack anything, meaning that it would not lack abilities (the ability to know or the ability to create). And as I take a privation view of evil, then evil is, necessarily, a lack of something. This would not be a trait of something which is pure existence.

            As such, none of this makes God more complicated. It just makes him less like the kinds of things we’re used to imagining.

            But you claim that the “Little Blue Devil” is simple, but you’ve yet to tell me what it is. If you are claiming that there is a way to explain the universe more simply than God, you can’t simply say “I know of this idea. I’m not going to tell you what it is, except that it is simpler than God.” You need to actually explain how it can be simpler. Otherwise, it’s not so much simpler as just less well thought out.

            Moreover, power does not add complexity. Yes, insects can do things that volcanos cannot. And volcanoes can do things that insects cannot. The only way this “proves” that insects are more powerful than volcanoes is to take a definition of “powerful” that is very strange. That’s fine, but then it doesn’t really apply to God. That idea of power was never what was being proposed by theologians.

            So, if you take that route, this is another case of arguing against an idea of God that no one ever proposed.

            ----------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            If you are simply going to demand that anything which cannot be physically seen is a “ghost”, then you are going to end up believing some very silly things.

            More to the point, you’re going to end up arguing against a God that no one believes in. I really don’t see the point of that.

            I agree, however, that when both people make claims, both should present support for that claim. But I don’t see why you’d make that point unless you believe that I’ve made a claim. I haven’t. I merely questioned your claim that the suffering in the world somehow proved that God doesn’t exist. I don’t find any good reason to think that.

            Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. Could you please name even one legitimate theologian who has ever claimed that God is primarily an explanation of suffering? I’ve never heard that anywhere except on atheist websites.

            ------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I’ve already answered that question. I could decide something different, but that doesn’t mean I will. I keep saying this, I’m not sure why asking the question again does anything to refute the answer I’ve already given.

            There is simply no problem here. This is still confusing “I can” with “I will”. Those are clearly different concepts.

            ---------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            I assure you I’m treating these arguments fairly, but, if you don’t believe that, you are free to end the conversation at any time. I have neither the ability nor the desire to make you stay if you don’t want to.

            I think I understand this argument perfectly. It is simply assuming that the action is bound by the forecast, rather than the forecast being bound by the action. Or, as I put it earlier, it confuses logical and temporal priority.

            You keep assuming that the future decision must match the prediction. But that is not right. Rather, it is the prediction that must match the future decision.

            I think this goes back to misunderstanding what theists mean by the word “God”. In this case, you seem to be picturing him as having successive thoughts over time, the way we do. God doesn’t work that way. He has all his knowledge at once. He doesn’t “change his mind” the way people do.

            ------------------------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I don’t recall saying “God exist”. I recall asking you what makes you believe there is proof that God and imperfect beings can’t exist alongside one another.

            Perhaps we might get onto the subject of what I think, and why, later. But, for now, we haven’t even started on my reasons for thinking what I do. Certainly, they have nothing to do with this point. Here, I was just asking you why you claimed to have proof that God and imperfect beings can’t both exist—in spite of the answers philosophers and theologians have given to this question.

            I never claimed here that God exists. We haven’t even gotten to what I do or don’t believe.

            -------------------------

            7 - Argument: Origin of God [unknown author]:

            Personally, I’m not a proponent of intelligent design. But I’ve never heard any fan of the idea, ever, claim that intelligent beings always require intelligent causes. I’ve read Paley, Demski, Behe, and others. I happen to disagree with them, but I believe in disagreeing with what they actually claimed—not something that none of them have ever said. And none of them have ever said that intelligent beings always require intelligent creators.

            They’ve claimed that organic life shows signs of being artifacts, they’ve talked about specified complexity, they’ve talked about conservation of information. You don’t have to agree with any of this (I don’t), but they’ve never claimed what you’re telling me they’ve claimed. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that unless one has never actually read their books, and only reads atheist websites which argue (badly, it seems) against them.

            --------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            Ockham’s Razor only applies if the second option is actually an option (something that is well-defined and has been shown to be simpler). One can’t simply say “Well, General Relativity is very complex. It proposes all sorts of things, and ‘not necessarily General Relativity’ is very simple. So, we should pick that.”

            This is where Ockham’s Razor gets abused. People do this all the time, and it’s terrible logic. You’ll never catch a real philosopher or real scientist using that kind of argument.

            But all this is to say that the three things you name are separate entities within God. I don’t see any reason to think that. It keeps being asserted, but I need a reason why you think that is true.

            ------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            There is simply no reason to think that “If all is perfect, there is nothing to do!”. It is entirely possible that a lone, perfect being could decide that as-yet-uncreated beings should be made. There could be any number of reasons for that. I can think of a few, but they point isn’t what I can think of. The point is that you can’t simply assume that all possible reasons why this might be the case are wrong.

            I need a reason other than the assumption that a perfect being would be more interested in keeping things perfect than in ensuring that other beings are created. Why assume that?

            ----------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You write: “If we fail to follow ocan razor we will fall into a crazy world where everything is possible.”

            First, many things are possible. That’s just life. We can complain about how hard that makes philosophy and science, but it’s a fact. I have reasons for rejecting the things that I reject, and have never felt the need to simply throw away tons of possibilities without actually answering them.

            Second, this has nothing to do with my point. You claimed to have a proof, and I asked for that proof, and pointed out some possibilities that would prevent this from being a proof. Simply complaining that you don’t want to deal with the possibilities does not make this a proof. That is an argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.

            And this has nothing to do with Ockham’s Razor. “God is perfect” is a much simpler statement than “God, the being that is defined as perfect, cannot be perfect”, for whatever that’s worth.

            But that’s not much, because Ockham’s Razor is not nearly as applicable to every possible question in the way that atheist websites seem to think it is. It isn’t terribly relevant here, which is why I haven’t been hammering on the point that your claim is actually the more complex one.

            ---------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I agree with your statement “It's not because you put billions of capabilities in a single word or entity (god) that this automatically makes it simple.”

            But this is not what I’ve done. Theologians have written thousands of pages (at least) on exactly how these things can be accomplished simply. You should be pleased with their work, in fact. It is a remarkable triumph of simplicity over the much more complex alternatives.

            I gave you a quick sketch above as to how this might work, but the point is that no one is simply assuming this. It has been explained very carefully.

            Also, and as I pointed out before, God explains quite a few things. Thus, the idea is simpler than an atheist approach because a single entity is being used to explain things that atheists need to explain through many separate entities. Atheists have never been able to present a single thing that can explain the physical universe, contingent reality, moral truth, meaning, history, the regularity of natural laws, fundamental metaphysics, and minds. They are left offering a host of explanations for these things.

            Now, I’m not as convinced that Ockham’s Razor should be the guiding principle of all thought in the way that many atheists are. There are some caveats and restrictions there that are often overlooked. That is why I don’t tend to argue for God’s existence on the grounds that it is a simpler position.

            Still, for anyone who does want to decide the matter based on Ockham’s Razor, theism is the simpler option.

            --------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            Let’s try this again:

            "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.”

            This is true within science (as this is a scientific principle). It is not some magically applicable fact that expands to all reality.

            If it were, someone should be able to present evidence for that.

            "...Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects ** regardless of any observer ** .[9]…"

            This paragraph actually makes my point. Please read the last sentence carefully, paying particular attention to “any interaction between classical and quantum objects”. God’s knowledge is not based on gathering information via interaction between classical and quantum objects. Ours is. Specifically, the science of quantum mechanics gets its information that way. This is why it is a principle for science. It is not a principle for anything which does not use that method for gathering information.

            -------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I have no idea how you get from “good will come out of this bad thing” to “this thing is good, not bad”.

            This is the jump you keep making. I don’t see any reason to make it.

            Really, can you not imagine any situation in which good comes out of a bad thing? Or are you claiming that every time good comes out of a bad situation, then the bad situation is suddenly good?

            Should murderers be set free if good comes out of the bad things they did? I don’t think so, but you keep proposing this. You keep saying that this would mean that person did nothing bad.

            It isn’t that I don’t understand the statement. It is simply that it is wrong. More specifically, you are assuming a consequentialist view of ethics, in which people are judged solely on the what comes of their actions, regardless of the actual action or intent. I’ve never taken that view, and don’t know why you keep trying to press it upon me. It is simply not my view.

            I’ve never said that an action is good if good comes out of it. I’ve never said that killers should go free if good comes from their crimes. You’ve been saying these things. I’ve been rejecting those views.

            --------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Ig or Silva (?)]

            Could you name the researchers that you showed me. As I recall, the article never actually claimed that (it merely challenged orthodox interpretations of the New Testament), and one of the researchers was Bart Ehrman. I responded by linking an interview in which Ehrman directly claims that Jesus existed, and that he’s never met any legitimate historian who would disagree with this point.

            You also showed me two non-historians who did make those sensational claims. Of course, neither of them were trained historians, and the experts have all rejected their work as conspiracy theory.

            I could run a quick search on the internet and find a “researcher” who has “done research” and found just about anything. That isn’t good historical methodology. It’s deciding on a conclusion, then trying to back it up with authority after the fact.

            But, no. I’ve not showed you a statistic. All I showed you was a non-Christian historian claiming that he’s never, ever, met any legitimate scholar who agrees with you on this point. I thought that would be good enough, given that I wasn’t making claims about what I could prove. I’d like to see some support for the claim that Jesus never existed, and the fact that I’m receiving theories that are being called quack theories by even non-Christian scholars makes me think that there isn’t much support for that claim.

            But you also claim that “the Bible” (as if it were one book) was written over 100 years after Jesus death. Do you have any support for that?

            Last, you keep asking this question about which situation would be “more likely”. I’ll answer that the same way I did last time: this assumes that Christianity is almost certainly not true. Anyone who is seriously entertaining the idea that Christianity is true wouldn’t know how to answer those questions—that’s the entire point of doing legitimate historical investigation.

            So, your argument against Christianity requires me to start by rejecting Christianity. In that case, all we need to do is give up the pretension that we’re actually seriously considering the question.

            ---------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            I’m going to skip everything about tautologies to save space. This is the important section:

            You claim that there are two types of JN here: the physical object and the theory.

            That’s fine, but the theory can’t create a universe. Only the physical object could do that. So, if you’re saying that this is what caused the universe, that’s fine. I’m not convinced, but that’s not really the point.

            Rather the point is that this doesn’t explain where the physical object JN came from. What explains it’s existence?

            You claim that you suppose it to exist because it can solve the problem of the origin of the universe, but that’s not really the pressing question. The question I meant to be asking was “what is the reason why it exists in the first place?”.

            Moreover, the JN is not nothing. You’ve said yourself that it is a physical object. That is distinct from nothing.

            As to time, whether one uses “eventually” or “finally”, one is assuming it exists here.

            And I don’t see anywhere that logic “says that” it exists—except in the sense that “P or not P” says that everything exists (the way you’ve been using it, it seems to say that).

            Consider this:

            Does God exist?

            P or not P

            Perhaps, so it seems that God can exist, and therefore did come into existence.

            This is the same logic as you’ve been using here. Would you accept this argument? If not, why accept this logic elsewhere?

            Okay, done. Best wishes to you out there.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            In which part of the Bible, or holy book, it is written that God does not have pedações? Even the human body is unified and integrated but is composed of organs. God * not * this defined in terms of the parties that compose it but through its three properties: omniscience, omnipotence and goodness.

            Even if you put that omniscience is linked to power it * not * mean that any one that has power has omniscience too.

            So the "LBJ" have some power but not necessarily have omniscience. Ie the "LBJ" has this hypothesis less than God.

            You said : "a being that is pure existence ..." !?!

            What is the differecence "pure existence" of existence?

            Something exists or not exists , there is no necessity of "pure". What "pure" means?

            You ask "But you claim that the “Little Blue Devil” is simple, but you’ve yet to tell me what it is"

            It is simplicity in terms of occan razor. The "LBJ" (Litle Blue Jocaxian) has fewer hypotheses than God.

            The "LBJ" need not be omniscient , nor need to be good, not need to have infinite power!

            So it has less hypothesis than God and should therefore be the preferred choice as the creator of the universe.

            As you have not refuted the "JLB" is simpler than God or the JLB would be impossible to exist, dry that JLB is a choice more logical and better than God.

            About the power of God and the power of "JLB":

            Let us consider the power as the sum of all that is possible, for example:

            1-create the SOL, 2-Create the moon, 3-move mountains, 4-open oceans etc ...

            Each of these power items can be considered a hypothesis of power.

            Therefore, power of the "JLB" is contained * * in God power since everything JLB can make God can also, but not everything that God can do JBL can.

            The power of JLB is contained in God's power.

            Thus god features endless power hipótesis more than JLB is therefore more complex in terms of Occam's razor than JLB.

            ---------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            Ghost is when you do smart things and no one can observe / explain naturally. The air, for example, is not a ghost because it makes things intelligent and can be detected.

            You said " I merely questioned your claim that the suffering in the world somehow proved that God doesn’t exist. "

            Its not me that did this claim, was Epicurus / Hume :

            “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

            - Epicurus

            http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then

            You ask "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "

            Where I said this?

            I think You do not understand ,

            I am saying the opposite, I am telling God is incompatible with the facts.

            -----------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You said "I’ve already answered that question. I could decide something different, but that doesn’t mean I will."

            No! you are wrong!

            If god , even before you born, forecast that you *DECIDE* something "X" and ACTS with this decision.

            Than you can *NOT* decide another thing different than "X" nor acts different than god forecast.

            Because if you decide "Y" ( different than "X" ) or acts different gods forecast then this implies god fail in His forecast.

            And you still not answer to me:

            "If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

            ------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said "You keep assuming that the future decision must match the prediction. But that is not right. ..."

            You are wrong again. See the dictionary:

            verb (used with object), forecast or forecasted, forecasting.

            1. to predict (a future condition or occurrence); calculate in advance: to forecast a heavy snowfall; to forecast lower interest rates.

            2.to serve as a prediction of; foreshadow.

            3.to contrive or plan beforehand; prearrange.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forecast

            another:

            : to say that (something) will happen in the future : to predict (something, such as weather) after looking at the information that is available

            Full Definition of FORECAST

            transitive verb

            1 a : to calculate or predict (some future event or condition) usually as a result of study and analysis of available pertinent data; especially : to predict (weather conditions) on the basis of correlated meteorological observations

            b : to indicate as likely to occur

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forecast

            and you continue "...Rather, it is the prediction that must match the future decision."

            If god is perfect and ever right yes each prediction will occur, so the future decision is the same of the prediction

            and it is the idea !! Each god prediction will be gods decision , so

            if god, for example, predict it will create the sun or will create the galaxy or kill the universe HE CAN NOT CHANGE his own prediction.

            He must have to follow his prediction, like a robot follow his programation.

            You said "He has all his knowledge at once. He doesn’t “change his mind” the way people do."

            Yes, like a ROBOT he has its programation (the forecast) and cannot change his mind (his programation) he must to follow it. :-)

            ---------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I think you did not understand. The logic is as follows:

            1-perfect beings create perfect things.

            2-A being created something imperfect.

            So this can not be perfect.

            I god is perfect he can not create imperfect things.

            ------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I think you Estacom a wrong idea of Occam's Razor. The razor says that we should not add hipótesis desnecessariasa a theory or concept.

            Wiki:

            "... The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected...."

            You said: "But all this is to say that the three things you name are separate entities within God."

            As I said before , infinite power is equivalent to infinite assumptions :

            1-Can create a sun ; 2- can create a galaxy ;3-can cure cancer ; 4-can solve fermat problem ; 5-can see your mind ...infinite things

            So, god idea has infinete built-in assumptions.

            -----------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You said "There is simply no reason to think that “If all is perfect, there is nothing to do!”. It is entirely possible that a lone, perfect being could decide that as-yet-uncreated beings should be made. "

            and so, god decide to create IMPERFECT beings!!! lol :-)

            No, is not possible , because this gos against perfection : someone perfect do not fill loneliness, solitaire or a lone.

            So if all was perfect then create imperfect universe implies god was not perfect he changed a perfect universe to another imperfect.

            ------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You said :"And this has nothing to do with Ockham’s Razor. “God is perfect” is a much simpler statement than “God, the being that is defined as perfect, cannot be perfect”, for whatever that’s worth."

            you are wrong in thinking that the ocan's razor applies to sentencing intaxe. And what if the sentence has many other words that it is less compatible with Occam's razor than another sentnça that has fewer words. This is a big mistake.

            You said : "But that’s not much, because Ockham’s Razor is not nearly as applicable to every possible question in the way that atheist websites seem to think it is. "

            I thing you are wrong , can you show me where Occans razor can not be aplyed?

            All juridical or scientific findings there is the application of Occam's razor.

            For example if an engineer weighs a piece on the scale and brand 1Kg he's assuming that: the balance is correct, the piece is not one imagined it, there is not a goblin projecting balance of numbers in his mind, that he is not taking a hallucination that seeing 1kg when in fact the balanca brand 10kg and, like these hypotheses he is discarding endless others also are possible. So when you say that God may have other ideas when it points out that life in the universe will end, you are also claiming without evidence just as I said earlier about the pink unicorn:

            "If we fail to follow ocan razor we will fall into a crazy world where everything is possible. So we can say that actually live in the mind of a pink unicorn invisible galloping by hyper universes toward 29 dimension where paradise awaits us with 297 beautiful virgins ... This is also a possibility, right?"

            ------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            You said : "God explains quite a few things. Thus, the idea is simpler than an atheist approach because a single entity is being used to explain things that atheists need to explain through many separate entities. "

            I see several strange things. How you can be sure that, as well as our human body there are several organs,

            God can not be made up of several integrated parts?

            Another thing, as I said before, grouping all the answers in a word called "God" and say that he explains All thiings ,

            it is illogical because, as I said before, to say that God has infinite power equivalent * really * in postulate endless assumptions and statements without no explanation or evidence as they arose.

            For example a "god-A" that can everything your God can, but by definition of God-A , he 1-can not create the moon, and 2-he can not create the virus, it would be a possible God.

            This god-A has a bit less power than your god, but it would be possible to be God.

            So when you define what your God saying he can do everything you are actually setting endless (infinite) hipótesis,

            a much larger number of hypotheses of what scientists do when they explain the universe with a number * FINITE * of entities.

            Because this scientists do not use GOD, God indeed is very very much more complex ( # nember of hiupothesis ) than a materialist view.

            There fore is wrong what you said "for anyone who does want to decide the matter based on Ockham’s Razor, theism is the simpler option."

            It is not true.

            -----------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            You said : "This is true within science (as this is a scientific principle). It is not some magically applicable fact that expands to all reality."

            Strange you see me talking about magic when all kinds of magical events prove not of science but of the Bible, with talking snakes, resurrecting the dead , virgin birth and etc ..

            I think you must read this sentence:

            "It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a *** fundamental property of quantum systems *** , and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] "

            There is no necessity of measures to this principle can be applied . See:

            "...Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not a result of our lack of proper measurement tools. The fact that we can't precisely know both the position and momentum of an elementary particle is, indeed, a property of the particle itself.

            It is an *** intrinsic property of the Universe *** we live in...."

            ABout measures:

            "...To reiterate, uncertainty follows from the mathematical definitions of position and momentum, *** without consideration for what measurements you might be making *** . In fact, Bell's theorem tells us that under the hypothesis of locality (things are influenced only by their immediate surroundings, generally presumed to be true throughout physics), you cannot explain quantum mechanics by saying particles have "hidden" properties that can't be measured directly.

            This takes some getting used to, but quantum mechanics really is a theory of probability distributions for variables, and as such is richer than classical theories where all quantities have definite, fixed, underlying values, observable or not. ..."

            The quantum mechanics does not make restrictions or caveats on what type of entity (if god or no god) would have some privilege on this knowledge. Therefore we can not say that quantum mechanics puts God as an exception to this principle.

            -----------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You said :" Really, can you not imagine any situation in which good comes out of a bad thing? Or are you claiming that every time good comes out of a bad situation, then the bad situation is suddenly good?"

            Not me, but You!

            Lets come back again:

            Suppose an innocent child being raped to death.

            I ask you: "Why God does not protect the child?"

            If men can, as police and firefighters, can protect a child if they are around, why God does not protect her

            and let her be killed with great suffering ?

            This EVIDENCE points to god is bad ! If you have defense to him, please put it here.

            But surely YOU will tell me "God has a defense but me and you do not know what is, certainly is to a greater good!".

            dont you?

            Ok, if ALL suffer that god could help and did/do not is to greater good then every thing we do that cause a suffering

            and death will be to a greater good, because if was not to a greater good, god would help.

            So does not matter we do, if god does not help it is because what we did is to greater good.

            Then I ask to you :

            what Hitler did was for the greater good?

            You said "I’ve never said that an action is good if good comes out of it. "

            So I ask to you : "If an action is not good, WHY GOD DONT HELP?"

            You said "You’ve been saying these things. "

            NO! I am not saying this things ! You made me understand this, because:

            You said : "You need to show that there are no reasons for this suffering—not simply that no reasons have occured to you."

            "We can agree that suffering exists, but that does nothing to show that there is no good reason for it."

            The evidence points to God is guilty by default. If you have something to defend God must show, otherwise the sentence will be maintained.

            It is wrong you want the prosecutor who accuses God (I) arrange proof of his innocence, the claims that you should be able to arguments to defend it that felony charge for help omission

            ------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            "A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against Jesus’ historicity "

            http://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/5_good_reasons_to_think_jesus_never_existed/

            Evidence that Jesus Never Existed

            http://www.solarmythology.com/appendixd.htm

            Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

            There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

            ------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You said "Rather the point is that this doesn’t explain where the physical object JN came from. What explains it’s existence?"

            JN is not necessarly "physical" in the sense of matter but in the sense of existence.

            Then

            I can ask you the same about the god: " how god came from and what explain it s existence?"

            Answering about JN I answer:

            He is the simplest existing thong possible, because it has no intelligence, nor goodness , it has only free.

            So it has no necessity of explanation abut your existence anything is more complex than him.

            "P or not P "

            yes god could come from JN. But is improbable.

            and it is necessary something without rules like JN to god comes out.

          • D Foster

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            In spite of what Jerry Falwell and Richard Dawkins think, not everything in every religion is written out explicitly. God is understood as not having parts, but this is theology, not something declared directly in the Bible.

            And it wouldn’t matter anyway. It is the way many people (including myself) understand God. The idea has been very clearly described and worked out. If all this argument has to say to us is that it is arguing against an entirely different idea of God than I have, then I don’t see why I should pay any attention to it.

            So, no. You can’t simply demand that the “three properties” you keep naming are truly distinct parts to God, unless you’re admitting that your argument has nothing to do with the God believed in by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches (as well as by many Protestants). The problem is that this constitutes at least two thirds of Christians world-wide (not to mention the number of Jews an Muslims who would say similar things). It is no argument for atheism, but only against a minority view within theism.

            For instance:

            “Even if you put that omniscience is linked to power it * not * mean that any one that has power has omniscience too.”

            It doesn’t automatically mean that, I grant you. But it doesn’t automatically mean that perfect power doesn’t include omniscience, either. So, no. Some power doesn’t equate to omniscience. But absolute power? Why wouldn’t it?

            But this is a good question:

            “What is the differecence "pure existence" of existence?

            Something exists or not exists , there is no necessity of "pure". What "pure" means?”

            It means that God is only existence. He is existence itself. He doesn’t have any lack, any way in which he could be improved.

            “It is simplicity in terms of occan razor. The "LBJ" (Litle Blue Jocaxian) has fewer hypotheses than God.”

            I wasn’t asking what you meant by “simplicity”. I was asking what you meant by “Little Blue Devil”. What sort of thing are you proposing when you suggest that a “Little Blue Devil”. All you’ve said is that it may not be omniscient, and may not have infinite power.

            Okay, great, but what does it have? What is it? Is it good? Bad? Is it physical? Platonic?

            I’m deeply suspicious that, as soon as you tell me what this thing is, it will turn out that it isn’t as simple as I’ve been told. The only way to allay that suspicion is to tell me what it is.

            ---------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            You keep trying to redefine my position for me. This is something I encounter quite a bit on atheist websites: rather than disprove what the theist believes, one claims that the theist believes in something completely different, then tries to disprove that.

            This is properly known as a straw man fallacy, and is not good reasoning. If one doesn’t understand the differences between a ghost and a theistic God, then one can’t claim to understand theism well enough to have anything much to say about it.

            “Its not me that did this claim, was Epicurus / Hume”

            Are you not claiming that they are correct? If you aren’t willing to say that they are correct, and don’t defend their arguments as being true then I agree with you. I don’t see why people should believe them, either.

            It makes me wonder why you mentioned this in the first place, of course, but I suppose that’s not terribly important.

            What’s important is this:

            Are you claiming that Epicurus is right?

            If so, please make your case. If not, I don’t see any point in answering something you aren’t saying.

            -----------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            “If god , even before you born, forecast that you *DECIDE* something "X" and ACTS with this decision.

            Than you can *NOT* decide another thing different than "X" nor acts different than god forecast.”

            How do you know this?

            I keep saying that, even though this means that a person will act in this way, it doesn’t mean that person must. You here are claiming to know that this person must decide this way. How do you know this? How do you know that there is no difference between what a person will do, and what a person must do?

            The difference seems fairly obvious to me, and all I keep hearing in response is that the prediction means a person must do something. Well, no. It doesn’t. It means the person will do something. Must is a completely different matter.

            “And you still not answer to me:

            If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

            I’ve directly answered this twice already. Please re-read my past comments for the answer.

            Now, if you don’t like that answer, please explain (exactly) what you think is wrong with it. But simply asking me to answer it again isn’t going to get us anywhere.

            ------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            “You are wrong again. See the dictionary:”

            I read all of the definitions you gave, and I don’t see how this proves that actions must match the prediction, rather than the prediction matching the action.

            This is true in all sorts of other contexts. When we predict a thing, we are talking about what is going to happen, explaining what was going to happen anyway—not making that thing happen.

            Why are you convinced that a prediction makes that thing happen?

            You keep claiming that God must “follow” a “program”. But I don’t see a reason to think that God exists inside time at all. If God wills something, it is not that he’s predicting it, then must later do it. These things would happen “all at once” for God.

            ---------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            “1-perfect beings create perfect things.

            2-A being created something imperfect.

            So this can not be perfect.”

            This is only valid logic if we add the word “always” to the first statement, so that it reads “1-perfect beings always create perfect things”.

            Okay, fine. Now, what reason do you have to think that this is true? Is it not possible that a perfect being would ever decide to create something that isn’t perfect? If not, how do you know?

            ------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I agree with you that this is what Ockham’s Razor is. I disagree that it is always being used this way. In general, I find that bloggers on atheist websites tend to ignore the assumptions that they bring to the table and add assumptions to the theists’ position that we do not ourselves make.

            “As I said before , infinite power is equivalent to infinite assumptions”

            I’m aware you’ve said this. I just don’t know of any reason to think this is true. This is one more case of adding assumptions to the theists’ position. Namely: this only makes sense if the power in question is composed of an infinite number of discrete parts.

            For instance a rock can be used as a hammer, a step, a tray, a chisel, and many other things besides. This doesn’t mean that a rock is four separate assumptions. It just means that the same “assumption” can be used in at least four ways. The same is true for God’s power. It can be used in any number of ways, but isn’t that many things.

            -----------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You keep saying that the only reason a being would have to create other beings is to fulfill loneliness. Again, how do you know that? I’ve never been given any reason to think that this is true.

            ------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            My point wasn’t about how long the sentence was, but about the number of entities that had to be proposed.

            Atheists need to propose a whole host of things in order to answer the same number of questions which theists can answer with a single entity. If we are going solely on the basis of simplicity, then theism should be the preferred choice.

            ------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            As above, the God that has been proposed by theists is not made up of parts. You can argue against some other entity if you wish, but:

            A. It makes no sense to call this thing you’re arguing against “God”. You’re clearly arguing against something that isn’t God, even after this has been explained to you.

            B. I have nothing to say to that. If you want to disprove this other thing. I’m not really interested in it.

            So, again, theism is the simpler option. I’m not convinced that this is the only consideration here, but people who want to base all their conclusions on Ockham’s Razor should be theists.

            -----------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            “Strange you see me talking about magic when all kinds of magical events prove not of science but of the Bible, with talking snakes, resurrecting the dead , virgin birth and etc ..”

            We can get into that line of (bad) reasoning if you wish. The point for now is that, if you don’t believe in magic, you shouldn’t believe that a scientific principle is applicable to non-scientific questions.

            But, as to your quoted text:

            "It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a *** fundamental property of quantum systems *** , and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] "

            I agree that it is a “fundamental property of quantum systems” that indeterminacy happens when classical objects come into contact with quantum objects, but this does not disprove omniscience. Again, re-read the text. It does not close by saying “is not a statement about all knowledge”. It refers only to our current observational technology.

            Basically, it is saying that even perfectly tuned instruments would still have this problem. That’s perfectly consistent with what I’ve been claiming all along.

            Here’s another sentence you provide:

            And this is just in the sections you’ve chosen to quote. It is well known that science can’t answer non-scientific questions. Quantum mechanics simply isn’t going to tell us anything about the possibility of omniscience in a metaphysical being.

            And this gets back to my earlier point. Not only are these statements not claiming what you seem to think, but I’ve seen no evidence at all for the idea.

            Really, if these scientists were claiming this, how did they show it? What is the experimental data? Please reference some way in which they tested the idea that this effects even knowledge that isn’t gained through observation.

            -----------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I’m not remotely claiming that good never comes out of a bad situation. Nor am I claiming that good coming out of a bad situation means that it is suddenly good. I’ve never said this; I just keep being told that I’m saying this.

            This again, is a straw man attack. You keep telling me that I’m saying something that I’m not saying, then attacking that. Of course that would be silly, which is why I never said it. And, if you want to argue against that, then I suggest you find someone who actually believes it. I don’t.

            In short, please let me say what it is that I think, rather than telling me what I think.

            But you do say this:

            "If an action is not good, WHY GOD DONT HELP?”

            And I’ve told you: I’m not certain. I assume that an omniscient being would have quite a few answers and reasons that I don’t know about. I suggested a few possibilities. But, mostly, I’ve been underlining that I don’t need to prove to you that there is a good reason.

            Rather, you’re claiming to know that God has no good reason for that. So, I am asking how you know that. How do you know that, if God does not stop every bad situation, then the reason MUST be that he is sadistic?

            How do you know that is the only possible reason?

            But, let me add another thing to this:

            Even if this showed that God would be evil (it doesn’t), it is no defense of atheism. All it would show is that whatever God existed would not be good. But it does nothing to show that there is no God, that everything is physical, or that any of the other main beliefs of atheists are true.

            ------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Looking over your links:

            The first article is clearly sensationalism without content. Whether it is that the author is less concerned with truth than pushing atheism, or less concerned with truth than making sensational claims, I don’t claim to know.

            The article references:

            A. Bart Ehrman, who agrees with me, and has directly claimed that he’s never met any legitimate historian who thinks that Jesus never existed. Not a good start for the legitimacy of the article.

            B. David Fitzgerald, who isn’t a historian. Rather, he’s an atheist activist. This is like claiming that “a growing number of scientists believe evolution is false”, and quoting Ken Ham as your source.

            That’s it. Two people (one of which is not a legitimate historian, and the other of which disagrees with the article) does not support the claim.

            Your second reference is simply wrong about a number of things.

            The so-called parallels to the story of Jesus (which atheists are always mentioning) are much weaker than is commonly assumed. Most of them simply cannot be found in the original texts, and are simply false.

            We are commonly told that Osiris was born of a virgin, had twelve followers, and died on a cross. Or that Krishna’s parents fled out of the country before he was born to avoid persecution, and that he once spoke to a gentile woman at a well. We are often told that Mithras was resurrected, and was born in a cave. We are told many other similar things.

            Having actually read those myths, I can say that none of those things are true.

            The precious few that are true are so generalized as to be pointless. I could draw several general parallels between the myth of Shiva and the Superman story, this does not mean that DC Comics should be sued for plagiarism.

            There’s more to say, but I think that this is enough to consign the idea that Jesus is a copy of previous myths to the same bin where we keep Young Earth Creationism.

            As to your final article, Raphael Lataster is another atheist activist, not an historian. I could go through his arguments, showing why they are wrong if you’d like, but the point for now is that he simply complains that “Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times”. This is not only untrue (He leaves off people like N.T. Wright) but is a little like complaining that very few biologists are still trying to prove that evolution is a valid theory.

            In fact, very few biologists are trying to prove this. They’ve moved on to other things because there’s always outlier quacks repeating the same objections that were answered half a century ago. That doesn’t mean all of academia should stop to answer them yet another time. Rather, the outliers should read the old books (or maybe even get themselves trained in legitimate historical methods).

            This is probably the weakest line of argument that modern atheists take. It is transparently easy to show that the old Corn King speculations are not legitimate interpretive contexts. They made a splash as something novel, and have since been abandoned. It will take some time before non-historians get the memo, and longer still before passionate atheists are willing to accept that this isn’t just some big conspiracy.

            Still, they’re discredited theories.

            ------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            If you are claiming that the JN is not necessarily physical, then what are you claiming that it is?

            To be a real challenger to a position, it has to be well defined. One can’t simply say “I’m holding something behind my back. I won’t tell you what it is. All I’ll say is that it’s a better explanation than the alternative.” That isn’t a better explanation. That’s a non-explanation.

            But you do ask a very good question about God. What explains God’s existence? In formal terms, the necessity of his own being. God, as a non-contingent object, cannot fail to exist. God is not a combination of form and prime essence, nor did he begin to exist, nor is there a logically consistent way for him to not exist. This is a well-known line of reasoning about God.

            Now, you could say the same about the JN, but you’d then have to explain why you think it is non-contingent (as theists have about God). So far, everything you’e said about the JN has led me to picture it as a physical state (something like the quantum vacuum). But that would make it contingent (on time and space, if nothing else).

            But, if you’re going to take the position that the JN is not physical, then please explain what it is, and how it might have created the universe. I’m suspicious that one of two things will happen.

            Either:

            A) There will be no explanation. Just a vague claim that the JN is “not necessarily” this or that.

            In this case, I’ll simply say that this is not an explanation. I can make up a name and claim that it is a “simpler alternative” to anything. That doesn’t make it true until one actually explains what the alternative is.

            Or:

            B) There will be an explanation, and the longer we consider it, the more the JN will start to have the exact same definition as God (immaterial, existing outside time and space, non-abstract, able to create contingent realities without being contingent). In which case, I’ll simply claim that we are both proposing God, just by different names.

            If you have a third alternative, something that is well-thought-out, but different from God, please explain what it is.

            You do say this:

            “He is the simplest existing thong possible, because it has no intelligence, nor goodness , it has only free.”

            But this is not an explanation. First, this simply ignores the concept of divine simplicity. You are insisting that omniscience and power exist as separate things in God. But that isn’t the God that theists have proposed. You need to explain why Aquinas was wrong, not simply demand that these are always different things (even in a non-physical being like God).

            Second, you need to explain how something without intelligence can both exist and produce contingent realities. That is, something without will (intelligence) shouldn’t have the ability to do particular things. Rather, it would simply do everything that it can do. If it is simply power, it can do all things (then it would create everything, even God). If it has/is a specific sort of power, then it is complicated and particular, meaning there must a reason why it exists.

            Either way, the JN is not a rival explanation to God. Simply failing to explain what it is doesn’t make this problem go away, it simply stalls the conversation so that we can’t tell which of these two mistakes is being made.

            “yes god could come from JN. But is improbable.”

            First, how do you know this?

            If there is a positive chance, as you agree here, then over the infinite time of the future, it will eventually happen. This is basic to probability theory.

            Since God would be created outside time, he would exist as much at one time as any other.

            Thus, God could be said to exist in the exact way that theists claim he exists.

            But this is all assuming that the JN exists in the first place—and that we have any good idea about what it even is. So far we don’t know enough about it for it to be considered a valid alternative.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Have parts or not have parts does not imply that God is or is not simple or complex. A chord, for example, has no parts but we can contain very complex. What sets the complexity in terms of Occam's Razor are the hypotheses and not its parts.

            You said : "And it wouldn’t matter anyway. "

            I agree.

            You said " But it doesn’t automatically mean that perfect power doesn’t include omniscience, either. "

            I am *not* saying the jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon (JLBD) is perfect. It is not perfect because it do not have infinite power.

            So it has infinite less embeded hipotheses than god have.

            Did you remember? Infinite power is equivalent an infinite claim:

            -can create avirus

            -can cure cancer

            -can predict the future

            -can create 1000000000000 stars

            -can create 12199239232993 planets

            -can create a pink unicorny

            -can read you mind

            - etc....

            So as JLBD have infinite less hypothesis than it is more ocam's compatible than God

            and therefore JLBD is prefered to be choice than God.

            An here en the argumento of JBLD but you still

            say : "He is existence itself. He doesn’t have any lack, any way in which he could be improved."

            This claim goes against a being that create an *imperfect* universe with *imperfect* beings inside.

            You said: " What sort of thing are you proposing when you suggest that a “Little Blue Devil”."

            I am proving that "LBD" , as a GOD, he can create the universe too.

            There is no necessity of a God with infinite power to do this creation.

            You ask me :

            "Okay, great, but what does it have? What is it? Is it good? Bad? Is it physical? Platonic?"

            It have no infinite power, It is not necessarily always Good, It does not need have omniscience, it has *some* knowledge

            but *NOT* infinite knoledge = omniscience.

            So it is very very much simplier than your god.

            So, "LBD" can be definite as a *Finite God".

            -------------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            You said "Are you claiming that Epicurus is right?"

            Yes, all points He is right.

            repeating:

            You ask "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "

            Where I said this?

            I think You do not understand ,

            I am saying the opposite, I am telling God is incompatible with the facts.

            “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

            - Epicurus

            ---------------------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I said "“If god , even before you born, forecast that you *DECIDE* something "X" and ACTS with this decision.

            Than you can *NOT* decide another thing different than "X" nor acts different than god forecast.”"

            You ask :"How do you know this?"

            Because "omniscience" means knows *every thing* including your future thought. Do you agree?

            Dictionary: "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. "

            Do you think god can *not* knows what you will decide in the future?

            If God knows that a person will decide "X" in the future, you are telling a person can decide anotherthing different?

            If you are righ the god did a mistake, he was wrong.

            You have said :

            ""Yes, you COULD choose differently than God knows you will, but you WON'T

            (because, if you did, that would change God's knowledge so that he would know that you made that different choice)."

            You do not realize the mistake:

            If god *change* his knoledge about what you do, than his previous knoledge was *wrong" , so God was wrong in his prediction.

            Do you undertand?

            And I search your answer and I do not find it.

            Again,

            You said : "I’ve already answered that question. I could decide something different"

            If you decide different than god had predict about your decision, than god was wrong. simple like that.

            So god fail , it is not perfect neither omniscient.

            I have Asked :

            "If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

            You have answered : "I’ve directly answered this twice already. Please re-read my past comments for the answer."

            The answer must bem "YES" or "NO". I am waiting to this simple word. But I dont no why instead say YES or NO

            you do not answer dirtectly. Have you fear of the truth? Why do you do not answer 'Yes' or 'No' ?

            ------------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said " I don’t see how this proves that actions must match the prediction"

            If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.

            It is simple to understand?

            -----------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            "1-perfect beings always create perfect things”.

            If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things , I thing it goes against perfection idea.

            If not, if perfect-definition implies imperfection I agree an delete this topic.

            -------------------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            You said : "For instance a rock can be used as a hammer, a step, a tray, a chisel, and many other things besides. This doesn’t mean that a rock is four separate assumptions."

            You are wrong.

            A rock coul be used as a hammer and *coud* **not** be used as a step ou used as a tray.

            Because we can have a rock that can not me used in all this things.

            Like I said before, we coud have a GOD-B that have infinite power LESS a power to create a virus , for example.

            So infinite power is equivalent to infinite clains.

            ---------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You said "You keep saying that the only reason a being would have to create other beings is to fulfill loneliness."

            No , I did not said this word *only*.

            I said if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.

            And if there was desire there was a lack of something to fill it. So were not perfect something was lacking

            ------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You said "My point wasn’t about how long the sentence was, but about the number of entities that had to be proposed."

            you would be right *if* each entity of atheist were the same complexity of your god.

            But not.

            The word "god" has embeded, as I said before, infinite hipothesis, each one for each power it can do.

            So it is infinite more complex than a finite number of entities.

            -----------------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            You said "As above, the God that has been proposed by theists is not made up of parts. "

            It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.

            I said : "For example a "god-A" that can everything your God can, but by definition of God-A , he

            1-can not create the moon, and

            2-he can not create virus,

            it would be a possible God."

            Do you agree that this "God-A" , different than God, could be exist?

            If not, why?

            Is important say that in order to create something there need to be at leat 2 thinks :

            a) Know how to create this think ( have knowledge )

            b) Have power to create it

            ----------------------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            You said ". The point for now is that, if you don’t believe in magic, you shouldn’t believe that a scientific principle is applicable to non-scientific questions."

            To know position and velocity of a particle in our universe with arbitrary precision is a scientific question. And the principle says it is noto possible.

            The uncertainty principle says clearly it is impossible. If yor god can know this position and velocity it is against the heisemberg principle.

            The indeterminacy do not happens only when classical objects come into contact with quantum objects this is a property of

            quantum system because this , as I said before, the particle in a box can not have zero cynetic energy even no observer interact with it.

            You said "Again, re-read the text. It does not close by saying “is not a statement about all knowledge”. It refers only to our current observational technology."

            No, the text say the opposite:

            "It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part,

            but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects ** regardless of any observer ** ."

            The observer and his technology is not necessary to principle be true.

            -----------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You said "And I’ve told you: I’m not certain. I assume that an omniscient being would have quite a few answers and reasons that

            I don’t know about. I suggested a few possibilities.

            But, mostly, I’ve been underlining that I don’t need to prove to you that there is a good reason."

            I find it funny, I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts and you come tell me that * I * I have to find arguments in favor of its existence as it shows that such a being is incompatible with reality, it it is funny. If you are defending your existence that you should find arguments to resolve this incompatibility.

            I think the following:

            Existed millions of inoccent people was killed with very suffering.

            If god do not help then he is guilty by omission and not Good, or he does not exist.

            If *you*, theist , do not have an answer for thos conttadiction -bad-facts-and-god the prove of his not existence is done.

            You said "Even if this showed that God would be evil (it doesn’t), it is no defense of atheism. All it would show is that whatever God existed would not be good. But it does nothing to show that there is no God,"

            No, you are wrong , this prove that christian god *( Good , powerfull, omniscient )* do not exist.

            ---------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Even bible was not copyed from old myths like says:

            "Similarities to Other Stories

            The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information."

            https://danielmiessler.com/essays/bible_fiction/

            The occans razor have to be used and discard this book that was not wrotte by historians and wrote more than 100 years after Jesus.

            A dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            someone born from a virgin or

            Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            By Occans we have to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

            ---------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You ask "If you are claiming that the JN is not necessarily physical, then what are you claiming that it is?"

            JN is not necessary physical because some physical things obeys physical laws and JN do not.

            So we can not say JN is necessarly Physical.

            The importante of JN is its properties. It define it.

            You said "In formal terms, the necessity of his own being. God, as a non-contingent object, cannot fail to exist."

            You are wrong.

            I have said before ( item #1 ) the Jocaxian Litle Blue daemon coud create the universe. God is not necessary.

            You said "JN, but you’d then have to explain why you think it is non-contingent (as theists have about God). "

            You are wrong again.

            The thongs created by JN coud not existed. JN coud not create anything:

            "P OR NOT P" could, of course, happen "Not P".

            So the rule "something to exist must be not contingent" it is a false rule.

            You said "But, if you’re going to take the position that the JN is not physical, then please explain what it is, and how it might have created the universe."

            it is the simplest thing that might exist. So it do not need explain to exist.

            Any other thing would be more complex than it , by definition.

            And it has the power to create the cosmos because the logic implies this is possible.

            "P or Not P" coud be "P".

            You said " I’ll simply claim that we are both proposing God, just by different names."

            No, God have intelligence, JN not.

            God habe goodness , JN not.

            God have omniscience, JN not.

            God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not.

            So Jn is more powerfull than God and simpler than God.

            You said "You are insisting that omniscience and power exist as separate things in God.

            But that isn’t the God that theists have proposed. "

            Omniscience and knoledge is hipothesis that JN do not have. So JN is very simpler than God.

            You said "Second, you need to explain how something without intelligence can both exist and produce contingent realities. "

            read the text:

            "Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

            I said "yes god could come from JN. But is improbable.”

            You ask "First, how do you know this?"

            Because god has infinite hypothesis he must have to be created:

            1-he must know how to create a particle

            2-he must know to create a sun

            3-he must know to cure the aids

            4-he must know to create galaxys

            5-he must know to create hyper-computers

            there are infinite things that god must satisfy to be god because this it is improbable JN create god.

            You said "If there is a positive chance, as you agree here, then over the infinite time of the future, it will eventually happen. This is basic to probability theory"

            But here is not infinite time. The time have the start and will spend infinite to have infinite time.

            You said "Since God would be created outside time, he would exist as much at one time as any other."

            No, "time is the number of events that existed in the universe"

            So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.

          • D Foster

            Greetings and best wishes to you once again.

            And otherwise, here we go:

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            A chord has many parts. It is composed of quite a few discrete packets of energy in the form of compression waves.

            More to the point, complexity “in terms of Ockham’s Razor” is the parts. It is the number of entities being proposed. In the case of theism, it is only one. In the case of the “Little Blue Devil” we’ll find out when we get a clear definition of what that is.

            “Did you remember? Infinite power is equivalent an infinite claim”

            I remember you claimed this. I don’t remember that being true. The fact that power can be used in more than one way doesn’t make it more complex. As before, I can use a rock in many ways, that doesn’t make it more complex than it otherwise would have been.

            So, no. it is not “an infinite claim”. It is a single claim.

            But my main point here is that you’ve still not told me much about what the “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” is. It is simply not a viable alternative to God until we actually know what it is. “Some stuff happens in space” is a much “simpler” (in that sense) explanation of motion than General Relativity. It is not a rival of relativity because it is not actually an explanation at all.

            You do try to give some explanation, so let’s get to that:

            “I am proving that "LBD" , as a GOD, he can create the universe too.”

            But what kind of “GOD” is “LBD”? You’ve specifically denied that it has some of the traits ofof the God of classical theism. You’ve elsewhere denied that it has certain traits of the gods of ancient polytheistic religions. So, you’ve specifically been saying that this isn’t a god.

            “It have no infinite power, It is not necessarily always Good, It does not need have omniscience, it has *some* knowledge”

            Saying “not infinite” doesn’t tell me what it is. But I assume you mean that it has finite power.

            This is one thing that it has.

            “Not necessarily always Good” doesn’t tell me anything unless you mean “it is partially good, but not fully”. Otherwise, this is simply not telling us anything.

            “It has *some* knowledge” tells me quite a bit, however.

            It means that this entity either has or is a mind.

            If that’s the case, we have a mind with specific limitations on its knowledge. That means we already have a complex object—and need an explanation as to why it would have *some* knowledge, but not other knowledge. Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? Why does it exist in the first place? Atheists have consistently demanded that theists need to answer these questions about God. To be a better explanation than God, we need to hear supporters of the “Little Blue Devil” answer these questions.

            Last, why on Earth would you seriously be arguing for a god as your favored explanation? How does saying that a god exists support your atheism?

            -------------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I asked "Are you claiming that Epicurus is right?"

            You responded: “Yes, all points He is right.”

            Then I will expect you to support that claim. I’ll put my challenge below.

            I said "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. "

            You replied: “Where I said this?”

            I didn’t claim that you said it. I claimed that you are assuming it. You kept treating God as a bad explanation for the suffering in the world. I was telling you that God was never intended as an explanation of suffering.

            So, as for the classic argument:

            “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

            Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

            Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

            Epicurus

            There are three very big problems that classical theists have been pointing out for centuries.

            First, this simply ignores the issue of free will. It simply isn’t possible to make someone freely be good. This isn’t an argument for atheism until one can deal with the free will defense.

            Second, this argument seems to be assuming that not being able to think of a reason means God can’t possibly have a reason. There is no reason to think this. This isn’t an argument for atheism until one can show that God couldn’t have reasons that haven’t occurred to people.

            Third, admitting that evil exists (as one has to do even to give this argument) means running into the moral argument for God’s existence. What makes it the case that there is such a thing as real evil, and not just things that people don’t happen to like?

            Atheists are often found denying that there is real evil, because real good and evil doesn’t make sense for a naturalist. Their existence points to theism.

            ---------------------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            In response to me asking how you know that one can’t do differently than God predicts, you write:

            “Because "omniscience" means knows *every thing* including your future thought. Do you agree?”

            I completely agree that this is what it means. I also agree that it means that things will happen as an omniscient being would predict.

            I don’t agree that this means that person, must do that, however. It only means that they will.

            I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. You keep responding by re-explaining to me that knowing what will happen means things will happen as you expect.

            I agree, but that doesn’t remotely deal with what I’ve already said.

            As to this:

            “The answer must bem "YES" or "NO". I am waiting to this simple word. But I dont no why instead say YES or NO”

            This is just silly. If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”, can I demand that your answer be just a yes or no? Can I insist that saying things like “I never started doing that in the first place” or “I don’t have a wife” are just refusals to answer directly?

            This is simply a bifurcation fallacy. Demanding a yes or no answer is a debate trick, not a useful way to figure out what is true.

            ------------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            “If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

            Not so. It could be that the prediction matches the action.

            Also, you seem to have cut the part where I pointed out that his assumes that God exists inside time. We need either an answer to that or to drop this subject.

            -----------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            “If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things , I thing it goes against perfection idea.”

            You’re allowed to think that if you want, but unless you can prove that you’re right, this is not a proof of atheism.

            -------------------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            “A rock coul be used as a hammer and *coud* **not** be used as a step ou used as a tray.

            Because we can have a rock that can not me used in all this things.”

            Why couldn’t it? It is entirely possible to use a rock in the ways I named (and many others). Power can be used in many ways. That doesn’t mean that it is more than one entity.

            ---------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            “I said if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.”

            How do you know this?

            ------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            “you would be right *if* each entity of atheist were the same complexity of your god.”

            So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?

            If so, I think much more hangs on this assumption that power complex just because it can be used in many ways.

            -----------------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            “It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.”

            Of course it does. The number of entities being proposed is precisely what Ockham’s Razor is about.

            But I don’t understand how anything you’ve written under this heading proves that God could not be good. None of it seems to even address that idea.

            ----------------------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            “The uncertainty principle says clearly it is impossible. If yor god can know this position and velocity it is against the heisemberg principle.”

            So you’ve claimed. I’ve asked for the experimental evidence that shows that this is relevant to omniscience, and not simply those of us relying on interaction between particles and classical objects.

            I don’t see any of that here.

            I’ll not comment on the rest, because this seems to me to be the crux of it. Please present the evidence for this.

            -----------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            “I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts”

            I don’t see where you’ve showed this at all. I’ve only seen demands that I prove that it is compatible. I’m simply not going to bother doing that.

            I want to see why it is incompatible.

            “If you are defending your existence that you should find arguments to resolve this incompatibility.”

            But I’m not doing that. I’m merely challenging what you’ve called a proof. I already know what I think. I’m only interested in this discussion if you have a good reason why I am wrong.

            I wrote: "Even if this showed that God would be evil (it doesn’t), it is no defense of atheism. All it would show is that whatever God existed would not be good. But it does nothing to show that there is no God,"

            You replied: “No, you are wrong , this prove that christian god *( Good , powerfull, omniscient )* do not exist.”

            Indeed, it would prove that (if we were able to prove this, rather than simply insist that I prove the claim is wrong).

            But it still wouldn’t establish atheism. This really doesn’t defend the materialist view that modern atheists believe in.

            ---------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            This is now a reference to a no-name blogger. Yes, I agree that lots of non-professional quacks and no-name bloggers on the internet claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. The consensus of scholarship agrees with me, however, that these untrained people are simply wrong.

            Then you ask the same questions. I’ll write the same thing in response: these simply assume that Christianity is almost certainly false. If one sees the reasons why these arguments for atheism are bad, and knows the real versions of the arguments for theism (as opposed to the fake versions of them internet atheists are always talking about), then these are much harder questions to answer than you seem to think.

            ---------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            If you can’t say whether or not the JN is physical, then it is not well defined. It is a vague speculation, not a serious alternative.

            Moreover, unless you are saying that it is not physical, then it cannot possibly be the answer to the question of existence—as physical things cannot exist unless time and matter already exist. It means that the JN would still not be the first thing.

            What you do say is this:

            “The importante of JN is its properties. It define it.”

            But I haven’t heard many properties. It’s been a very vaguely defined idea so far.

            I wrote: "In formal terms, the necessity of his own being. God, as a non-contingent object, cannot fail to exist."

            You replied: “You are wrong.”

            You are allowed to think that, but it is the traditional view of God. Unless you can prove (not demand that I prove, but prove yourself) that this can’t be the case, then you can’t simply claim that this is wrong and base an argument on assuming that it is wrong.

            As such, this is a valid response to the question.

            “I have said before ( item #1 ) the Jocaxian Litle Blue daemon coud create the universe. God is not necessary.”

            Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true. All it would show is that the cosmological argument doesn’t prove theism. Atheism would still be a completely unsupported view.

            “The thongs created by JN coud not existed. JN coud not create anything”

            If I’m reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that JN doesn’t create anything. Please clarify.

            “ "P OR NOT P" could, of course, happen "Not P”.”

            That is not what this means in logic. “P or not P” doesn’t mean a thing is possible. It means that a claim is either true or false. That doesn’t mean that it is possibly true. This is basic logic. Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. It is a very important thing to know.

            “So the rule "something to exist must be not contingent" it is a false rule.”

            I didn’t claim that was a rule.

            I suggested (not claimed) that contingent reality requires non-contingent reality for it’s existence. This is completely different.

            “it is the simplest thing that might exist. So it do not need explain to exist.”

            That is not an answer. You actually have to describe it. I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure.

            “No, God have intelligence, JN not.”

            How do you know that the simplest thing isn’t a mind?

            This is why you need to actually explain what JN is for this to be at all useful as an argument.

            “God habe goodness , JN not.”

            Again, how do you know that failing to be good makes one simpler?

            “God have omniscience, JN not.”

            Same question. Does ignorance add to simplicity?

            “God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not.”

            The ability to do bad things makes a thing simpler?

            “So Jn is more powerfull than God and simpler than God.”

            Is this agreement that having more power doesn’t make one more complex?

            I asked: ”Second, you need to explain how something without intelligence can both exist and produce contingent realities. "

            You responded:

            "Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

            But this is an argument that all reality is as non-contingent as the JN itself. The results of it spin out of it mechanically by the laws of logic. This paragraph agrees with me.

            “Because god has infinite hypothesis he must have to be created”

            This is just assuming that God has “infinite hypothesis”. But this is just more of arguing against a God that no one actually believes in.

            This is simply not how theists understand God.

            I wrote "If there is a positive chance, as you agree here, then over the infinite time of the future, it will eventually happen. This is basic to probability theory"

            You responded: “But here is not infinite time. The time have the start and will spend infinite to have infinite time.”

            But there is infinite time. There is an infinite future ahead of us. This would mean that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be created (if he hasn’t been already).

            I wrote "Since God would be created outside time, he would exist as much at one time as any other."

            You replied

            “No, time is the number of events that existed in the universe

            So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.”

            That doesn’t mean that things can’t exist outside of time.

            So, its a strange argument for atheism, because it means that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be made, and will have the ability to exist outside of time, and even travel back in time.

            If I believed it (I don’t, it's a wild speculation at best), it would make me more likely to believe in theism.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You said "More to the point, complexity “in terms of Ockham’s Razor” is the parts."

            No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.

            Like I said before :"a statue made of sand grains of trillion is less complex than a small fly."

            You said "The fact that power can be used in more than one way doesn’t make it more complex.

            As before, I can use a rock in many ways, that doesn’t make it more complex than it otherwise would have been."

            There are two mistakes in your claim, I will clear to you:

            First : The power to create something , like a Fly for example, needs at least two hypothesis:

            1-The *knowledge* to create this object. ( And this knowledge needs anothers *millions* of knowleges too )

            2-In addition to the knowledge you need to be able to create the matter of this object.

            So the power to create something needs a lot of extras hypothesis and therefore each thing god can create

            there are a lot of extras hypothesis necessary to do this.

            In the same way , Even the rock , each thing you can do with a rock you nees *KNOWLEDGE* to do this.

            SO you are wrong when you say "So, no. it is not “an infinite claim”. It is a single claim."

            Power to create or do Infinite things It involves infinite hyphothesis to *how* to create this things.

            I define "JLBD" as being with *finite* knowledge and *finite* power and not necessarily good and nor omniscient, and he has the power to create a cosmos, not ininite ones , just one.

            So JLBD is less complex to God and have less hypothesis than God.

            I said "“Not necessarily always Good” "

            I mean he can be good sometimes anos bad sometimes. Because our sense of goodness is not the same to him.

            He do not needs be good ever.

            You ask : "Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? "

            I can say he could be creates by the Jocaxian Nonthingness.

            But I ask you the same question about your God.

            -------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            You said "I said "Second, you are still assuming that God was a “hypothesis” invented to explain the suffering of the world. ""

            You are not understanding. I am saying that there is an incompatibility between the facts and the existence of a good God omniscient and powerful. And that * so * that God can not exist.

            I'm * not * saying it is needed a god to explain the suffering but the opposite, that suffering is explained by the * absence * of a good God.

            You said "First, this simply ignores the issue of free will. "

            This statement is a lie spoken for centuries to get away from the logic.

            When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering he's not taking the free will of anyone, right?

            (Does the child like to die with suffering?)

            On the contrary he is helping people satisfy their desire to live and be happy!

            * Therefore God could also make the role the police or fireman do * when they are not present without taking the free will of anyone.

            HELP SOMEONE IS NOT TAKE It is free will.help is not boot from someone your free will.

            Second, if there is any reason for God not help it is for its existence defenders show that, because I refuted his last defense in relation to not help to maintain free will.

            Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.

            -------------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You said :"If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”,"

            If , in fact , I was beating in my wyfe the answer coul be Yer or Not. Yes if I sopped. No if I am not stopped to beat her.

            if I was not hitting it so the question is not applicable to me, would be like asking: "Do you like the ride on Mars? "

            But I Ask you is different because *necesssarily* one of ths things will occur or you will kill or not.

            So I repeat the question:

            "If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

            You said "I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. "

            I am not saying someone will force to happen, but only the people do not have free will , they necessarily must follow what god knows trom them.

            And you do not answer the contradiction:

            You have said :

            ""Yes, you COULD choose differently than God knows you will, but you WON'T

            (because, if you did, that would change God's knowledge so that he would know that you made that different choice)."

            You do not realize the mistake:

            If god *change* his knoledge about what you do, than his previous knoledge was *wrong" , so God was wrong in his prediction.

            Do you undertand?

            -----------------------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            I said : “If the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

            you said : "Not so. It could be that the prediction matches the action."

            You know how to read? I'm talking about a hypothesis * IF *, so you have to assume that *if this hypothesis is true* etc ...

            rewriting:

            “*** If **** the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

            It is too dificult read this claim?

            You said : "Also, you seem to have cut the part where I pointed out that his assumes that God exists inside time. "

            There is time in our universe so , if god exist, it is in our time too.

            For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* the created the beings right? So there is time.

            -------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I said "“If you claim that perfect beings can create *imperfect* things , I thing it goes against perfection idea.”"

            you said "You’re allowed to think that if you want, but unless you can prove that you’re right, this is not a proof of atheism."

            I am proving to you that God can not be perfect so "god perfect" do not exist.

            ------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I said : "“A rock coul be used as a hammer and *coud* **not** be used as a step ou used as a tray."

            you said : "Why couldn’t it? It is entirely possible to use a rock in the ways I named (and many others).

            Power can be used in many ways. "

            Because , in the first place there is necessity of knowledge to do this , so , each thing that coud be created

            there is necessity the knowledge to how do this.

            Second, you can not compare *your* power to do things with a rock with everything. I explain a bit:

            God is defined to be good. So he can not do bad things. So tehere is a limit what he can do , He is limited by goodness.

            Like I said before, we coud have a GOD-B that have infinite power LESS a power to create a virus , for example.

            So infinite power is equivalent to infinite clains. Because we coud have *infinite* Gods each with a different power.

            Therefore your god is defined as a claim of infinite hypothesis of power embeded in his definition.

            And , as i said before, *each* power to create something must be a knowledge *how* to create this stuff.

            ----------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            I said :"if something perfect do something is because this something he wanted to satisfy some desire.”

            You said "How do you know this?"

            because if gos do things without wants, like a random machine, or like a Jocaxian Nothingness,

            then he would be not a perfect being, he would have a random / aleatoty power.

            -----------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            You said "So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?"

            I agree if the simplicity is by occan s razzor point of view.

            I insist that you understand God as an Indian who observes a super computer in a black box. For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 4 sides and makes billions of things very quickly. Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.

            But do not realize that for * EVERY * thing she does exist at least two embedded assumptions: 1-Knowledge to do; 2- The means to do.

            For you understand this you need to think that there may be infinite gods with less complexity than their god, as I said before, there may be a god that does not have the power to create a virus, another god that does not have the power to be EVIL. Their god, for example, * is * less powerful than a god who can do evil things. So for every possibility must match a clause to that power.

            -------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I said: “It dos not have importance if gos is made with parts or not.”

            you : "Of course it does. The number of entities being proposed is precisely what Ockham’s Razor is about."

            No, like I said before : a statue made of zilhoes of sand grains would be more complex than a fly.

            The occans razor is about hypothesis :

            WIKI:

            William of Ockham supposedly (see below) wrote it in Latin as:

            Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.[1]

            This translates literally as:

            More things should not be used than are necessary.

            This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened,

            the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one.

            A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is ******* not ******** really about things (entia = entities),

            but about explanations or hypotheses.

            So other thinkers have come up with other versions:

            "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." Ptolemy.[3]

            ----------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            You said "Please present the evidence for this."

            Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

            There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle , not only particle being observed.

            -------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I said : "“I show that a good God, omniscient and powerful is incompatible with the facts”"

            You said : "I want to see why it is incompatible."

            Here is the prove:

            - An innocent child dying raped with suffering is bad, the opposite of good is something wrong ..

            - The child's own desire and arbitrariness do not want this suffering to herself.

            - Being considered good, to be good, do not want to happen this suffering with this child.

            - Being good, with enough power to prevent such suffering would act against this evil and help the child ..

            - If God existed it would be good and would have power and therefore help the child

            -but The fact is that the child dies raped and unaided.

            So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist.

            ---------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            Do you agree that Obtion (B) is more occans compatible?:

            A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A)someone born from a virgin or

            B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

            ---------------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You said "If you can’t say whether or not the JN is physical, then it is not well defined. It is a vague speculation, not a serious alternative."

            Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.

            You said "as physical things cannot exist unless time and matter already exist."

            In this definition "JN" is not physical, of course !

            You said: "But I haven’t heard many properties. It’s been a very vaguely defined idea so far."

            There are not many properties, but the *main* property is :

            "JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

            You said : "You are allowed to think that, but it is the traditional view of God. "

            "Traditional view" is *not* a logical response. God is not necessary , a lot another gods could create the universe,

            so he is contingent.

            The prove God is not necessary is "Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" could create the universe, or

            the GOD-G the God is similar your god but he is not necessarily always Good.

            Do you agree that God-G could create the universe?

            You said "Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true."

            Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance.

            You said "If I’m reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that JN doesn’t create anything. Please clarify."

            In the JN state , we have "P or NOT P" , P is any proposition.

            For example P: "space and a lot of particles appear"

            So from JN could P is true ............... OR ... NOT !

            So from JN could not space neither particles appear !

            You said "That is not what this means in logic. “P or not P” doesn’t mean a thing is possible."

            You are wrong again.

            Of course P is possible! If P is true then P was possible. if P is impossible than could never be true.

            you said : " It means that a claim is either true or false. That doesn’t mean that it is possibly true. "

            The FIRST schizo-creation is the start of the time.

            So while JN do not create anything, there is no time not creation ,

            but P still *could* occurs. So P was possible !

            While no rules were aleathorized everything were *possible*.

            Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. lol :-)

            I said "“it is the simplest thing that might exist. So it do not need explain to exist.”"

            you said "That is not an answer. You actually have to describe it.

            I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure."

            I challenge you to show something simpler than JN.

            I said "“No, God have intelligence, JN not.” “God have goodness , JN not.”, God have omniscience, JN not.”,

            “God can not do bad things because it is good, JN not"

            you said "How do you know that the simplest thing isn’t a mind?", Does ignorance add to simplicity?,

            By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have. And Intelligence

            includes a lot of another embeded hypothesis, because the beings that have *intelligence* must have :

            -hability to solve a lot of problems that include:

            . Mathematical problems

            . Logical problems

            . Physical problems

            . Healthies problems

            etc....

            So , the intelligence-hyphotesis implies a lot of anothers hyphotesis and it goes against occans razor.

            Of course, Ignorance does not.

            Goodness is the same : something good mus have a lot of hypothesis to know if some thing is good or not.

            So to be good is necessary: Not do some child suffer, mus know when somethong will cause pain or not and

            infinite others things.

            You said "Is this agreement that having more power doesn’t make one more complex?"

            If JN have intelligence to *know* HOW to use this power I would agree with you!

            But JN is not GOD and it do not know anything. Only "P or not P". where P is any possible proposition.

            You said : " But this is an argument that all reality is as non-contingent as the JN itself.

            The results of it spin out of it mechanically by the laws of logic. This paragraph agrees with me. "

            I agree partially with you that JN is non-contingent.

            and agree partially with you that OUR reality is non-contingent because :

            The JN could generate bubble universes where they would not connected to each other, they would be isolated. Each could have different physical laws but that could still follow the logic. If the JN randomized * many * laws in a given universe bubble then surely this bubble universe follow the logic.otherwise you could be in an incipient state where compatibility logic of its physical laws could not yet be consolidated and a lot of randomness could be expected. perhaps our quantum mechanics reveals that our universe NJ did not end its processing and left some still loose laws !!

            You said "This is just assuming that God has “infinite hypothesis”.

            But this is just more of arguing against a God that no one actually believes in."

            No, it not depend on the people believe or not. If God has *knowledge* to create infinite things then it mus have infinite hypothesis

            one for each thing he can create.

            Y.S.: "This is simply not how theists understand God."

            Theist do not understand logic very well i think.

            Y.S. "But there is infinite time. There is an infinite future ahead of us. "

            No, there is not. The future still will come. An infinite time to happen is equivalent to *never*.

            YS: "This would mean that, at some point in the infinite future, God will be created (if he hasn’t been already)."

            It is possible, but if the JN randomize a law like that "NO MORE THINKS WILL BE GENERATED" ?

            Do you undertand me?

            The JN could aleathorize some law that avoid HIMSELF to generate more things.

            So god could not be generated by it never more.

            "You replied

            “No, time is the number of events that existed in the universe

            So the fisrt thing happen is the start of the time.”

            That doesn’t mean that things can’t exist outside of time."

            No because universe form definition is all that exists , including GOD.

            If god does something than this happen is part of timer-count.

            YS : " God will be made, and will have the ability to exist outside of time, and even travel back in time."

            It is impossible to travel back in the time because the count of events do not regreat only increases.

          • D Foster

            Greetings to you!

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            “No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.”

            These two things are directly related. God is a single entity (not really a ‘hypothesis’, as that isn’t a metaphysical term). Thus, the theist is only proposing one thing.

            Proposing a being composed out of say, ten parts means proposing eleven things (ten parts and a reason why they were combined in that way).

            "a statue made of sand grains of trillion is less complex than a small fly.”

            I’ve never disagreed with this.

            “First : The power to create something , like a Fly for example, needs at least two hypothesis:

            1-The *knowledge* to create this object. ( And this knowledge needs anothers *millions* of knowleges too )

            2-In addition to the knowledge you need to be able to create the matter of this object.”

            This assumes that those two things are separate. Again, this is simply arguing against a God that no one has suggested. Classical Theists have never proposed that God has knowledge in the way that people do: as successive objects of cognition.

            As it stands, assuming this means arguing against a God that no one is proposing.

            “I define "JLBD" as being with *finite* knowledge and *finite* power and not necessarily good and nor omniscient, and he has the power to create a cosmos, not ininite ones , just one.”

            First, there still needs more work to be done here. I’ve already asked several questions about this that haven’t been answered. Is this a physical being or not? Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)? Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?

            I’ve already suggested that answering these questions will show how this idea is more complex than God (that is, the actual God of Classical Theism, not the other God you’re arguing against). This isn’t a clear alternative until these questions are answered.

            “I mean he can be good sometimes anos bad sometimes. Because our sense of goodness is not the same to him.”

            This, if taken at face value, is exactly like God. No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s.

            However, if you’re saying that this being sometimes does things that we all know to be evil (such as torturing people for no good reason), then you’re proposing some more complexity here. This being has non-moral (and, consequently) irrational desires. This is an extra thing that Classical Theists are not proposing.

            I asked: "Why does it have the knowledge that it does? Why does it have the particular power that it does? Why does it have both of these things? "

            “I can say he could be creates by the Jocaxian Nonthingness.”

            Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not something else. I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that.

            “But I ask you the same question about your God.”

            This, however, is easy. The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. That is, pure act (in Aristotelian terms) or pure existence (in more modern terms). This is a single entity that can be used as power or knowledge (the latter being a sort of the former).

            Theologians have written hundreds of pages detailing that out, but that’s the short version.

            But, last, it is still an important question that you are proposing that a god exists in order to defend your atheism. This really is completely strange.

            -------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            “You are not understanding. I am saying that there is an incompatibility between the facts and the existence of a good God omniscient and powerful. And that * so * that God can not exist.”

            I understand that. I simply disagree. I see no reason to think that an omniscient and powerful God would prevent people from misusing our free will—or otherwise lack good reasons for allowing evil actions to occur.

            “When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering he's not taking the free will of anyone, right?”

            The list of objections here is long, but this is the main one:

            Epicurus was talking about evil, not suffering. People (like policemen) don’t know what the long-term results of a particular moment of suffering is going to be. They try to prevent as many as they can because that is, as far as we humans know, the best shot at things working out well.

            I see no reason to think that God would be in that same situation.

            “Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.”

            You need to support this claim.

            This is a good video summarizing the reasons why God would permit evil:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKx7l7NhHww

            Also, you need to answer my main issue:

            If you accept modern atheism, then you deny that evil exists. According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all. Thus, there’s nothing for me to explain unless you’ve already rejected atheism.

            -------------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            I proposed this example: "If I were to ask “have you finally stopped beating your wife?”,"

            And you answered: “If , in fact , I was beating in my wyfe the answer coul be Yer or Not. Yes if I sopped. No if I am not stopped to beat her.

            if I was not hitting it so the question is not applicable to me”

            But this is a lot more than simply a “yes” or a “no”. It seems to me that you agree with this: one can’t simply demand that a question be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.

            That being the case, I’m going to skip to this:

            I wrote: "I keep pointing out that knowing what will happen is different from forcing it to happen. "

            “I am not saying someone will force to happen, but only the people do not have free will”

            How is saying that people do not have free will different from saying that people are being forced, like puppets, to do things? That is exactly what ‘not having free will’ means.

            “You do not realize the mistake:

            If god *change* his knoledge about what you do, than his previous knoledge was *wrong" , so God was wrong in his prediction.

            Do you undertand?”

            Of course I understand. You didn’t understand my original comment. When I wrote the word “change”, I never meant to suggest that God would first believe one thing, then switch to believing something else (I’ve been saying that God doesn’t have his knowledge like this for some time). I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else.

            Please be careful to understand that difference, and what I wrote will make much more sense.

            -----------------------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            “You know how to read?”

            There’s a lot of insulting me starting to creep into this discussion. If this is going to degenerate into name-calling, I’m simply going to lose interest. Either you can make your case, or you can’t. Please don’t confuse my disagreement (particularly when we have something of a language barrier) as my not knowing how to read. My English skills are quite strong, thank you.

            But, to get to the point:

            ““*** If **** the action do *not* match the prediction then the prediction was wrong.”

            This is obviously true, but is completely beside the point.

            This is what, in my mind isn’t being understood:

            The prediction is based on the action, not the other way around. Yes, correct predictions will match actions. I agree with that. I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen.

            “There is time in our universe so , if god exist, it is in our time too.”

            Not everything that exists is in our universe. I have no idea why we should assume that God couldn’t exist outside of time.

            “For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* the created the beings right?”

            In spite of what Richard Dawkins adamantly claims, not everything in the Bible is literal.

            -------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            “I am proving to you that God can not be perfect so "god perfect" do not exist.”

            But I haven’t seen the proof.

            Specifically, what is the proof that a perfect being can never, under any circumstances, ever create an imperfect being?

            ------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            We’re having this discussion about the complexity of knowledge elsewhere.

            That being the case, I’ll skip the repetition here and ask how you know that God needs time to create (which is what this argument originally was)?

            ----------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            To support the claim that all creation comes out of a need to be fulfilled, you write:

            :because if gos do things without wants, like a random machine, or like a Jocaxian Nothingness,”

            How do you know that “having needs” and “random” are the only options?

            I can think of a number of other options, personally. How do you know that the ones you’ve named here are the only possibilities?

            -----------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            I wrote: "So, you agree that, if God is simple (as he’s always been understood to be) then theism is the simpler view?"

            You replied: “I agree if the simplicity is by occan s razzor point of view.”

            Yes, I agree with that as well.

            “I insist that you understand God as an Indian who observes a super computer in a black box. For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 4 sides and makes billions of things very quickly. Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.”

            Why should you insist this? Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. If you are simply going to try to change what it is that theists are saying, then you’re arguing against a God that no one believes in.

            So I agree with you that this sort of “super computer” God doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t say anything whatsoever about Classical Theism.

            -------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            I’m going to cut the repetition from this argument. I don’t see anything here that shows that God could not be good.

            ----------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I wrote: "Please present the evidence for this."

            Your response:

            :Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

            There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle , not only particle being observed.”

            This is simply an equation, not evidence.

            Please present evidence that this is the case even in situations which do not involve interaction between classical and quantum objects. What test was done of this idea? How was it done without causing classical and quantum objects to interact?

            Please present that data. Let me know what the specific experiment was.

            -------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            “Here is the prove:

            - An innocent child dying raped with suffering is bad, the opposite of good is something wrong ..

            - The child's own desire and arbitrariness do not want this suffering to herself.

            - Being considered good, to be good, do not want to happen this suffering with this child.

            - Being good, with enough power to prevent such suffering would act against this evil and help the child ..

            - If God existed it would be good and would have power and therefore help the child

            -but The fact is that the child dies raped and unaided.

            So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist.”

            This is simply a repetition of the argument from Epicurus.

            I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting. How do you know this?

            ---------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            “Do you agree that Obtion (B) is more occans compatible?:”

            No, that depends on one’s background information, as I’ve written. A good historical approach would take background data into account.

            But, mostly, I’ve been wondering how any of this shows that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or that historical data can’t be found in the documents later compiled into the New Testament.

            All it shows is that, if one starts with materialist atheism, one finds non-materialist claims unparsimonious. But this is useless for determining the truth of the matter.

            ---------------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            “Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.”

            Investigable via science. That is, composed of fundamental particles, space, time, and/or the quantum vacuum.

            But I’m interested in this:

            "JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

            If that is the case, then anything and everything should happen there. Logical contradictions, spontaneous creations, everything… including the creation/existence of God.

            You write: ‘”Traditional view" is *not* a logical response. God is not necessary , a lot another gods could create the universe,'

            This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I’ve written. God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics. That is, his existence has no logical antecedents. It has nothing to do with other possibilities regarding the creation of the universe.

            But this is an interesting question:

            “Do you agree that God-G could create the universe?”

            Yes, actually, I do.

            I just disagree with the idea that God-G is simpler than God. From what has been said about the idea (both here and in professional philosophical writings), I’ve seen no reason to think so—and every reason to think that it is actually more complex than God.

            You said "Even if this were true (I’m not convinced), this doesn’t do anything to show that atheism is true."

            “Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance.”

            I’m always happy to see agreement. (I’ll save the disagreement for elsewhere).

            “Of course P is possible! If P is true then P was possible. if P is impossible than could never be true.”

            No one is saying “P is impossible”, but what you need to show is that P is possible if all that existed is a state of “JN”.

            “P or not P” doesn’t prove that. It shows that it is either true or false, but there is a world of difference between “either true or false” and “possible”.

            “While no rules were aleathorized everything were *possible*.”

            How do you know that everything was possible? “True or false” (P or not P) doesn’t mean “possible”.

            “Please find a logic teacher and ask him/her about that. lol :-)”

            No, really. Actually do that. This is important to logical thinking. Saying that a claim is either true or not true. It means that it is one or the other that it can’t be both true and false at the same time. It doesn’t mean that it is possible.

            To explain:

            Anything is either true or false. So, the statement “there is a square circle” is either true or false. In this case it is false (not P). The statement “P or not P” still applies, but it doesn’t mean “a square circle is possible”. It isn’t possible.

            I could do the same thing with any impossibility. “P or not P” simply doesn’t mean that a thing is possible.

            At the very least, read the wikipedia article on this:

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

            Of the JN, I wrote:

            “I doubt that it is the simplest possible thing and want to know exactly what it is so that I can check to be sure."

            “I challenge you to show something simpler than JN.”

            But I’m not claiming this. I’m challenging your claim that the JN is the simplest possible thing. If you retract your claim that it is the simplest possible thing that could exist, then this is not an argument against theism—or even against any of the cosmological arguments for God’s existence.

            “By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have.”

            Not necessary by what?

            Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? If so, give that argument, that would prove God’s non-existence to me without having to mention JN. How is it that you know that knowledge and will, as described by writers like Aquinas, are actually separate entities.

            “includes a lot of another embeded hypothesis, because the beings that have *intelligence* must have”

            Having other abilities doesn’t mean having more hypothesis. The same trait can be used in different ways, after all. How do you know that this isn’t the case here?

            I wrote: "This is simply not how theists understand God."

            “Theist do not understand logic very well i think.”

            But this is simply demanding that your misunderstanding of theists is correct. Theists have proposed one thing, and you are arguing against something completely different. Whether or not you agree that they are right, you have to answer what they’ve claimed, not what you want to say that they claim.

            “No, there is not. The future still will come. An infinite time to happen is equivalent to *never*.”

            No it isn’t. It is precisely what is ahead of us. If it “still will come” then it will come. And, if something can happen in the future that creates a thing which exists outside of time, or can travel backward in time, then it exists outside of time, or else here and now.

            “It is possible, but if the JN randomize a law like that "NO MORE THINKS WILL BE GENERATED" ?”

            The only way for that to happen is for the JN to make your understanding of “P or not P” untrue. Else, there will always be that possibility.

            Moreover, there’s no reason to think that this has to happen in time at all. Everything that is possible for JN to create should exist in the timeless state sans time. Only things (like us) that require time should have needed time to exist before being created.

            Hence, all such things (including God) would exist if the JN theory is true.

            “No because universe form definition is all that exists , including GOD.”

            This isn’t the traditional definition of the universe. Even you don’t believe it because it would also include the JN, meaning that it couldn’t have created the universe.

            But, if you’re going to claim this, I’ll simply reword what I said:

            God would have been created outside of our spacio-temporal reality, and therefore would not be subject to time.

            “It is impossible to travel back in the time because the count of events do not regreat only increases.”

            This is simply saying that time moves forward. That doesn’t mean that all things must move with it.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            I sayd "“No, occans razor say about numbers of *hypothesis* not about parts.”"

            See again : "A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is *** not *** really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses. "

            https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

            I said the power to create something needs at least 2 things

            1-Knowledge ( how to do ) something

            2-Power to do/create this thing.

            You said : "This assumes that those two things are separate."

            I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create,

            and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.

            For example: anyone can learn how to make a beautiful statue in wood but does not have the wood nor the tools to do it.

            And vice versa:

            Anyone can own wood and tool and do not know build a statue.

            So for each infinite things god can create, he must have the knowledge for it and must have the power to use this knowledge.

            And more: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.

            So god have at least one more hypothesis more than JLBD.

            Therefore JLBD is preferable in terms of ocan's razor.

            If you have some reazon to say it is *impossible* JLBD to exist, please tell us and explain why.

            "Is this a physical being or not?"

            Define physical.

            "Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)?"

            Could be the same way your god store knowledge. Why not?

            "Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?"

            Humans can be evil sometimes and good other times, can not?

            "JLBD" too.

            You said " No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s."

            You are wrong because if God's good is , in reality, an human evil idea. The definition of god

            coud not be said "good" !!!

            Wiki "In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness)"

            If "goodness" is not like human concept than it could not be written as god's definition, of course!!

            You said "However, if you’re saying that this being sometimes does things that we all know to be evil (such as torturing people for no good reason), then you’re proposing some more complexity here. "

            You are wrong. I do not said JLBV torture peoples ,

            just the opposite: After create the cosmos he died, so he can not torture peopple.

            Beyond this I claimed god has *INFINITE* more knowledge and power than JLBV

            so this reason is enough to chice JLBV.

            You said "Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not something else."

            JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )

            YS: "I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that."

            there is always a first time for a new concept

            You said " The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. ",That is, pure act , or pure existence

            Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence"

            "This really is completely strange."

            This site is not "strange notions" ? :-)

            ------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I said :

            "“When a policeman or a fireman, for example, help an innocent person to die with suffering

            he's not taking the *free will* of anyone, right?”"

            you said " People (like policemen) don’t know what the long-term results of a particular moment of suffering is going to be. "

            **** You do not answer the question. ****

            I am asking about free will , not about long-term results.

            I S: "“Third, if you said "God permits evil" then god is not good.”"

            Y S : "You need to support this claim."

            You denny this claim? Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?

            You said "If you accept modern atheism, then you deny that evil exists. "

            I do not agree with it. Please Define evil .

            Show me where you take this absurd claim : "According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all."

            --------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            YS: "How is saying that people do not have free will different from saying that people are being forced,

            like puppets, to do things? "

            Is diferent because force evolve goes against you will , ie,

            forcing someone to act is to make it go against his will.

            That is not the case. The person DO NOT KNOWS he has his destiny wrotten.

            The person feel he could choice anythnk but in reality he *CAN NOT*,

            it must necessarily follow that in God's mind.

            So, its free will is a illusion, he think he has free will but , in reality, he does not have it. he must follow gods knowledge.

            You said : " I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else."

            You are wrong because the *hypotesis* is God knows BEFORE you born you will kill someone. Than you can not change this.

            So I repeat the question:

            "If god predicted , before you born , you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs then can you not kill this person???"

            Consider TRUE the Hypothesis :"god predicted , before you born "

            I am still waiting your response.....

            -------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You said " I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen."

            By hypothesis , god predictions is *always* correct.

            So if god predict that himself will create some star this must have to occurs. Correct?

            he can not change his prediction, correct?

            So he must folow his prediction for ever. Like a Robot.

            IS: “For example. the bible says god *first* created the sun and *after* he created the beings right?”

            YS: " not everything in the Bible is literal."

            Please be clear, are you saying all things in the universe, and everything in the cosmos,

            was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?

            ---------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?

            Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?

            --------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I said :

            "God is defined to be good. So he can not do bad things. So tehere is a limit what he can do , He is limited by goodness.

            Like I said before, we coud have a GOD-B that have infinite power LESS a power to create a virus , for example.

            So infinite power is equivalent to infinite clains. Because we coud have *infinite* Gods each with a different power.

            Therefore your god is defined as a claim of infinite hypothesis of power embeded in his definition.

            And , as i said before, *each* power to create something must be a knowledge *how* to create this stuff."

            I think it is very important you perceive that could exist infinite possibilities for Gods

            like I said before Your God can not do something that goes against his "goodness"

            and could existe another God (God-G) that do not have this restriction to be good.

            So we already have three definitions of god : God-G , God, God-B.

            For each power we can have a different god that do not have this power.

            be cause this we can have infinite differents gods each one different of anothers.

            Ans each one have a set of hypotheses that define him.

            So we have ininite kind of gods with infinite sets of definition.

            -----------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You Ask: "How do you know that “having needs” and “random” are the only options?"

            Or he want to do something or not.

            If he want to do then something was not perfect, it needs change. ( If something is perfect do not need change ) .

            If he does not want todo and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect

            I ask : Why a perfect God would do something that he do *not* want?

            -----------------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            I said " For the Indian this box is very simple it only has 6 sides and makes billions of things very quickly.

            Similarly sees God as a black box that does it all.”"

            You said :" Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. "

            The indian do not see what have inside the black-box too,

            for them all power emanates from that single black box that seens quite simple.

            You also sees God as the Indians see the black box.

            They fail to realize that for every power must be an associated knowledge.

            Insist to say, for example, that if a god can operate a heart or cure a disease,

            there may be * another * god who could ** not ** know how to do it.

            So for * each * power, of the infinite that you claims that God has,

            there should be at least one * built-in * hypothesis allowing (or setting) this knowledge from this power.

            Thus, by Occam's Razor God with infinite power is extremely complex.

            Because it has infinite hipotheses embedded in his power:

            -he can cure cancer -> he knows cure cancer ( h1 )

            -he can create a virus -> he knows how to create a virus ( h2 )

            -he can create a star -> he knows how to create a star ( h3 )

            .....

            -he can create a galaxy -> he knows how to create a galaxy (h12312112342342 )

            Did you perceive the quantity of hipotheses embeded?

            -------------------------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            Ok we can cut this number but is good have im mind about occans razor:

            WIKI:

            William of Ockham supposedly (see below) wrote it in Latin as:

            Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.[1]

            This translates literally as:

            More things should not be used than are necessary.

            This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened,

            the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one.

            A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is ******* not ******** really about things (entia = entities),

            but about explanations or hypotheses.

            ---------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I said : "

            Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte

            There is no necessity of observer, this equation is applied to any particle ,

            not only particle being observed."

            Y said : "This is simply an equation, not evidence."

            This equation is a pillar of the science, a principle, all physical quantum experiments agree with it.

            Is the same like velocity of light in relativity: It is a principle , an axiome that all the experiments agree.

            ------------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I said "So, the facts are pointing out that this good and powerful God does not exist"

            Y said: "I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting.

            How do you know this?"

            All reason was refuted, like the "greater good" to the future, you have said before.

            I would also like to say that "the greater good" in the future amounts to utilitarian ethics that you reject.

            You say that an act is good or bad in itself, regardless of future consequences.

            In this case I ask you: a child being raped and killed would not be an act in itself bad?

            Regardless of whether or not a greater good in the future? (Or you are an utilitarian now?)

            If you have another defense for you poor god tell me :-)

            If you do not have another defense I consider him guilty for omission of help.

            -----------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            I said "

            A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A)someone born from a virgin or

            B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

            "

            You said: "No, that depends on one’s background information"

            The fact is :

            -No There evidence that Jesus has risen

            neither of which:

            Jesus was born of a virgin

            or that

            jesus has done miracles against physical laws.

            As there is no proof that we should stick with Occam's Razor

            You said: "or that historical data can’t be found in the documents later compiled into the New Testament."

            By the way,

            God was wrong to change the version of the Old Testament correcting it for the new testament?

            ---------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unnecessity of a Cause [Jocax]

            IS: “Tell me what you think is "physical" and I answer you.”

            YS:"Investigable via science. That is, composed of fundamental particles, space, time, and/or the quantum vacuum."

            Im termos of current science no, it is not physical because there is no laws.

            But in terms of the expanded science yes, it is physical:

            Expanded Science: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/weblog/79248.html

            "JN is a universe state where there is not laws, any kind of laws"

            YS: "If that is the case, then anything and everything should happen there.

            Logical contradictions, spontaneous creations, everything… including the creation/existence of God."

            Yes because this I said in the text:

            "11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?

            A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,

            maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine."

            http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/weblog/68209.html

            You said " God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics.

            That is, his existence has no logical antecedents."

            I think it is wrong. Why do you thing this claim is correct? If the cosmos could be created by another

            being ando not God, it is not necessary.

            You said : "I just disagree with the idea that God-G is simpler than God. "

            No, you are wrong because a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,

            have to follow a LOT of hipothesis than GOD-G definition do not have !!

            For example:

            -God can not kill some inoccent child born in Africa at 22:00 ockloc at random (h evil-1)

            -God can not cause pain to some inoccent family born in Alasca in 2023 (h evil-2)

            -.....

            -God can not cause suffer a Dog that is dying of heart (h evil -12437234272 )

            There is infinite embeded hypothesis about goodness that god MUST follow to be Good.

            Therefore God is more complex by occans razor than God-G .

            "Ok I agree, but by "Occans razor" is the best response for universe appearance."

            I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.

            YS:"No one is saying “P is impossible”, but what you need to show is that P is possible if all that existed is a state of “JN”."

            If no one say "P is impossible" follow that "P Is possible" .

            If P can be True follow that P is possible, because it can be true.

            P is Possible is defined when P can be true. Simple.

            You said " (P or not P) doesn’t mean “possible”."

            I think you did not understand.

            "P" is a proposition such as "appears a pink unicorn"

            If P or not P, then so can appear the Unicorn may not appear as the unicorn, it means it's * possible * to appear the unicorn.

            You said "“a square circle is possible”. It isn’t possible."

            Square circle is a contradiction, It is equivalent to P= "FALSE AND FALSE" logically is always false.

            because square is a negation of circle and therefore false for ever.

            But another Proposition like "Appear JLBD" is not logical contradiction , so it is possible.

            Resuming "P OR NOT P" : P IS POSSIBLE IF IS NOT A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION or FALSE ALWAYS.

            " I’m challenging your claim that the JN is the simplest possible thing."

            It is simple because there is only one hypothesis : The existence. It is.

            "“By Occans razor: Intelligence is a hypothesis/property thats is not necessary to have.”"

            "Not necessary by what?"

            To create the cosmos. JN can create the cosmos by chance.

            "Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

            Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

            Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.

            You think you know or know how to operate a brain, a heart how to operate or build a computer are simple things?

            of course that all knowledge embeds a number of assumptions that JN has not.

            Therefore God is extremely complex because it demands an infinite number of hypotheses for each embuitidas knowledge he has.

            "Having other abilities doesn’t mean having more hypothesis. "

            In general you are wrong. Some god-x can know how to build a brain but that even God-x can not know how to build a computer.

            A god can know how to build a planet, but that God can not know how to build a bacterium.

            " then it exists outside of time"

            Nothing exist outsid of the time because time is the number of events happened inn alll universe(s)

            "Hence, all such things (including God) would exist if the JN theory is true."

            JN could create Universes isolated bubble universes that what happens in one does not influence the other. So there could be the creation of a god in one of the universes and not be God in another universe. You understand?

            "Do yourself a bubble universe number 101212" and he did.

            ". Even you don’t believe it because it would also include the JN, meaning that it couldn’t have created the universe."

            But I have said the JN IS THE UNIVERSE in his minimal state !!

            "This is simply saying that time moves forward. That doesn’t mean that all things must move with it."

            Time is a number of events. How this number could be lower?

          • D Foster

            Okay, here we go for the next round:

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You wrote : "A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is *** not *** really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses. “

            In context, these are the same thing. “Hypothesis” are proposed things (entities) which are meant to explain a fact. The only difference is that “hypothesis” is specifically a scientific term, whereas “entities” has a broader meaning.

            You wrote: “I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create, and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.”

            Yes, and there is no reason to assume that—having the knowledge to create something is part of having the power to create it. It isn't a separate "hypothesis". Quite a few philosophers have pointed out the reasons why this so. If you are going to disagree with them, then you need to offer the reasons why, not merely assume that they are wrong.

            Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa). Else, you aren’t actually proposing a simpler alternative.

            You do write this: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.”

            But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities). God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity).

            If you are going to insist otherwise, then you are simply arguing against a God that the theologians I’ve referenced have never proposed.

            I asked: ”Is this a physical being or not?"

            You respond: “Define physical.”

            Composed of matter and/or existing in space. By that definition, is your “Little Blue Devil” physical?

            If not, what is it?

            I asked: ”Is this beings finite knowledge stored in separate thoughts (the way we humans store our knowledge)?"

            You respond: “Could be the same way your god store knowledge. Why not?”

            Because that wold give it all knowledge as a single “hypothesis” (entity). That being the case, it would know how to create a pink unicorn.

            But did you mean that it “could be” or “it does, assuming it exists”?

            If you’re simply saying that it “could be”, then you haven’t offered a well-defined alternative, but a vague name without a clear definition.

            I asked: ”Is the being evil, amoral, or a mixture of good and evil (‘not necessarily’ isn’t a definition)?"

            You replied: “Humans can be evil sometimes and good other times, can not?”

            Yes, and humans are complex beings. There are far more than two “hypothesis” one would have to propose to suggest that something as complex as a human mind created the universe. The classical concept of God is far simpler than that.

            I wrote: " No one has ever claimed that our idea of good is exactly the same as God’s."

            You responded: “You are wrong because if God's good is , in realit y, an human evil idea. The definition of god coud not be said "good" !!!”

            There is a difference between “not exactly the same” and “completely different”. We can have a different idea about goodness than God without thinking that God is completely evil. There is an enormous middle ground between these two.

            You wrote: “I do not said JLBV torture peoples ,

            just the opposite: After create the cosmos he died, so he can not torture peopple.”

            Claiming that “he died” is another “hypothesis”. It also means claiming that he can die (yet another “hypothesis”) and claiming that he existed in time (still another “hypothesis”).

            I could name quite a few more, actually, but the point is that the more we look at what the phrase “Little Blue Devil” means, the more complex it becomes.

            “Beyond this I claimed god has *INFINITE* more knowledge and power than JLBV

            so this reason is enough to chice JLBV.”

            I know that you claimed this, but you haven’t shown why this can be the case. God’s knowledge has always been understood to be a single, unified entity (one “hypothesis”). It is one thing that can be used in many ways, not many things.

            If you claim otherwise, then you’re arguing against a different God than anyone here has proposed.

            I asked "Then you need to show why the ‘Jocaxian Nothingness’ would create just that thing, and not som ething else."

            You wrote: “JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )”

            Simply appealing to chance is not an explanation. One has to first show that the entity (“Little Blue Devil”) is plausible given the background information. This has not been done (but more on that below).

            I wrote: "I’ve never seen anything like a description of it that would show that."

            You reply: “there is always a first time for a new concept”

            Indeed, but you have to actually give the description. Saying things like “could be” and “not necessarily” doesn’t make it a first time. It means that there is still no description.

            I wrote: "The God of Classical Theism has a unified, metaphysically simple power. That is, pure act , or pure existence”

            You replied: “Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence” “

            This would require some clearing away of common assumptions (which would take some time). I’ll get to that if this continues, but first there is a bigger point here:

            If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism, then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist. These are the basics—the very beginning of understanding what theologians even mean by the word “God”. To not know what they mean is to have such a weak grasp of the concept that you won’t be arguing against the God theologians have suggested.

            This is what I find on just about every atheist website. They do a great job at refuting a completely different God. Given the way they understand the term, I see why they reject it. My real response is that their understanding is completely wrong.

            ------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            You wrote: “I am asking about free will , not about long-term results.”

            You shouldn’t be. This “proof” is about the problem of evil, not free will.

            “Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

            Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil. I’d add that God doesn’t cause evil, but it’s always been part of theism that God allows people to make bad choices, rather than forcing us to make good ones.

            You request: “Show me where you take this absurd claim : "According to atheism, there is no evil in the world at all.” “

            According to modern atheism, everything is physical. There is no ultimate purpose to the universe. There may be things that are painful, or upsetting, or unhelpful to some purpose one has, but this is all subjective. If one were to say “my purpose is to fulfill my desires, regardless of who I hurt or kill in the process”, that is as valid as any other opinion (if atheism is true).

            So, there’s no actual good or evil, given atheism. There are only people with different opinions about what we should do.

            --------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            “forcing someone to act is to make it go against his will.

            That is not the case. The person DO NOT KNOWS he has his destiny wrotten.

            The person feel he could choice anythnk but in reality he *CAN NOT*,”

            I’m not a compatibilist myself. There are a number of problems with this view of freedom.

            Still, if you are a compatibilist, then what is the problem? Even if God’s knowledge were requiring that someone can’t do other than that knowledge, this isn’t making a person go against her will.

            So, if you only think a person is forced if that person goes against her will, there is no problem here.

            I wrote : " I was specifically saying that God’s knowledge would be different than it WOULD have been if you’d chosen something else."

            You respond: “You are wrong because the *hypotesis* is God knows BEFORE you born you will kill someone. Than you can not change this.”

            Re-read what I wrote above. I didn’t say that I “could change this” I said that God’s knowledge (in the past) would be different if I would (in the future) choose something else. This doesn’t require anyone to change anything.

            That’s the answer to your question. You need to read it again to see why it directly tells you exactly what you’ve been asking.

            What it certainly doesn’t do is force anyone to go against his will. It’s only if you insist that there are other ways of forcing people that this is even a problem (and that would be a bigger problem for atheism).

            -------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            I wrote: " I don’t start to disagree until you try to use that to claim that correct predictions force an action to happen."

            You respond: “By hypothesis , god predictions is *always* correct.”

            Yes, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my point. A correct prediction doesn’t force anything to happen.

            More than that, you keep assuming that God exists in time. There is no reason to believe this.

            You do try to insist that creation, somehow, means this:

            “Please be clear, are you saying all things in the universe, and everything in the cosmos,

            was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?”

            Not at all.

            I said that there was no good reason to think that God was in time. I have no idea what this has to do with things happening inside the universe at different times.

            ---------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            “Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?”

            It seems possible. Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack that ability?

            “Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?”

            There could be any number of reasons. I’ve suggested a few, but the point is that we can’t simply assume that there is no such reason for this argument to work.

            --------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            There is a lot of talk about infinities here. Since I’ve already answered that issue above, I’ll simply point out that this “proof” was never about infinities. It was the assumption that God needed time to decide things, and (therefore) could not have decided to created time.

            I simply reject that assumption. Talk of infinities doesn’t address that.

            -----------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfe ct. [unknown author]

            “If he want to do then something was not perfect, it needs change. ( If something is perfect do not need change ) .”

            I simply deny this. There is no reason to think that adding to what already exists must necessarily be because what already existed needed change.

            It could be for any number of other reasons. I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. If this is a “proof”, then we need proof that it can’t possibly be anything else. I don’t see any reason to think that.

            -----------------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [ Jocax]

            I wrote :" Why should I agree to that? That isn’t remotely how I understand God. "

            You respond: “The indian do not see what have inside the black-box too,”

            This assumes that I don’t know the concept of God any better than your proposed “Indian” understands a computer (as a side point, every Indian I’ve ever met knows quite a lot about computers).

            For the sake of this argument, it doesn’t really matter whether or not I do. In order to be a proof, you have to prove that the long-standing reasons why philosophers like Aquinas, Leibnitz, Plato, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes have given are completely, demonstrably false.

            They’ve written quite a bit about exactly what God is, and why God is simple. Simply saying “well, those people didn’t really understand the concept of God” isn’t a response to them.

            Until we’ve done that, this “proof” doesn’t prove that they were wrong. It just ignores what they’ve actually claimed and argues against a completely different idea of God.

            -------------------------------------------

            11 – Proof: If God existed, he could not be good. [?]

            Yes, I know what Ockham’s Razor is. I’ve been using it throughout this discussion.

            ---------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I wrote : "This is simply an equation, not evidence."

            “This equation is a pillar of the science,”

            I completely agree. It’s amazing.

            It’s also not what I asked for. I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical. The equation itself isn’t going to tell us.

            So, I completely agree that the equation is a great achievement, and accurately predicts behavior on a quantum level. Now, what is the evidence that supports the claim that it also predicts behavior on the non-physical level.

            After all, scientists don’t merely write equations, they test them. For your claim to be science, it has to be tested. What experiment tested it?

            ------------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I wrote: "I’m asking how you know that there aren’t good reasons for not acting.

            How do you know this?"

            You respond: “All reason was refuted, like the "greater good" to the future, you have said before.”

            I don’t recall that happening. I only remember you claiming that there couldn’t possibly be a good reason on the grounds that you, personally, couldn’t think of one.

            That’s hardly a refutation. Please explain to me how you know that there can’t possibly be a good reason.

            “I would also like to say that "the greater good" in the future amounts to utilitarian ethics that you reject.”

            It certainly would, if one equated this with good behavior itself, and added nothing else to ethical theory than that.

            That is I reject the utilitarian idea that this is all there is to ethics. I have no problem with the idea that it is one component of it.

            “If you have another defense for you poor god tell me :-)

            If you do not have another defense I consider him guilty for omission of help.”

            Getting a little cheeky here. This sounds less like a search for the truth, and an attempt to indict a God that (for some reason) you seem to have a problem with.

            If it’s the latter, I’ll leave you to it. I’m not interested.

            If it’s the former, then please be careful in your reasoning. I’ve explained why my comment was not an embracing of utilitarianism. Please don’t run too far under the assumption that I take a view that I do not.

            -----------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            “No There evidence that Jesus has risen

            neither of which:

            Jesus was born of a virgin

            or that

            jesus has done miracles against physical laws.”

            It seems that we’re at least abandoning the (long since discredited) claim that Jesus never existed. That’s a step in the right direction (for the sake of historical accuracy, if nothing else).

            But, still, we have at least two problems:

            First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things. This is just sloppy. The texts themselves are evidence (they are primary sources). The debate has always been about whether or not the evidence is sufficient.

            Second, if this is to be a good argument for atheism, it needs to do more than demand evidence. It needs to show that these things did not happen—not simply insist that theists show that they did.

            ---------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

            Regarding the “JN” you write:

            “Im termos of current science no, it is not physical because there is no laws.”

            Okay, good so far, but then you write this:

            “But in terms of the expanded science yes, it is physical:”

            I completely agree that current science fails to investigate all reality. This has been a point I’ve made many times in the past.

            However, what this article is calling “expanded science” is simply the unification of science and philosophy. That’s fine, but to say that the “JN” is “physical” under this definition, is simply to say that it exists. The word “physical” has lost it’s specific meaning and suddenly becomes useless as a term.

            You’ve essentially claimed that the JN is a metaphysical object. The problem is that you need to explain how something which is not physical in the “current science” sense could make universes. My suspicion is that, the more one explains that, the more the “JN” will start to sound like God.

            “A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,

            maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.”

            This completely agrees with my objection.

            It is specifically saying what I claimed above, that absolutely anything could happen as a result of this. Hence, (if there were such a thing as a “JN”) there would be no reason to think that God does not exist. Such a being could be created. In fact, there is good reason to think that such a being WOULD be created and (being outside of time, and having the ability to more through time) exists now.

            To be clear, I don’t remotely believe in a “JN”. My point is simply that it (if it did exist) it would be an argument for God, not against.

            I wrote: " God is not contingent by the technical sense as understood in classical metaphysics.

            That is, his existence has no logical antecedents."

            “I think it is wrong. Why do you thing this claim is correct?”

            Because that has long been the understanding of God’s existence. As a perfect, simple being, God’s non-existence is logically impossible. This is what is proposed.

            One needn’t believe that to be the case. That isn’t the point. The point is that one can’t simply insist that God is a contingent being in arguing against God’s existence (because one is arguing against a God that no one believes in).

            You write: “a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,”

            This simply assumes that “goodness” is a separate property and that being something that is other than good (evil, sometimes good but sometimes evil, amoral) is not a property. I’ve seen no reason to think either of these things.

            “I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.”

            If so, then this is incorrect. Atheism isn’t an explanation of the universe. It has never claimed to be.

            “If no one say "P is impossible" follow that "P Is possible" .”

            Not true. One could very well say “P may or may not be impossible. We don’t know.” (That is basically what ‘P or not P’ means).

            It doesn’t at all follow from that that P is possible.

            “If P or not P, then so can appear the Unicorn may not appear as the unicorn, it means it's * possible * to appear the unicorn.”

            No, it means that either it is true or it isn’t true. Saying that one of these things is the case is simply not the same as saying that both are possible. It is saying that one of them is the case. That’s all.

            “Square circle is a contradiction, It is equ ivalent to P= "FALSE AND FALSE" logically is always false.”

            Not at all. Logically speaking ‘P or not P’ holds for logical contradictions like square circles. It means ‘either true or false (in this case, always false)’.

            So, yes. ‘P or not P’ applies (it always comes out as ‘not P’).

            This is what that phrase means ‘either true or false’. Not ‘it is possible’. Those are different statements, and a good logician should know the difference.

            “another Proposition like "Appear JLBD" is not logical contradiction , so it is possible.”

            As a bit of a side point, I don’t accept that the “JN” contains no logical contradictions. I suspect that there are some hidden ones here (I’ll not name them right now, because that will get us too far off.)

            You write of the ‘JN’: “It is simple because there is only one hypothesis : The existence. It is.”

            It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about. It creates things based on sheer possibility (therefore, it has power), it is random, it is limited by logical possibility, it is metaphysical, but stands in causal relationships, etc.

            If you are going to reject arguments for the simplicity of God, then you can’t argue that these traits can all exist in a metaphysically simple entity.

            "Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

            “Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

            Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.”

            Please give me your argument here, and then explain how the same thing doesn’t apply to the “JN”.

            I simply don’t see a reason here. Which proponents of divine simplicity have you read? How do you know that they are wrong?

            “You think you know or know how to operate a brain, a heart how to operate or build a computer are simple things?”

            They certainly aren’t simple if that knowledge is stored the way humans do. But I don’t recall ever claiming that God has his knowledge that way.

            “Nothing exist outsid of the time because time is the number of events happened inn alll universe(s)”

            This is a very non-standard view of time.

            It also assumes that God would exist inside a universe. I’ve never thought that, and have no idea why anyone else would.

            “JN could create Universes isolated bubble universes that what happens in one does not influence the other. So there could be the creation of a god in one of the universes and not be God in another universe”

            But if it was God, then he would be able to move outside of “that universe” into the others, or outside of all of them, and affect all the universes.

            That would be exactly what I was suggesting.

            “But I have said the JN IS THE UNIVERSE in his minimal state !!”

            If the “JN” is in the universe, how did it created the universe? Does it not also exist outside of it? How does it create other universes, then?

            I can see how the “JN” could be a wildly complex and improbable conjecture. I can also see how the “JN” could be simply another name for God. I can’t see how it could be neither of these things at the same time.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            I said "“I am assuming 'something' can have power to create but do not necessarly knows how to create,

            and vice-versa : 'something' knows how to create but do not power for it.”"

            YS: "Yes, and there is no reason to assume that. "

            Because this if God can create a virus then :

            1-He have knowledge for it and

            2-He has capacity to do this virus.

            So, for *each* of the infinite things that god can create there are at least 2 hypothesis :

            1-Knowledge

            2-Capacity

            For each thing of gods power there are at least 2 hypothesis embeded.

            infinite power implies 2 times infinite hypothesis

            because this god is too much complex in terms of ocans razor.

            YS: "Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa)."

            Why your god can have power and knowledge and my LBD can not?

            Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.

            I.S: "The Jocaxian Litle Blue Daemon" do not knows how to create a pink unicorny, but god knows.”"

            YS:"But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities).

            God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity)."

            If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria

            and everything else too, I agree with you. Otherwise , i dont.

            YS: "Composed of matter and/or existing in space. By that definition, is your “Little Blue Devil” physical?"

            IS: Not because He create matter and space.

            YS "If not, what is it?"

            It is a entity like your god. What is your god?

            You said Gods knlowledge is a single hypothesis.

            It is not because someone that can create a rock could not create a bacteria.

            Are differents knowledge.

            So not point you say that knowledge to create everything is a single hypothesis, why not. Everything needs a knowledge to be able to create it. The knowledge that creates a rock is not the same knowledge that creates a computer.

            Y said : "If you’re simply saying that it “could be”, then you haven’t offered a well-defined alternative, but a vague name without a clear definition."

            No, you are wrong.

            People can be good sometimes and sometimes being bad. Similarly the LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.

            The classical concept of God is erroneous because it does not realize that god with infinite power and knowledge implies, as I said, there is endless embedded assumptions.

            The pair knowledge create a stone is not the same knowledge to create a bacteria. and vice versa.

            Claiming that “he died” is another “hypothesis”.

            No you are wrong , is not a hypothesis about JLV but an hipothesis what happen with it.

            If you count this as hypothesis then, similarly, u would have to say that every thing your God did to create the sun, creating the moon, creating the stars, creating the sea etc are many other * hypotheses * of God also.

            You said " God’s knowledge has always been understood to be a single, unified entity (one “hypothesis”)."

            Tell me *how the knowledge to play chess is the *same* knowledge to create a galaxy or vice-versa.

            If you show me this I will agree with you.

            I said : “JN coud create anything, why JN could not create "JLBV"? JLBV could be created by chance, of course.( did you remember schyzocreations? )”

            You said "Simply appealing to chance is not an explanation."

            You are wrong . Of course it is possible. The origin of life is cientific explained by an event by chance.

            https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

            I s : " “Define "simple power", define "pure act", define "pure existence” “"

            YS:"If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism,

            then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist."

            Or this "pure" predicate is just a way of trying to fool people by making it appear something divine, as if sheer existence was different from existence. Or something exists or does not exist.

            YS: "This is what I find on just about every atheist website. They do a great job at refuting a completely different God."

            If you think that atheists are denying a different god it's up to you to tell them what kind of God is that which is different from what they think it is

            --------------------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I S: “Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

            Y S: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

            A being that permits the evil when could hel to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.

            If a dog or even a human, can help a child who is being raped by avoiding it. Because God could not also help?

            Did the dog, or human, this taking the free will of someone?

            If the dog or the police scare the rapist so quit his evil act, because God could not do the same?

            If it does it proves that God is evil.

            Do you think God should not help that child? Why?

            "According to modern atheism, everything is physical."

            I Agree.

            ".... There are only people with different opinions about what we should do."

            It is a mistake to think that because there is no god there is no purpose or ethics in human life.

            We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being. So evil exists, the rape of a child, for example, is an evil to be avoided.

            -------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            Y.S.: "So, if you only think a person is forced if that person goes against her will, there is no problem here."

            I'm saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.

            Thus they are * not * responsible for their decisions !!

            Their "choices" were already decided in God's mind even before they were born.

            And they could never change this destination.

            I think I am not being clear. I will re-wrote:

            *SUPPOSE* before you born , God predict the following:

            **** you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs ****

            So the gods *real knowledge* is this : "you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs "

            Ok?

            I ask to you : "Can you not kill this person as gos had predict?"

            remember : God can not change his prediction because he is perfect and do not fail.

            --------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            Y said : "More than that, you keep assuming that God exists in time. There is no reason to believe this."

            You are saying god make all at once? There is no order in gods action? Everything happens at the same 'time'?

            If there is no order, there is no sequence in the things that God did, then you are creating a new genesis.

            because in all the sacred texts God does some things before others and therefore he is in time.

            There is an order, a sequence in Gods creation.

            I ask : "was created at the same time? There is no elapsed time to create everything?”"

            Y S: "Not at all."

            So god is in the time. If there is an order of event he does , then there is time.

            because the time is count of event .

            So exists before and after gods action.

            if , for example, he predict to create the earth *after* the sum then he must follow his predicition.

            He is obliged to have prediction because he is omniscient and must to know everything and he must to follow

            each prediction because he can not fail.

            ----------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            IS: "Do you think perfect being can create imperfect things?”"

            YS:"Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack that ability?"

            have ability does not mean that will be done.

            IS: "“Why he would create imperfect things if he could create perfect ones?”"

            YS:"There could be any number of reasons. . I’ve suggested a few, "

            IS: I've refuted all. So if you do not show a reason to a perfect being create an inperfect thing then this

            proof will remain valid.

            ---------------------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            It is not giving sequence to the debate. We started discussing "A" but in the middle of the discussion

            we came across a * difference * "B", and then a divergence "C" and we are then discussing this "C" deviation

            and after that then return to "B" and then return to "A".

            If you say now that "C" is different from "A" it is because the conversation came from "A" to "C".!

            If you do not respond to "C" we can not go back to "A"

            Because "A" depends on "C".

            ---------------------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfe ct. [unknown author]

            You always respond : " I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. "

            But never says no one.

            And you do not respond what I said:

            Or he (god) want to do something or not.

            If he want to do something it is because something was not perfect.

            Because perfect things do not nees changes.

            Otherwise

            If he does not *want* to do and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect.

            For example if God was all that existed and all was perfect then there is not necessity

            to create IMPERFECT beings. If god create imperfect beings when alll was perfect

            this creation proof gos was not perfect.

            -------------------------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            Y S: "you have to prove that the long-standing reasons why philosophers like Aquinas, Leibnitz, Plato, Athanasius, Augustine, ..."

            Wiki:

            "Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]

            In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]

            A is an authority on a particular topic

            A says something about that topic

            A is probably correct

            Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts"

            GOD IS NOT SIMPLE !

            In the past peoople things the earth was flat too. But it was not.

            I already said that for each power to do something ( hipothesis ) there is an addicttional hipothesis of knowledge to use this power.

            Because it has infinite hipotheses embedded in his power:

            -he can cure cancer -> he knows cure cancer ( h1 )

            -he can create a virus -> he knows how to create a virus ( h2 )

            -he can create a star -> he knows how to create a star ( h3 )

            .....

            -he can create a galaxy -> he knows how to create a galaxy (h123.121.123.423.942 )

            Did you perceive the quantity of hipotheses embeded?

            and the knowledge to play chess is different of the knowledge to cure cancer, ins nt it?

            ---------------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I said : " Delta(X) * Delta(P) > ctte "

            YS: " I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical."

            For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.

            So if you said god can goes against this principle , the onus of the prrof is yours.

            ------------------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            Consider this fact that have occured many times in the world:

            A child is walking and falls into a pit or precipice and be there screaming and suffering

            while being eaten alive by ants and other insects.

            Why omniscient God does not help this child who dies in great pain?

            Why God did not even give a quick death of this innocent child?

            If you say, as You said before:

            You Said: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

            I ask you if in this case is the same: "God permits evil."

            And I ask to you :

            Why did not God gave at least a quick death and the child did allow her suffer so much before he died?

            It is because "God permits evil." too?

            --------------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            YS: "It seems that we’re at least abandoning the (long since discredited) claim that Jesus never existed."

            Not the case.It said that the Bible was not written by historians and that there nehumja evidence that Jesus existed. If you are claims that existed the onus of proof is on you and not me.

            But we were straying from the topic that is quite simple.

            YS: "First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things."

            It is not a logical answer, see this:

            no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everrest mountain.

            no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for against the existence of an elf in the center of the moon.

            There is no evidence of this facts , only reports wrote by no-one knows exactly who wrote.

            You said "The texts themselves are evidence (they are primary sources)."

            No you are wrong. they are not evidence of what they themselves say be true.

            If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ??

            Of course not.

            The occan razoer still must be applied:

            A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A)someone born from a virgin or

            B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

            You said " It needs to show that these things did not happen"

            On a show court that a defense to be correct violate the laws of physics, do you think the judge would accept this defense?

            ----------------------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

            YS : " The word “physical” has lost it’s specific meaning and suddenly becomes useless as a term."

            See which Santa, elves, witches, ghosts, etc .. do not exist but by no means cease to exist as concepts of mythology.

            Similarly the "physical" term would be the things that have real existence.

            However there may be things that do not obey the laws of our bubble-cosmos but obey the laws of another bubble-cosmo and vice versa.

            Y S: "The problem is that you need to explain how something which is not physical in the “current science” sense could make universes. "

            I ´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )

            Y S: "It is specifically saying what I claimed above, that absolutely anything could happen as a result of this. Hence, (if there were such a thing as a “JN”) there would be no reason to think that God does not exist. Such a being could be created."

            I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.

            Y S : "To be clear, I don’t remotely believe in a “JN”.

            My point is simply that it (if it did exist) it would be an argument for God, not against."

            In fact JN coud be created God, but it could be create many bubble-cosme where our cosmos is one of them.

            As god need much more hypothesis than a universe , it ' s more probable JN crested the cosmos first. Maybe God would create next?

            You Said: " As a perfect, simple being, God’s non-existence is logically impossible. This is what is proposed."

            As I already said before, God is not simple. JN is very much simpler than God (it has no intelligence) .

            So JN is necessary not god.

            I Said: " “a being that is *necessarly* good, has the property of goodness,”"

            Y.S.: "This simply assumes that “goodness” is a separate property and that being something that is other than good"

            Any one thing as a lion does not necessarily have to be good. Place goodness as a property is to restrict an infinite number of actions that could cause harm. That is to say that something is good implies that it can not act maliciously implying that he may not cause billions of actions that cause harm.

            Because this "goodness" is a property that makes the being to be more complex.

            I S: "“I said the *atheism* is the best response for universe appearance.”"

            YS: "If so, then this is incorrect. Atheism isn’t an explanation of the universe. It has never claimed to be."

            you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god.

            The universe appearance can be explained with god and without god. Atheism accept first option.

            YS : "One could very well say “P may or may not be impossible. We don’t know.” (That is basically what ‘P or not P’ means)."

            "P" Impossible means P is always false. So "Not P" is always true !!

            (P or not P) means :

            a) P is true

            or

            b) (not P) is true

            The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities.

            Therefore P is possible i.e. option (a) could happen i.e. P could be True.

            ** So P IS POSSIBLE. ** ( = can be true )

            For example P = "Appears The Big-bang" ; By the logic P could be true. The big bang could appear.

            Possible : Dictionaty:

            adjective

            1.that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

            2.that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary:

            You said: " it means that either it is true or it isn’t true.

            Saying that one of these things is the case is simply not the same as saying that both are possible."

            "P is true " or "NOT P" is true,

            BOTH OPTIONS ARE EQUALY POSSIBLE TO BE TRUE. ( since , of course, P is not a contradiction like FALSE)

            You can not say "P is true" is more possible to be true than "NOT P is true"

            Both options are equaly possible to be true.

            YS: "It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about."

            His properties is a definition of a minimal state of a existing thing.

            Anything else that has existence must be more than JN properties.

            So JN has the minimum hypothesis that an existing being must have: No laws; No elements;

            YS:" It creates things based on sheer possibility (therefore, it has power),"

            The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.

            YS: " it is limited by logical possibility,"

            No !! You read wrong!!

            "...It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does **** not need to obey logic ****,

            and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means,.."

            YS:"Is this the claim to know that all talk of divine simplicity is wrong? "

            IS:“Yes, is wrong like the talk that earth were flat.

            IS:Intelligence have a lot of hypothesis embeded.”

            YS:"Please give me your argument here, and then explain how the same thing doesn’t apply to the “JN”."

            As god have infinite intelligence and power he has in his definition infinite embeded claim like :

            -He knows play chess

            -He know how to cure cancer and he has the ability for it

            -he know how to create a star and he has the power for this

            ....

            -he know how create xxxx and he has the ability for this.

            For each thing god can do, or god can create , there are two embeded hypothesis: knowledge and power (ability) to do.

            The JN do not have intelligence , it do not have knowledge so it only can create things by chance, at random.

            YS:"It also assumes that God would exist inside a universe. "

            Universe is the set of all existing things including God.

            Because this cosmos is better than universe

            So if god do something the count time is added. So gos is in the time of the universe.

            "But if it was God, then he would be able to move outside of “that universe” into the others, or outside of all of them, and affect all the universes."

            Not necessarly, depends on how JN have created him. JN could not give this property to god.

            YS: "If the “JN” is in the universe, how did it created the universe? "

            If the universe is set of all existing things then JN , at beggining ( time=0) is the universe.

            " How does it create other universes, then?"

            He could create another cosmos, buble cosmos with differents laws of physics.

            The Universe is only one.

          • D Foster

            Okay here we go again:

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            You have claimed: “Because this if God can create a virus then :

            1-He have knowledge for it and

            2-He has capacity to do this virus.”

            Having the knowledge to do something is simply part of having the capacity to do it. These aren’t two separate things.

            I wrote: "Beyond that, you need to explain how the “little blue devil” can have power to create without knowledge how to create (or vice versa)."

            You respond: “Why your god can have power and knowledge and my LBD can not?”

            I didn’t say it couldn’t, but you are arguing that the Little Blue Devil is simpler on the grounds that it does not have knowledge. If it does have knowledge, how is it simpler than God?

            You write: “Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.”

            Less power does not equate to less complex.

            I wrote:"But this, again, assumes that God’s knowledge consists of many separate “hypothesis” (entities). God’s knowledge is not like that. It is a single “hypothesis” (entity)."

            You respond: “If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria and everything else too, I agree with you. Otherwise , i dont.”

            Being intelligent enough to create the universe would imply being intelligent enough to create a bacteria or a unicorn). Moreover, this simply assumes that God’s knowledge works the way ours does: as separate discrete facts. I don’t agree to that.

            And that is the main point. I don’t particularly need you to agree. This is supposed to be an argument for atheism. It is supposed to show that God is more complex than your “Little Blue Devil”. This means that we need a reason to think that it is impossible that God could have his knowledge in the way I describe—simply assuming that this is impossible until I show otherwise does not establish that atheism is true.

            You write: “LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.”

            Then this makes it a more complex entity than God. God is all good (which means that God is pure act). If the “Little Blue Devil” isn’t always good, then it is sometimes lacking in goodness. This means that it instantiates some things, and not others. This makes it a composite object (partially instantiated act, and partially potency). Hence, it is complex in a way that God is not.

            You write: “The classical concept of God is erroneous because it does not realize that god with infinite power and knowledge implies, as I said, there is endless embedded assumptions.”

            The concept doesn’t simply fail to realize this. The classical theologians have written thousands of pages on why God’s power does not involve “endless embedded assumptions”. They’ve answered that exact complaint, at length, many times. You don’t have to agree, but you can’t simply demand that this objection is true and that they’ve never noticed this.

            It is hard to imagine anyone who knows much at all about classical theism who wouldn’t know that this argument has been refuted many times.

            I wrote: “Claiming that ‘he died’ is another ‘hypothesis’.”

            You respond: “No you are wrong , is not a hypothesis about JLV but an hipothesis what happen with it.”

            Claiming that it is mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature. A thing cannot die unless it can be changed or taken apart (i.e. made out of parts and therefore complex). It also assumes that the being exists within time (alive in the past, but dead in the future). This makes it still more complex (doing different things at different times—changing in the different ways that would require—would mean being composed of specifically arranged parts).

            I wrote:"If you don’t already know the definitions of these terms in the context of classical theism, then you can’t claim to have a good reason that God does not exist."

            You respond: “Or this "pure" predicate is just a way of trying to fool people by making it appear something divine, as if sheer existence was different from existence. Or something exists or does not exist.”

            Anyone who believes this definitely doesn’t know much of anything about classical theism. You can accuse me of simply lying to you if you want but there are two problems with that.

            First, you shouldn’t be in this conversation if you really thought that. You should just leave.

            Second, you should know whether or not you’ve actually studied classical theism. If you haven’t (which sounds like the case), then it should be obvious to you that you aren’t making an educated decision when you reject it. You don’t need me to tell you that.

            You write: “If you think that atheists are denying a different god it's up to you to tell them what kind of God is that which is different from what they think it is”

            I agree that I should do this—when one of two conditions are met. Either I’m trying to convince the atheist that my position is correct (and therefore not subject to their challenges) or I believe that the atheist is genuinely interested in understanding what classical theism is.

            With most atheists on the internet, I find that neither of these things are true. I’m not convinced that there’s a real desire to understand—but just to reject, or even mock, other people’s views. As a result, I’m rarely convinced that it’s worth the effort to try to persuade such people of views that they don’t seem interested in even understanding.

            --------------------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            You write: “A being that permits the evil when could hel to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.”

            But you have cut out all of my comments about why a good God might do this, as well as my comments about the fact that (for this to be a real proof) you need to prove not only that all my suggestions are false, but that there can be no other possible reason.

            You write: “It is a mistake to think that because there is no god there is no purpose or ethics in human life.”

            But that wasn’t what I argued. I argued that there would be no purposes in human life if everything were physical. This is perfectly straight-forward, given that neither purposes nor ethics are physical things.

            You write: “We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being.”

            Given the claim that everything is physical, why should we do this? People may not like this—it may not help one achieve this or that purpose, but why could you point to a person and say “that is evil”, so long as you assume that everything is physical? What physical thing makes suffering evil?

            -------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            You write: “I’m saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.”

            There are two problems with this.

            First, this is true give materialism. This is exactly what people do if everything is physical.

            Second, this not true of theism. God doesn’t program people. He simply knows what they are going to decide. That isn't the same as programming them. I’ve pointed this out already; if you disagree, you need to explain why these things are the same, not merely assert that they are.

            Like this:

            You write: “Their "choices" were already decided in God's mind even before they were born.”

            Their choices weren’t decided in God’s mind. They are merely known to God, who is outside time (so certainly not ‘before’). Their choices were decided when they made their choices.

            You keep asking the same question over and over. I’m simply not going to answer it anymore. Look at my previous posts if you want an answer to that.

            --------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            You ask: “You are saying god make all at once?”

            No. Not at all. I’m suggesting the possibility that God exists outside of time. I didn’t say anything about what happens inside time.

            Also, we seem to have forgotten the other objection. It has not remotely been shown that knowing what you are going to do means lacking free will. That simply doesn’t follow—and there’s a reason why know sophisticated

            ----------------------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            I Wrote:"Do you have a reason to think that something which was absolutely perfect would lack the ability to create imperfect beings?"

            You respond: “have ability does not mean that will be done.”

            This is supposed to be a proof. That is, you have claimed that it is completely, utterly impossible for a perfect being to create imperfect beings. Whether or not “that will be done”, having the ability means this is not a proof of atheism.

            You write: “I've refuted all. So if you do not show a reason to a perfect being create an inperfect thing then this proof will remain valid.”

            First, no you haven’t refuted them all. I’ve not seen any convincing reason about any of them. Some of them, you haven’t even responded to at all.

            Second, you need to do more than argue against whatever I happen to suggest. You need to prove that there can’t possibly be any reason whatsoever for such a being to to this. I haven’t even seen an attempt to do this.

            ---------------------------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            I understand that this conversation has shifted around, and it was well outside the point of discussion. Whether or not God involves infinite assumptions has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God needs time to make up his mind about things.

            Also, if you need to prove that God involves infinite assumptions for this argument to work, then this is a bad argument. You’d have to first prove that God doesn’t exist in order to prove that God doesn’t exist. That would make this second step useless.

            ---------------------------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            You write this: “You always respond : " I could suggest a few, but don’t really want to argue about those. “ But never says no one.”

            That is correct. I never name the specific things I think—that’s because I’m confident that I know how that will go.

            I’ll suggest some things, and you’ll argue against those, claim that you’ve “refuted them all”, then never actually give me a reason to think that God can’t possibly have reasons other than that.

            You are the one claiming to have a proof. So please present the proof that this must be the reason why God created the universe—and that there can’t possibly be any other reason.

            -------------------------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            This was not an argument from authority. I did not claim that anything was true because these people believed it. I pointed out that these people have given reasons why you are wrong, and you haven’t said anything in response to those reasons.

            What is your response to those reasons?

            So far, it seems to be this: “GOD IS NOT SIMPLE !”

            As if capitalizing the words made it true. Actually, yes. God is simple. And many reasons have been given for that.

            Also, it is the God that most Christians actually believe in. There’s no point in arguing against some other idea of God that I already reject.

            ---------------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            I wrote: " I wanted to see evidence that this equation refers to more than the physical."

            You respond: “For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.”

            Science never takes the position that something “is true until [there is] evidence of [the] contrary”. That’s just bad thinking. No scientist in all of history ever said “this is true until we can find evidence that it is false”.

            But, if science hasn’t found evidence of non-physical things, then it certainly hasn’t run tests on non-physical things. That means that it can’t possibly show us anything about what a non-physical entity might know.

            ------------------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            You ask: “Why did not God gave at least a quick death and the child did allow her suffer so much before he died?”

            To which, I respond “why do you expect you and I to know everything that God does?”. I’m asking you to prove that there is no possible reason whatsoever other than pure sadism. You need to actually prove this, not simply demand that yours is the only possible explanation. That’s simply sloppy thinking.

            --------------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            “Not the case.It said that the Bible was not written by historians and that there nehumja evidence that Jesus existed. If you are claims that existed the onus of proof is on you and not me.”

            You are the one claiming to prove atheism. As such, I thought I’d hear a proof of atheism. If you’re simply going to demand that I prove things, I’ll simply leave.

            But I agree that the Bible wasn’t written by historians. Who on Earth has ever suggested otherwise? The Bible is believed (by historians) to be a valid primary source. That is completely different.

            “no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everrest mountain.”

            Of course, they would. Please point to one time a serious historian has been asked about something like that and has refused to say that there is no evidence.

            “No you are wrong. they are not evidence of what they themselves say be true.”

            You really need to read up on the historical method. All ancient texts are evidence regarding the things they claim. This is the only way we know anything about history.

            ----------------------------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

            You wrote: “Similarly the "physical" term would be the things that have real existence.”

            Then just use the word “real”. Calling something physical has always meant something different.

            You wrote: “I´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )”

            But this is completely wrong, by the laws of logic, as we’ve already seen.

            You wrote: “I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.”

            I don’t agree with your claim that there is no evidence. But, even if that were true, it wouldn’t change my point. It will be done eventually, if your theory is correct.

            You wrote: “Any one thing as a lion does not necessarily have to be good.”

            And this is only proof of misunderstanding of the concept of divine simplicity and transcendence.

            “you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god.”

            This doesn’t make it an explanation. The actual explanation would have to be something else.

            “The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities.”

            No. “Logic doesn’t have preferences” doesn’t remotely, in any remotely rational way mean that “both have equal possibilities”. This is simply confusing ontology with epistemology. You really ought to read up on the laws of logical inference before arguing this.

            I wrote: "It seems like there is quite a bit more to it than existence. It has a number of properties that we’ve talked about."

            You respond: “Its properties is a definition of a minimal state of a existing thing.”

            Whether or not that is true, it is still complex. There seem to be a lot of things that we’ve added onto it.

            You wrote: “The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.”

            And yet you insist that power is an extra hypothesis when someone mentions God. Why isn’t power a *consequence* of the divine nature?

            I wrote: " it is limited by logical possibility,"

            You respond: “No !! You read wrong!!”

            Then we’ve left all rational discussion at this point. There is nothing remotely sensical that could possibly be said about something that isn’t logical. If you are proposing something that doesn’t follow logical rules, you may as well be proposing pure magic. This is no longer a rational discussion.

            As such, I’ll end my response there.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Good Day !

            1- Argument: "The Jocaxian Little Blue Devil” [Jocax]

            Y Said: "Having the knowledge to do something is simply part of having the capacity to do it. These aren’t two separate things."

            Not necessarily.

            someone may have the knowledge to create a computer program but do not have the means to put it into practice, for example may have been paralyzed and blind. Similarly someone may have hands and eyes but do not know how to create a computer program. Thus have the physical ability and have knowledge are two separate hypotheses.

            In addition, a person can have the knowledge to play chadrez but do not know how to cure cancer.

            Ie each ability that God may have hypothetically, would need to have associated a chance conhecomento for this capability.

            This implies that having infinite knowledge requires endless hypotheses, since the knowledge to, for example, cure cancer is not the same knowledge to know how to play basketball.

            Y Said: "I didn’t say it couldn’t, but you are arguing that the Little Blue Devil is simpler on the grounds that it does not have knowledge. If it does have knowledge, how is it simpler than God?"

            LBD is simpler than god because he do not have all infinite knowledge that God has.

            The knowledge of LBD is *finite* so he has less hypothesis tha God.

            For example: God knows how cure the cancer. LBD does not know how cure the cancer.

            And each knowledge has embeded hundreds ( ou thousands ) of another knowledges, for example,

            The knowledge to cure cancer is necessery knows:

            -How to detect cancer cells

            -How to kill cancer cells without kill good cells

            -etc..

            IS:“Both are gods, but my "little god" have less power than yours. So it is simpler than yours.”

            YS: "Less power does not equate to less complex."

            less power means less complexity when that less power is a subset of the greater power. For all LBD knowledge of hippoteses station also in God but * not * vice versa. not every god of knowledge in this LBD.

            "“If you explain how something that knows 'how to create a rock' *implies* he can automatically create a bacteria and everything else too, I agree with you."

            YS: "Being intelligent enough to create the universe would imply being intelligent enough to create a bacteria or a unicorn). "

            There are things that do not just take intelligence you need to have knowledge. For example:

            Anyone can be hyper super genius but can *not* know how to play chess, someone has to teach to play chess!

            And you are wrong, create the baby-universe like a Big-Bang is easier than create bacteria.

            The big-bang need relativy few knowledge : a lot of particle and energy and physical laws. Then the universe develops by itself.

            I S: " “LBD can do good things and some not good.I can not set it to be a good or bad because it can act as humans sometimes are good times are bad.”"

            Y S: "Then this makes it a more complex entity than God."

            You are wrong because:

            -LBD do not have to follow a rule to be good. he can act by random too, without rules.

            -God can not act doing bad things. So , like as said before ,

            God must act with *** infinite restriction hypotheses *** associated with preventing acts causing mischief

            ( he can not torture a child, for example )

            So god is much more complex than LBD.

            YS: "Claiming that it is mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature."

            IS: Claiming that it is NOT mortal is most certainly a hypothesis about it’s nature.

            You argue that theologians have written hundreds of pages arguing such and such a thing as if it were an argument. This is not an argument is fallacy of authority.

            If you do not know to defend the views of theologians and argues that I do not know that they know as if it were a logical response then you should get out of the debate because it uses and abuses of authority fallacy as if it were a logical argument .

            I think the same about theist : " I’m not convinced that there’s a real desire to understand —but just to reject, or even mock, other people’s views."

            ------------------------------

            2 - Proof: Contradiction to the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]

            I S: ": “A being that permits the evil when could help to avoid this is not good. Is a bad creature.”

            Y S: "But you have cut out all of my comments about why a good God might do this"

            You found it, that God permits evil.

            I did not cut the reasons why do not you gave them.

            And no matter the particular reasons him so allows evil because the definition is an evil that could be avoided.

            And if you have some reason this evil becomes a well then two things:

            1- You are defending utilitarianism that allows something bad if a greater good turns in the future.

            2 as a result The act was not an evil but a good. So you would be contrary to the premise that there was an act that was wrong.

            And you're running away from the problem. I said that does not exist nehum lock or infringement on free will if someone or God help a child who falls into a hole and is eaten alive by ants and insects. Do you agree?

            Do you think a person allowing this MAL if he could help would be good? (Yes or No) And God?

            You still have not answered if a person can help this child who fell into the hole because God can not?

            But I think we can conclude that "if God permits evil" it definitely is not good, because good things do not allow evil. (Especially if this evil does not lead to any future good)

            IS:" “We should act to minimize suffering and maximize well-being.”"

            YS: "Given the claim that everything is physical, why should we do this? "

            We must do this in order to have a better world. If people do not follow this should be punished, (which is what the laws already do).

            YS:"What physical thing makes suffering evil?"

            Physically evil is what causes pain and suffering for no consideration the welfare of the future to offset this evil.

            ------------------------------

            3 - Proof: internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre (?)]:

            IS: "“I’m saying that because of God's omniscience people have as much free will as a robot has. The robot follows its programming without knowing that there is a program he must follow. Similarly people follow your destiny already mapped out (in God's mind) without knowing that there is no other way forward.”"

            YS: "First, this is true give materialism. This is exactly what people do if everything is physical."

            NO, you are wrong. Because there is the uncertainty principle that put some randomization in phisical things.

            There is not a route already mapped out that everyone has to follow (as in divine omniscience) the quantum random stops we know what we will do.

            YS:"God doesn’t program people. He simply knows what they are going to decide"

            No matter when God made the universe and people he programmed them or not. The fact is that people can not act or think or want something other than what God already predicted for them.

            You agree that in our universe there time?

            And in this BEFORE the person time to be born he already knew what people would want or do or think? And people could NOT think or want something other than what was in God's mind?

            I think I am not being clear. I will re-wrote:

            *SUPPOSE* before you born , God predict the following:

            **** you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs ****

            So the gods *real knowledge* is this : "you will kill some one at 11/11/2018 as 13:00 hs "

            Ok?

            I ask to you : "Can you not kill this person as gos had predict?"

            remember : God can not change his prediction because he is perfect and do not fail.

            ------------------------------------

            5 - Argument: God, if he existed, would be a ROBOT [By Andre Sanchez & Jocax]:

            If god do not create alll things at ONCE, then there is order in his creation.

            That order is the time of the god.

            Does not matter peopple claim god is outside of the time. It is simply no sense.

            The time of the god is the order what he does.

            So he has to follow his knowledge in the same order his thought.

            Therefore it is a robot. he cvan not change what his predict for himself.

            ---------------------------

            6 - Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [unknown author ]:

            " “have ability does not mean that will be done.”

            YS: "This is supposed to be a proof. That is, you have claimed that it is completely, utterly impossible for a perfect being to create imperfect beings.""

            But you said yourself he created an imperfect universe that has imperfect beings (humans).

            So this is proof that it is not perfect because it created imperfect things.

            The proof is this: perfect beings, by definition, do not create imperfect things.

            If god created something imperfect, he was not perfect. End of logical conclusion.

            -------------------------------

            8-Proof: The universe could not be created. [by Jocax]

            If you want to go back to the beginning okay.

            If God has infinite power he need not rest then the God of the bible there is no need for rest.

            If God made things in several days qdo could do it all at once shows that God is schizophrenic or something without having to do a kind of wanderer with nothing to do, therefore deusnao could be perfect.

            ---------------------------

            9- Proof: God cannot be perfect. [unknown author]

            YS: "So please present the proof that this must be the reason why God created the universe"

            No , it is the opposite. I have post the proof and you do not refuted it. Again:

            Or he (god) want to do something or not.

            If he want to do something it is because something was not perfect. ( so it was not perfect !)

            Because perfect things do not needs changes.

            Otherwise

            If he does not *want* to do and do it , then it is schizofrenic and not perfect.

            End of proof.

            For example if God was all that existed and all was perfect then there is not necessity

            to create IMPERFECT beings. If god create imperfect beings when all was perfect this creation proof gos was not perfect.

            ----------------------------------

            10- Proof: If God existed, he could not be perfect. [Jocax]

            YS: ". I pointed out that these people have given reasons why you are wrong, and you haven’t said anything in response to those reasons."

            IS: Not.

            You said me that person said in some place in some time about this things but do not show *what* is this reasons.

            Only say that there is some arguments but not say what is .

            YS: " What is your response to those reasons?

            So far, it seems to be this: “GOD IS NOT SIMPLE ! ;

            As if capitalizing the words made it true.

            Actually, yes. God is simple. And many reasons have been given for that.”

            God is not simple because it has too much embeded hypothesis in his definition.

            You said god is too much intelligent but intelligence is DIFFERENT then knowledge !!

            See some knowledge that not depends on intelligence :

            - God know how to play chess ( H1 )

            - God know how to play basket ( H2 )

            - God know how to play Piano ( H3 )

            ...You are seeing?

            - God know how to play cricket ( H1000 )

            and anothers knowledge about the universe like :

            - God know how many atoms have in the moon ( H1001 )

            - God know how many rocks have in the moon ( H1002 )

            - God know how many sand grains have in the mars ( H1003 )

            ...You are seeing?

            - God know how many stars have in the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" ( H10323432303 )

            - God know how many atoms have in the star 120122 of the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" ( H10323432304 )

            ...You are seeing?

            - God know how many fotons the star 120122 of the galaxy "EGS-zs8-1" was produced ( H10323432304 10^1255 )

            ...

            ...You are seeing?

            (I wonder also WHERE god holds so much knowledge.)

            ( It is good to note that the Blue Imp JN has no such assumptions built on his knowledge, so it is much simpler by Occam's Razor. )

            Because this God is too much more complex than any another think

            --------------------------------

            13- Proof: by the current laws of Physics, it would be impossible for God could to exist [unknown author]

            About the Uncertanty principle and non physical things I said :

            "“For science there is no evidence of non physical things. So the principle is true until evidence of contrary.”

            You said : "Science never takes the position that something “is true until [there is] evidence of [the] contrary”. "

            You are distorting what I said. I did not say that * everything * is true until proven otherwise.

            I said that the laws of physics, in particular the principle of uncertainty, which were written by * much * observation and tests,

            are ** considered ** true until proven otherwise.

            **No** scientific theory is considered a priori as **absolute truth**. It can be considered true while not prove false.

            This is the principle of * falsifiability * proposed by Karl Popper.

            Wiki: "Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false"."

            "...he concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

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

            You said "then it certainly hasn’t run tests on non-physical things"

            You are wrong again:

            Wiki: "...The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) offers a prize of US$1,000,000 to eligible applicants who are able to demonstrate a supernatural ability under scientific testing criteria agreed to by both sides. Based on the paranormal challenges of John Nevil Maskelyne and Houdini, the foundation began in 1964, when Randi put up $1,000 of his own money payable to anyone who could provide objective proof of the paranormal.[87] The prize money has since grown to $1,000,000, and has formal published rules. So far, no one has progressed past the preliminary test, which is set up with parameters agreed to by both Randi and the applicant. He refuses to accept any challengers who might suffer serious injury or death as a result of the testing.[88]"

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

            -------------------------------

            14 – Proof: If God existed, he would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W. Lima (?)]

            I said :

            "A child is walking and falls into a pit or precipice and be there screaming and suffering

            while being eaten alive by ants and other insects.

            Why omniscient God does not help this child who dies in great pain?

            Why God did not even give a quick death of this innocent child?"

            You said : "“why do you expect you and I to know everything that God does?”

            KKKKKKK! LOL :-)

            It is as if the judge told the defendant:

            '- In the face of such evidence presented what you have to say for yourself before sentencing?'

            And the defendant says:

            '-The Fact that I do not have a defense does not mean it does not exist!'

            I'm accusing God of being an evil being. You are not defending their existence? Now you want that * I * defend its existence? It's really funny of you :-)

            I'm proving you through the facts, putting a raw evidence, that their god, if any, would not be a good.

            If you or anyone no can defend It this factual evidence it should be considered non-existent or a bad being, simply.

            When I asked you: “Then for you "God permits evil" is correct?”

            You answer: "Yes. I completely agree that God permits evil."

            Why dont you this response here???

            What your colegues of theism have to say about? they no have answer too?

            --------------------------------

            15 – Argument: Igor’s Theorem [Igor Silva (?)]

            YS " If you’re simply going to demand that I prove things, I’ll simply leave."

            IS: You claim jesus existed without evidencesof this existence.

            It is like I said before:

            "If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ?? Of course not."

            YS: "First, no serious historian would say that there is no evidence for these things."

            I change the words what I would say is:

            "no serious historian would say that there is evidence for a "pink unicorny" in the middle of everest mountain."

            In the same way there is no evidence of jesus existence other than what is wrote in the bible. See:

            There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion?nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

            Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius

            Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus

            Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder

            Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch

            Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy

            Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius

            Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus

            Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius

            Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran

            Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus

            Pausanias

            According to Remsburg,

            “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”

            http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html

            If I write a paper that a green elf created the moon then this text is evidence that a green elf created the moon ??

            Of course not.

            The occan razoer still must be applied:

            A) dead person resurrecting and ascending to heaven (without rockets) or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A) Someone who has performed miracles that go against the laws of Physics or

            B) Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            A)someone born from a virgin or

            B)Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it?

            By Occans razor we must to choose : "Someone writing lies in a piece of paper or book and people believing in it"

            You said " It needs to show that these things did not happen"

            On a show court that a defense to be correct violate the laws of physics, do you think the judge would accept this defense?

            --------------------------

            17 – Argument: For the unneces sity of a Cause [Jocax]

            "Then just use the word “real”. Calling something physical has always meant something different."

            Could be synonyms without problems.

            IS: “I´ve already explain it: If there is no law then everything is possible ( "P OR NOT P" is true )”

            YS: "But this is completely wrong, by the laws of logic, as we’ve already seen."

            No, P is impossible if P is a contradiction ( False ) .

            If P is some non contradiction proposition, there is no premisses to conclude P never can be true !!!

            If P is some non contradiction proposition, there is no premisses to conclude P never can be true !!!

            So, P can be True if P can be true it is possible.

            IS: " “I Agree that God could be created by JN, but tehere is no evidence that it was done.”"

            Y S: ", it wouldn’t change my point. It will be done eventually, if your theory is correct."

            As god have infinite hypothesis and the law: "nothing more can be created by JN" have infinite hypothesis embeded like:

            -a particle can not be created

            -a piano can not be created

            -an elephant can not be created

            - etc....

            So God and the law "nothing more can be created" has the same probability to be created by JN.

            "“you are wrong because the atheism is the denny of god(s). Therefore it *IMPLIES* a universe explanation without god."

            explain a universe withou god is part of explanation of the unoverse, for example Big-bang theory is an explanation without god.

            I said:

            "(P or not P) means :

            a) P is true

            or

            b) (not P) is true

            The logic do not have preferences for (a) or (b), so, both has equal possibilities."

            Y s : "No. “Logic doesn’t have preferences” doesn’t remotely, in any remotely rational way mean that “both have equal possibilities”.

            lets call "Not P" = "Q". ( both not a contradiction )

            There is no premisses in logic that P is more possible than Q.

            **** If you are claim that "Q" is more possible than "P" you have to prove this Claim using only Logic. ***

            I said the same : You really ought to read up on the laws of logical inference before arguing this.

            YS : "Whether or not that is true, it is still complex."

            anything else that you set will be more complex than the NJ

            IS: “The power is not a hypothesis it is a *consequence* of the lack of the laws.”

            GOd is too much complex because it has infinite knowledge. NJ has no one.

            YS: " If you are proposing something that doesn’t follow logical rules, you may as well be proposing pure magic. This is no longer a rational discussion."

            We can try to analyze it logically but hes not required to follow the laws of logic ..

            11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?

            A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means, maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.

            ---------------------------------------

          • D Foster

            I think I'm going to have to apologize and bow out of the rest of this discussion.
            The personal life is getting busier and I'm being forced to cut back on my time on-line.

            So, rather than try to get in a "last-word" about the argument, I'll make my last word this:

            I'm glad to read the thoughts, and hope that you find enriching conversation both on-line and off.

            Best to you.

          • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

            Hello Mr Foster, was a pleasure to talk and discuss with you.
            You are an intelligent person and we always learn a little more struggling or talking with smart people. Thanks for the talk and Best to You too.
            Jocax

  • joaocarloshollanddebarcellos

    The Jocaxian Nothingness

    Abstract:

    This article shows how a special class "Nothing" can
    logically build the universe. It also shows why this
    should follow logical rules.

    http://pjpub.org/Abstract/abstract_pet_197.htm

  • Paul Brandon Rimmer

    What does the author mean by "certainty"? If certainty is the same as knowledge with the impossibility of being mistaken, and if proofs for God provide certainty, then how could religious experience provide superior certainty, since they are only experiences, and the conclusions drawn from experience can always be mistaken?

    If proofs for God are certainly true, are all atheists either irrational or ignorant of these proofs?

    • Robert Macri

      From the context I expect that he meant "certainty" in the sense of "conviction". (e.g. a person who has experienced a personal connection with the divine enjoys a conviction about the existence of God beyond that which could have been attained through philosophical means alone)

      On my reading the author seems to be saying that this kind of conviction in the existence of God does not undermine the value of philosophical reasoning about God and/or his existence.

      • Paul Brandon Rimmer

        In that case, certain "proofs" of God can probably justify a level of conviction that God exists, that may well be less than the conviction from personal experience. This also leaves open the real possibility that all the proofs are wrong.

        • D Foster

          All philosophical proofs face the real possibility of being wrong—in a very similar way that all scientific theories face the real possibility of being falsified. But this is not to say that some aren't better than others.

  • Objection one is simply the problem of induction. It is a problem with epistemology in general and there is no solution for it. The existence of God is an empirical question and we need to apply an epistemology to it.

    By "proof" and "knowledge" of God you mean certainty or absolute proof, then obviously not, because no empirical question can have such certainty.

    If instead you mean can it be reasonable to believe a god exists, sure! Depending on what you mean by "god", if to you "god" is undetectable, directly or indirectly, then no, it would not be reasonable to believe in any such thing. But I don't think Catholics advance such a God concept.

    • Robert Macri

      The existence of God is an empirical question and we need to apply an epistemology to it.

      It is? How can you prove that God's existence must yield to empirical methods? That's a whopper of an assumption. I do believe that God designed creation such that the reasonableness of his existence could be gleaned from it, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of God is an empirical question. And even if it is, it is certainly not merely an empirical question. After all, empiricism deals with sense experience (i.e. of the physical), but God is spirit. He could choose to yield to our observations here or there, but it wouldn't be mandatory.

      Also, if you were the recipient of divine revelation, would you consider your experience to be "empirical"? If not, how is that different from your reasonable assumption that I exist, based on the fact that I am communicating with you? What if the servers were destroyed, and with them all record of this conversation; should a third party trust your assessment that I exist?

      Depending on what you mean by "god", if to you "god" is undetectable, directly or indirectly, then no, it would not be reasonable to believe in any such thing. But I don't think Catholics advance such a God
      concept.

      I would agree with that but with the very large caveat that we might disagree wildly about what constitutes direct or indirect "detection".

    • D Foster

      I'd agree with the thrust of Robert Macri's objection here. I don't know of anyone who would agree with the notion that God's existence is an empirical question other than materialist atheists. That claim is less plausible than the atheism it purports to defend.

      • I would say that God is portrayed as an entity that exists and can be in some way observed, detected in some way by humans. God's existence is not an opinion or a point of view. He either exists or does not. I would call that empirical.

  • I wouldn't call the Ontological Argument as short and sweet. It has a number of variations and analysis of it can be quite complex. Nor would I characterize it as attempting to show God to be "self-evident".

    A self-evident argument would be one such as 1. God is "being" itself 2. It is self-evident that "being" exists. 3. Therefore God exists.

    But I agree the ontologiocal argument is fatally flawed.

    • Robert Macri

      Aquinas pointed out that a thing can be self evident in two ways: 1) self-evident to itself AND to us, or 2) self-evident to itself but NOT to us. It is self-evident to itself when the predicate is included in the essence of the subject (as in your example), but unless the essence of the subject is known to us it will not also be self-evident to us.

      In this sense, as Aquinas points out, the statement "God exists" is self-evident to itself (if we define God as existence), but not self-evident to us, because we do not understand the essence of God.

      But Anselm's argument was not so simply put as in the examples given above. He defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and argued that if this concept existed only in the mind and not in actuality then it would not be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", for we can conceive of it as also actually existing. This is a little more subtle than simply positing "existence exists".

      I do not agree that such arguments are "fatally flawed" but we cannot expect from them more power than they are capable of, such as making the essence of "that than which nothing greater can be thought" known to us. We require additional information to address the question of that essence.

      • I do not know what this sentence means: 'It is self-evident to itself when the predicate is included in the
        essence of the subject (as in your example), but unless the essence of
        the subject is known to us it will not also be self-evident to us."

        I do not know what you mean by "essence" "subject" or "predicate" here.

        But we can deal with the ontological argument in a post on that if anyone would advance it in this forum as a convincing argument for the existence of God.

        • Robert Macri

          Fair enough.

          But just for clarity (please forgive me for cut-and-pasting from the dictionary below!):

          predicate = "that which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition" (e.g. 'God exists')

          subject = the basic matter of the discussion (e.g. 'God')

          essence = "the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features"

          So if we don't fully understand what "God" (or even "being") means then an argument of the type "1. God is "being" itself 2. It is self-evident that "being" exists. 3. Therefore God exists." could be considered self-evident to itself (as in "if a then b; a; thus b", which is trivially self evident in itself) but not self-evident to us (what the heck is "a"?).

          I'm not trying to say anything particularly profound here. Just that the problem with ontological arguments (in my opinion) is not any clear or fatal flaw in the presentation of the argument, but rather a kind of muddy uncertainty in the underlying definitions.

          • I think we agree that the ontological arguments do not attempt to show god is self-evident.

          • Robert Macri

            Well, I admit that I cannot offer an ontological argument which fully satisfies both of Aquinas' notions of the "self-evident", but certainly ontological arguments do attempt to do so. That the arguments fail to convince everyone is (in my mind) not so much due to a flaw in logic as the elusiveness of the very terms of argument.

            Anselm's ontological argument in particular attempted to demonstrate that the existence of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (NGC) is self-evident, but it is not altogether clear to me that one can demonstrate philosophically to everyone's satisfaction that NGC can only be the personal God of Christianity, or any kind of personal god at all. I absolutely subscribe to that definition, but at present I don't know of a line of reasoning which would lead a skeptic inescapably to that same conclusion.

            I suppose a skeptic could even concede that the actual existence of NGC (ie-in reality, not just in the mind) is self-evident, but could then counter by pointing out that there is a difference between the greatest actual concept and the greatest possible concept, and ask the believer to demonstrate why, say, the universe itself does not qualify as the NGC. I can provide arguments to disqualify the universe as the NGC, but I don't have an all-purpose argument to disqualify some other arbitrary impersonal NGC which yet eludes me...

            I think this situation is akin to that of one of Euclid's axioms of geometry: that through a point outside a given line only one parallel like can be drawn. The Greeks did not think this was self-evident (and thus had to state it as an axiom). To illustrate the prescience of their thinking, it wasn't until the 19th century that it was proven that, indeed, it is impossible to prove this axiom from the other axioms of geometry (i.e. - it is not self-evident).

            Anselm's argument has this same flavor (to me), and so it continues to intrigue me. It strikes me as true, but as I grasp for that truth it evades me like mist, such that I believe it but cannot communicate it properly. For how can "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" be conceived at all by my finite mind?

            Maybe if people hammer on it for a few more centuries Anselm's argument will either re-emerge with great force or be demonstrated as conclusively inadequate...

            Sorry about the length... I just find this interesting (obviously).

          • There is no agreement on any version of the ontological argument for the existence of God, though I think its supporters are in the minority.

            I think it is pretty clear why it doesn't work. I can accept the premise that there could be an entity with maximal great-making properties, but I do not accept that existence is a great-making property, or a property at all. Properties are attributes of existent things. Moreover, even if I did accept that existence is a property, we have an epistemic problem. There is no reason to accept that such a maximal entity exists.

            If such an entity was self-evident, there would be no need for things like the ontological argument. It is precisely because gods are evident or self-evident, that apologetics need to be formulated.

          • Robert Macri

            I also do not view existence as a "property" per se, but I nevertheless hold that existence vs nonexistence is a relevant comparison with regard to "greatness"... e.g. The goal I scored in the game helped the team more than the multitude of goals which I did not score.

            If such an entity was self-evident, there would be no need for things like the ontological argument. It is precisely because gods are evident or self-evident, that apologetics need to be formulated.

            Consider this mathematical statement:

            (1,0) = 1; (0,1)=i; ei*pi = -1
            where e and pi are the standard mathematical constants.

            EDIT: read above as e^(i*pi)=-1

            This will not be immediately self-evident to everyone (self-evident "in itself"). But with the proper mathematical training the proof is straightforward ("trivial", in mathematical jargon) and would thus be self-evident to "us" (where "us" includes those who have taken the time to work out the math) in the sense that it is "demonstrably proven".

            It is in this sense, I think, that Aquinas noted the two ways a thing can be self-evident. So I would agree with your position with regard to the first sense (self-evident in itself, in the presentation of the statement, as it were) but not with regard to the second (self-evident to us, upon reflection).

            It would indeed not be particularly useful to say "God is self-evident. QED". But I suggest that that is neither the only way nor the proper way to understand all ontological arguments.

            Whether or not we find a particular argument convincing (or well-demonstrated) is one thing, but I think we would be mistaken to immediately reject an entire class of arguments based on the simplest possible interpretation of the term "self-evident".

  • Craig Roberts

    "A pastrami sandwich is generally useless for banging in a nail. That doesn’t mean a pastrami sandwich is generally useless."
    Hunh? A pastrami sandwich may be a tasty treat, but if something else is required, it IS useless.

    • Robert Macri

      The analogy was offered to illustrate the senselessness of the claim that "proof is useless in general"

      {...}but if something else is required, it IS useless.

      Useless in a specific case perhaps, but not useless in general.

      And what is the "something else" which is required besides "proof" in this context?

      • Craig Roberts

        It goes to motive and intention. The person trying to give the 'proof' for God claims that he is motivated by a super-natural love to show the unenlightened that God exists. But when the 'proof' fails to move the atheist the evangelists shows his true colors by saying in effect, "I don't really care about you, my proofs are sufficient for me, so you can just sod off!"

        • Robert Macri

          You can't have met many sincere evangelists if you're accustomed to encountering that sort of reply! (And if you have heard such a reply, I stand beside you to condemn the insincere "evangelist" who issued it.)

          In any case, I think you may be arguing a different point from the one presented by the author. The author is arguing against the notion that movement of the heart trumps philosophical discussion (i.e. he is attacking the position of your hypothetical insincere evangelist).

          • Craig Roberts

            I agree with your point, and for that matter the authors point. My point is that pagan 'proofs' for spiritual problems are useless. Too many philosophical debates are made in the name of 'evangelization'. It's not really evangelization. It's just intellectual fisticuffs motivated by vanity and pride.

          • Robert Macri

            My point is that pagan 'proofs' for spiritual problems are useless.

            Not sure what you mean by "pagan 'proofs' for spiritual problems"... Do you mean any "proof" that is not scriptural?

            Too many philosophical debates are made in the name of 'evangelization'.
            It's not really evangelization. It's just intellectual fisticuffs
            motivated by vanity and pride.

            That certainly can and does happen, with some on all sides. (There will always be a "Judas" or two.) But it also happens that sincere folk engage in friendly dialogue with mutual respect. Sure, both are trying to challenge and even change the position of the other, but it is not always vanity. Sometimes it is the thrill of truth-seeking.

          • Craig Roberts

            Any proof that claims that God can be 'known' without faith in the revelation of Jesus Christ is worthless. It might not even be pagan, but it will contradict Christ himself:

            "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

          • Andrew Y.

            "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

            Christ isn't saying that it is impossible to know of God’s existence except through him. He is talking about salvation.

            Trying to know of God’s existence by a means other than Christ is certainly not worthless. Suggesting otherwise is contrary to Church teaching and disrespectful to people “who seek God with a sincere heart”. See CCC 846-847

          • Craig Roberts

            Sorry, but what good could come of 'knowing' God without salvation?

          • Andrew Y.

            Coming to know God by any means could be a path to salvation. The Church does not interpret John 14:6 in an absolute, fundamental sense.

            Philosophical—"pagan"—proofs are not contradictory to Christ's teaching. They are a powerful and reasonable basis on which faith can stand.

          • Craig Roberts

            While I agree that philosophical proofs can lead a person to salvation, kind of like 'Surfer' magazine leading someone to go and try surfing, I strongly disagree that faith 'can stand' on these proofs.

            Intelligence is a gift from God, and so is faith. But they are not the same thing. Faith can only stand on the grace of God. If it 'stands' on the strength of human reason, it's really just a figment of the imagination inspired by intellectual vanity. Like the surfer dude that has never left Iowa. Fake.

          • Andrew Y.

            I strongly disagree that faith 'can stand' on these proofs.

            Then you are in a very small minority. The necessity of reason has been argued by apologists since practically the dawn of apologetics.

            Faith grounded in reason may be the highest expression of humanity; it is reason that separates us from wild beasts and allows us to know of God in the first place. Reason and faith are equally essential. Unlike an introductory magazine, we do not simply discard reason upon discovering faith. Entirely the opposite in fact: reason allows us understand our faith more deeply because it never contradicts our beliefs.

            There is nothing fake about a man who, lacking faith in Christ, nevertheless by reason alone has come to recognize the splendor of creation, believe in objective truth, or respect the dignity of the human person. These human virtues are antecedent to Catholicism and ultimately proceed from the same Source of Goodness. It is difficult to argue that these divinely instilled beliefs—this form of faith—is worthless and imaginary until Christ has been professed as lord and savior.

          • Craig Roberts

            Thank you for the very interesting reply. I see your reasoning. And it's very reasonable. But what do you think the reason is that St. Paul describes the gospel as "foolishness to the gentiles" in 1 Corinthians 1:23?

          • Andrew Y.

            An excellent passage and very relevant to our discussion! It's important to read verse 23 in context.

            For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

            Here St. Paul is speaking precisely about faith and reason. "For the Jews demand signs", he says, as their faith and tradition has taught them the coming of the messiah will be accompanied by various signs. "Greeks look for wisdom", he continues, as the Greeks appealed primarily to reason. Christ crucified, though, cannot be understood except when both faith and reason converge. Jews who appealed only to their religious dogma stumbled upon the crucifixion since it did not seem to fulfill their expectations for a messiah, and the Greeks must have thought proclaiming the resurrection was nonsense, as it indeed would be without faith.

            It is those who are called then, "Jews and Greeks alike", who can proclaim Christ's resurrection as evidence of both the power of God (made visible by their faith) and the wisdom of God (made visible by reason). Each side possessed a piece of the puzzle, and only those who were called—those who were open to receive the Holy Spirit—were able to cross the threshold of faith or reason and behold the fullness of truth.

          • Craig Roberts

            Very well explained. So you would agree that faith is required to discuss theology? Because some fans of St. Thomas seem to think that 'faith alone' is a heresy but 'reason alone' makes perfect sense.

          • Andrew Y.

            So you would agree that faith is required to discuss theology?

            No. Granted that it is by grace alone that we come to accept and believe theological teaching, atheists pose difficult questions that challenge us to think more deeply about our faith. And is the essence of evangelization not introducing faith to those who lack or reject it? We would be at a great loss to exclude all but the faithful from theological discourse.

            Because some fans of St. Thomas seem to think that 'faith alone' is a heresy but 'reason alone' makes perfect sense.

            Faith opens our hearts and minds to reason about truth. Faith itself cannot refute a philosophical claim.

          • Craig Roberts

            What Christians mean (or should mean) by faith is simple: The Gospel. An introduction to Aristotelian metaphysics is no substitute. It will even be a stumbling block because it feeds the intellectual pride that most atheists nurture so dearly. Telling an unbeliever that they can "know" God with nothing but their brain-power is just feeding them false hope.

            At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Mat 11:25)

          • Andrew Y.

            Sorry, Aristotelian metaphysics is only a stumbling block for the unmotivated. I believe God’s love for us and His magnificence are recognizable to mankind through both the words of the Gospel and also in the beauty and intelligibility of the natural world around us. How else would the unevangelized stand a chance at salvation?

            Reason is the trail that leads us up the mountain and to the edge of the chasm; faith is the wings that carry us to the other side. The atheist sees no chasm; the fundamentalist sees no trail.

            Jesus spoke in language that people of his day could understand. The idea that the Gospel should be applied to our era in its most literal form as the only source of truth is naive and leads to depressing outcomes like politicians proffering creationism as “science”. Why would God give us the ability to reason if we were not to use it?

          • Craig Roberts

            I appreciate your patience in trying to explain this to me. While I must agree in principle with what you say I believe there is a very dangerous downside to your (and often the Catholic Church's) approach to using reason in evangelization.

            Reason, like all of God's great gifts, is prone to abuse. God wants us to use our genitals also, but only under very specific circumstances to make sure that abuse doesn't take place and that His will is not circumscribed.

            Atheists idolize the mind and abuse the gift of reason by trying to separate it from revelation. To the extent that the Church encourages them by saying that revelation is not required to understand God, they only enable the atheists idolatry, and thereby hinder God's will.

            It is God's will that we come to Him through His son Jesus Christ. If Aristotelian meta-physics leads people to Jesus, God bless them. But if it doesn't (and I cannot recount a single instance in which it did) it becomes a stumbling block.

          • Andrew Y.

            To the extent that the Church encourages them by saying that revelation is not required to understand God, they only enable the atheists idolatry, and thereby hinder God's will.

            I don't see rational atheism as idolatry of the mind. Rational atheists do not reject God, rather, they reject the idea of God because they do not find the evidence convincing and have not been moved by the Holy Spirit to believe otherwise. Many atheists admit that a personal encounter with the risen Christ would probably change their minds. This is very different from someone who recognizes the existence of God and outwardly rejects or ignores Him to live life as he pleases. It is also quite different from outspoken "new atheists" who are violently opposed to Christianity, spreading heresy and deceiving the faithful about the nature of faith, and who will seemingly stop at nothing to erase religion from the world. This is a serious threat and in addition to prayer, one way we can engage it is by first promoting a framework of mutual respect and understanding.

            Ontological proofs deal only with the question of whether God exists, independent of whether Christianity is true. Discussing them may not be evangelization per se but it is definitely a starting point for dialog in a language that can be understood and argued respectfully by both sides.

          • Craig Roberts

            Can't argue with that. Whatever the downsides, dialog and mutual respect beats the heck out Old Testament blood shed any day.

          • Robert Macri

            "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

            There is a wonderful reflection by Scott Hahn in which he notices that fact that our Lord says "No one can come to the Father except through me" rather than "No one can come to God except through me". Hahn then points out that it is the incarnation and our baptism into Christ crucified that make possible the gift of divine sonship (by adoption we become sons and daughters of the Father).

            But the Jews certainly came to God (though not as Father), in both worship and law. Even the pagan philosophers could reason their way to a belief that God must exist.

            So yes, even reason can be rightly called a path to God. But only Christ gives us the immeasurable gift of being able to call God "Father", and to fully know him when we come into the fullness of his kingdom. EDIT: And those who God chooses to save outside of the church, whether or not they ever even heard of Jesus, nevertheless still come to the Father through and because of him, for he it is who makes it possible.

            So I think we must distinguish what it means to "know" God. By way of example, others might "know" that my mother exists, and may even know many of her qualities and attributes, but only my sister and I know her as mother.

            And besides that, I certainly agree that there are truths of revelation through Christ which could only have been revealed through Christ... but that is not to say that nothing could be known in any other way. The Church Christ founded possesses the entire deposit of faith, but certain gems are truth are mirrored elsewhere as well.

            "I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends" Jn 15:15

            "This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven"... Mt 6:9

          • Craig Roberts

            Wow. That was very insightful. You have given me much to think about. Thank you.

          • Robert Macri

            You are very kind! Thank you.

            EDIT: I replied to the wrong post, but to the right person. ;)

          • Craig Roberts

            "Sometimes it is the thrill of truth-seeking."

            Careful. The thrill of victory often overpowers our humility. Truth seeking is what we do before we start claiming that we posses the truth and wish to pass it on.

          • Robert Macri

            Yes indeed. But if it wounds humility then it is not truth. And if it is not truth, how can it truly "thrill"?

            "Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts
            burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”Lk 24:32

            But I take your point and agree. The truth does not lead to me; it leads to him who IS truth. EDIT:Nor does it come from me.

      • Craig Roberts

        "There is but one thing required." Luke 10:42

        • Robert Macri

          I agree unreservedly. I would rather sit at the feet of the Lord than anywhere else, but sometimes he sends us out into the world as Martha rather than Mary, equipped with the work of reason as well as faith, for he is the giver of both.

          "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible
          attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood
          and perceived in what he has made." (Rom 1:20)

          "Be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves" (Mt 10:16)

          • Craig Roberts

            Well said. It's nice to see a Catholic (I'm assuming) that knows scripture. I'm not saying, don't evangelize. I'm saying use the one thing necessary.

            "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

          • Robert Macri

            Yes, very happily Catholic, and thank you!

            I'm not saying, don't evangelize. I'm saying use the one thing necessary.

            Agreed, although it is often profitable to "meet people where they are", as St Paul did with the Greeks:
            "For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you." Acts 17:23

            Even Christ himself used such an approach, for instance when he met the Samaritan woman at the well and gradually guided her to an understanding of him as messiah.

  • Michael Murray

    One things seems clear. There exists a book written by the author of this piece.

  • Peter

    The universe cannot be the most superior thing we can think of because it is finite in the value of its parameters. The more we discover about the universe and its laws, the more we identify the parameters in which those laws operate. This raises the question of why those precise parameters instead of countless other possibilities? And this question becomes more crucial as we discover more about the universe and identify parameters which are even more precise.

    Something must exist which determines or decides the universe's specific parameters out of countless others. And since that thing is capable of "selecting" these parameters out of a limitless number, it must by nature be superior to the universe which possesses only a finite number.

    This is a good argument for a multiverse which would contain an infinite number of universes each with different sets of parameters. Our universe would be one of these which just happens to contain the parameters suitable for life. The crucial question is, can we think of anything superior to an eternal and infinite multiverse?

    • Robert Macri

      I share the sentiment of your reasoning, although we should be cautious when employing anthropological arguments... they tend to lead to an endless "god-of-the-gaps" discussion.

      The crucial question is, can we think of anything
      superior to an eternal and infinite multiverse?

      I would say yes, but it may be more informative to flip this question on its head and instead ask whether such a multiverse is even sensible in and of itself. Here are two questions in that vein:

      1) "Can a suitable multiverse model satisfactorily explain its own existence?"

      I would say no, because while such an idea may address the "fine tuning" of the observed universe in a naturalistic way***, it does nothing at all to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". Furthermore, if such a naturalistic explanation must resort to the assumption of an eternal multiverse (and I contend that it must) then this is no explanation at all, but rather a "sweeping under the rug" of all questions regarding origin. It attempts to deal with ontological questions by ignoring them. ("Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!")

      ***(I am not entirely convinced that a multiverse could even in principle satisfactorily explain the observed tuning, as we would require a physical model that permits the random tuning of all physical law,
      which begs the question "would a 'law' of nature which allows such
      randomness itself be subject to that randomness?" If so, we have a huge
      chicken-and-egg problem. If not, then we still have to explain the existence and form of that "master" law.)

      2) "How is an eternal multiverse different from a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible?" (That is, a machine that can do an infinite amount of work from a finite energy input.)

      The source of energy and the reality of entropy are serious difficulties here. The multiverse must be infinite in order to guarantee the existence of at least one habitable universe formed from random variation of physical law, but where does the necessary (infinite) energy come from? How does the multiverse stave off entropy in the eternity that it must chug along, spawning universes? Is it at all sensible to posit an infinite initial energy? What would be the origin of that energy?

      (By the way, lest anyone think otherwise, there is no physical evidence at present to support a theory of a multiverse. I cannot say that there never will be, but we should be careful to distinguish between well-tested theories and whimsical models. After all, wouldn't a naturalist say that our belief should be informed only by that which can be demonstrated, i.e. measured in some way?)

      It seems to me that the naturalist is merely trading an infinite God for an infinite universe and calling that explanation "simpler". But I don't find it "simpler" at all. Nor do I think it possible to deny the existence of the meta-physical by means of any physical model, however complex. This is precluded by the very definition of the term "meta-physical".

      And I wonder whether the desire to substitute natural infinities for a supernatural infinity stems from a desire to have a mindless, natural "god" we can learn one day to control, rather than a personal God whom we cannot control, with plans of his own.

      • Peter

        The question is not to imagine something simpler than a multiverse but something superior.

        St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is not a contradiction that God could create an eternal world. So, by using his line of reasoning which I won't go into here, God could have created the multiverse.

        A Creator is superior to his creation. Therefore, insofar as we can think of God as Creator of the multiverse, God is the most superior thing we can think of.

        EDIT: Let me add, however, that I, like you, do not believe in a multiverse, but rather that this universe with its particular laws is all that there is. I believe that God who causes the universe to exist, selected these laws for the evolution of conscious beings in his own image and likeness.

        • Robert Macri

          St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is not a contradiction that God could create an eternal world. So, by using his line of reasoning which I won't go into here, God could have created the multiverse.

          I absolutely agree. I should have clarified that I was addressing the idea of a multiverse which exists without the need for God... one which "creates itself" so to speak. I suspect that the desire to rid creation of a creator is what led to the popularity of the multiverse hypothesis in the first place (once it became clear that random processes are insufficient to produce the fine-tuning we observe in a finite time, unless one is to resort to the "lucky us" explanation, which hardly satisfies).

          I also agree with the thrust of your point concerning the superiority of creator over creation... I'm just attacking the problem from the other side, by attempting to show that the notion of a creator-less creation is untenable.

          I believe that God who causes the universe to exist, selected these laws for the evolution of conscious beings in his own image and likeness.

          I would submit that God is more than merely a grand designer and selector of initial conditions, but also is active in every moment, holding all things in existence and guiding them according to his own plan.I tend to imagine him as "thinking" (and loving) us into existence (free will and all) at every moment, although I admit that this and any attempt to describe the divine activity of creation must fall short of the mark. But I don't hold that his involvement with creation could have ended with the big bang. That would be a deist god, not God the Father, who is a person, not merely a principle.

          Otherwise your point is well taken.

          • Peter

            Regarding your last point, I did say that God causes the universe to exist, and not caused. This implies that he keeps it in existence at each moment.

            To have caused the universe to exist in the Kalam sense would have implied a hands-on intervention kick-starting the universe into existence at the big bang. This is the idea of some Christians like William Lane Craig and is rigorously opposed by cosmologists such as Sean Carroll.

            I am open to the notion that the universe created itself at the big bang through purely naturalistic processes as yet unknown, God causing those processes to exist in the same way as he causes to universe to exist at every moment. Those processes may depend on even more fundamental processes, equally being caused by God.

            Atheists will ask why God should be included at all if the processes naturalistically explain themselves. My answer to that would be that the universe has the overwhelming appearance of being designed, and there is nothing to suggest that it is anything other than what it overwhelmingly appears to be.

            Although there is no evidence to support it, atheists will respond by hypothesising a mulitverse which "selects" the laws of our universe and gives it the appearance of being designed. But even if there is a multiverse, despite a total lack of evidence, this does not preclude the existence of a God who creates it and keeps it in existence. According to Aquinas, it demands it.

          • Peter

            But an atheist will again ask why God should be included at all if a multiverse which is infinite and eternal can explain itself. Surely, they will argue, it is more parsimonious to posit a multiverse instead of a multiverse plus God.

            The answer is that a multiverse is not a satisfactory explanation for the particular configuration of our universe. Our universe isn't just one random configuration of laws among the countless configurations which would be possible from a multiverse. It is far more than that. It is of a different order altogether.

            Through us and others like us, our universe is configured to achieve widespread self-awareness, to comprehend its own workings and origins, to question the reason for its own existence and to seek out its maker.

            This gives our universe a definite purpose, a real reason for existing. Where there is purpose there is intent and will, and where there is will there is a mind, a supreme mind which we call God. That is why I believe that our universe is not the random product of a multiverse but is all that there is, created by God to become his image and likeness.

          • Phil Rimmer

            I missed the logic of why a multiverse excludes self awareness.

          • Peter

            If the multiverse itself had an in-built self-awareness then, combined with its eternity and infinity, it would be God.
            Among its infinite universes, countless numbers over eternity would have reached such a perfection of consciousness that it would have pervaded the entire multiverse to the point of omnipotence and omniscience.

            For a naturalist to propose a multiverse as an alternative to God, the logical consequence of such a proposal would be to achieve the very opposite of what the naturalist intended.

            Our universe on the other hand, standing alone and not as part of a multiverse, cannot be God even though it has an in-built self awareness, because it is neither eternal nor infinite. The presence of self-awareness in our universe prevents our universe from belonging to a muliverse and denies the likelihood of a multiverse existing altogether.

          • Phil Rimmer

            Among its infinite universes, countless numbers over eternity would have reached such a perfection of consciousness that it would have pervaded the entire multiverse to the point of omnipotence and omniscience.

            My mouth won't close. For me this is a Risperidone moment or at the very least like my discovery of that piece of paper upon which in waking from a delighted midnight delirium I wrote down the shattering revelation that "The secret of a happy life is warm tarts in bed."

            How does a universe become intelligent, let alone conscious? How does it invade unconnected universes? Why isn't greater perfection always possible? What is this need for lebensraum? And why should it be good?

          • Peter

            Let's say that in an infinite succession of universes ago a consciousness evolved in a universe, one among the countless gazillions that make up the multiverse, and that this consciousness neither died out nor destroyed itself.

            Over the millennia it would learn not only to expand in its own universe but to migrate to other universes. As it did so it would become more evolved, more powerful and more knowledgeable. Over the aeons it would expand into the infinite array of parallel universes and even begin to expand into successive universes thereby ensuring its eternal continuity.

            After an infinite succession of universes, this consciousness would have pervaded the entire array of parallel universes that make up the multiverse. In doing so, it would have acquired perfection, omnipotence and omniscience. It would be God.

          • Robert Macri

            Those processes may depend on even more fundamental processes, equally being caused by God.

            Well, as for questions of origin I tend to consider those "more fundamental processes" as the pivotal point of discussion (whether that refers to the Big Bang or something temporally or ontologically prior). Maybe that caused me to talk past your point.

            In any case, thanks for the clarification!

  • Craig Roberts

    Imagine a person dying of cancer. He looks malnourished and wasted. A well meaning fellow sees him and takes pity on him. "Here!" he says with magnanimity, "Take my delicious pastrami sandwich. It will make you feel better."

    The cancer victim doesn't have an apatite and so he respectfully declines.

    What does the well meaning bloke with the food think to himself? "Fine, have it your way. But I'm not going to let this delicious sandwich go to waste just because your to sick to appreciate it!"

    The cancer victim needs chemo, absolution, compassion, and probably a last will and testament. It would be a very self-centered person that would say, "Hey, I offered my sandwich and he didn't want it so I've done my part."

    • neil_pogi

      'you will surely die' - this was spoken to the first couple when they transgressed God's instructions not to eat the forbidden fruit.

      because the sentence is death, all the laws of entropy follow:

      diseases, disorders, more pains and sufferings (ex: cancer)..

      then eventually death!

      if only atheists will accept the explanations given by the Bible, the problem of evil is already settled down. and no longer be used as the 'best weapon' atheists have on God's existence

      • Craig Roberts

        You're right. Evil is not the 'best weapon' atheists have on God's existence. But you don't use weapons against something that does not exist. The very fact that atheists are marshaling their resources against God proves that He exists.

        • Michael Murray

          The very fact that atheists are marshaling their resources against God proves that He exists.

          Atheists are marshalling their forces against ideas about gods. Which proves that ideas about gods exist. The idea of something existing is not the same as the thing existing. The idea of a beer in the fridge is less thirst quenching than the beer in the fridge.

          • Craig Roberts

            There are many false ideas about God. Some people think he has a giant white beard (it's actually red and neatly trimmed) or that he has a booming voice (he actually sounds like Mike Tyson) but at the end of the day of all the false notions about God the easiest to dismiss is that he does not exist.

          • Michael Murray

            That of course is your opinion. On the other hand many of us never get around to worry about why he doesn't exist because we've never been convinced by the evidence that he does. I am holding off spending a lot of time proving there aren't unicorns until someone shows me some convincing evidence they exist.

          • Craig Roberts

            The fact that you insist on using the plural when you know that we're talking about the God of monotheism shows that you are hostile to the idea and simply stubborn about using your God given reason to examine the evidence objectively.

          • Michael Murray

            That's who you are talking about. I'm an atheist. I don't hold beliefs in any gods. That includes yours and all the other thousands of them. Of course you think yours is special. I understand that.

          • Craig Roberts

            Your attitude belies your mindset. You're not here to discuss or discover any truth that you haven't already confirmed with your friend the giant coffee cup. You're just here to gloat about the superior superiorness of your own superiority. I understand that.

          • Michael Murray

            Ah so that's your best response is it ? You are going to make a joke about my avatar.

            What about we stop now and continue after you have learnt enough philosophy and logic to be able to tell the difference between the idea of a thing and the thing itself.

          • Craig Roberts

            Funny thing about faith. You don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it. Can you dunk a basketball?

            No? Well you could if you had a little bigger cup.

          • Craig Roberts

            GET IT!!??? "Dunk" a basketball???

            Yeah faith is kind of a joke to you. You admit that you don't get it. That doesn't mean that you couldn't.

  • neil_pogi

    atheists said that God doesn't exists:

    1. why He creates life and destroy it?

    anyway, atheists say that dead (non-living matter) becomes undead (living matter).. can God do that? lol.

    2. why He creates human body that has no protective barriers against cold and hot weather?.. it's fortunate that monkeys and apes have thick hairs to protect them from both weather.

    3. why He creates man that doesn't survive in water and flames?

    4. why He creates man with nipple? because atheists love to lick his nipple during sex

    so i believe God does exists!