Before God..

[Someday]

We work on a basis of, if something exists it came from somewhere

IF God came from somewhere, where was it?

There is a bit of a problem with this question. in order to even begin to answer it, one has to ask themselves is existence created or not created?

Blessings

[Someday]

I presume you know Bertrand Russells famous teapot analogy to explain how the inability to disprove an idea 100% doesn't lend it any credibility:

Russell's teapot works for the the atheist, but an honest agnostic can see the failure in this teapot analogy. There are two reasons it does not meet evidential standards. Prima facie plausibility, and what is known as "high stakes" plausability. Assessments of these in particular, exhibit a degree of audience-relativity. An atheist like Russell may judge that the idea of God is so implausible that the standard arguments for God's existence have failed to meet his burden of proof and thus has failed to establish his rational bona fides in believing in God. A theist or an agnostic, however, may find the traditional theistic arguments more than adequate to establish the rationality of theism because they don't judge theism to have such a high prima facie implausibility.
Russell fails to appreciate the fact that principled arguments can be given for theism and that, even if all of those arguments prove unconvincing, that's still a lot more than can be said for invisible teapots and flying spaghetti monsters.

Blessings

[The servant]

Originally Posted by JM

We work on a basis of, if something exists it came from somewhere

IF God came from somewhere, where was it?

“Man must never forget that he stands in the work of God, that he himself is a part of this work, and thus unconditionally subject to His laws!”

Peace and Light

Peter

[JM]

Originally Posted by The servant

“Man must never forget that he stands in the work of God, that he himself is a part of this work, and thus unconditionally subject to His laws!”

Peace and Light

Peter

Laws of what? Gravity

or Laws of..if you dont do what I will say.. I will have a tiffy fit?

[The servant]

Originally Posted by JM

Laws of what? Gravity

or Laws of..if you dont do what I will say.. I will have a tiffy fit?

Gods Laws, the laws of Creation, I like to refer to them as the Ten Commandments, which show us the way to live.

Regards Peter

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

Russell's teapot works for the the atheist, but an honest agnostic can see the failure in this teapot analogy. There are two reasons it does not meet evidential standards. Prima facie plausibility, and what is known as "high stakes" plausability. Assessments of these in particular, exhibit a degree of audience-relativity. An atheist like Russell may judge that the idea of God is so implausible that the standard arguments for God's existence have failed to meet his burden of proof and thus has failed to establish his rational bona fides in believing in God. A theist or an agnostic, however, may find the traditional theistic arguments more than adequate to establish the rationality of theism because they don't judge theism to have such a high prima facie implausibility.
Russell fails to appreciate the fact that principled arguments can be given for theism and that, even if all of those arguments prove unconvincing, that's still a lot more than can be said for invisible teapots and flying spaghetti monsters.

Phhrrffft, please. To theists, traditional theistic arguments are adequate you say. What a surprise! A bit like saying the God Delusion is such a good book because diehard Dawkins fans say they like it. Can you argue against Russells analogy from slightly less 'award yourself the game without playing it, then be surprised that you're the winner' type of standards? Like objective standards.

Observations are pretty objective. Their interpretations might not always be, but observations mostly are. Russell mentions the lack of observation of the teapot. Seen from that standard, your god is exactly on the level of the FSM and the teapot: there is nothing that speaks in favour of it and people might well doubt your thinking for believing it.

greets,
Peter

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by The servant

Gods Laws, the laws of Creation, I like to refer to them as the Ten Commandments, which show us the way to live.

Regards Peter

The ten commandment are not laws of creation, they are a set of moral and theological rules set out by bronze age herdsmen in order to live in their society. So what are the laws of creation? That, I believe was JMs question, not what are the moral laws.

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

The ten commandment are not laws of creation, they are a set of moral and theological rules set out by bronze age herdsmen in order to live in their society. So what are the laws of creation? That, I believe was JMs question, not what are the moral laws.

also=

The Law of Reciprocal Action
The Law of Attraction of Homogeneous Species
The Law of Gravitation
The Law of Movement
The Law of Balance
The Law of the Cycle

Regards Peter

[Someday]

Russell mentions the lack of observation of the teapot. Seen from that standard, your god is exactly on the level of the FSM and the teapot: there is nothing that speaks in favour of it and people might well doubt your thinking for believing it.

That's an absolutely valid point, if seen from Russell's standard. That's the whole point of my post. People like yourself and Russell might well doubt our thinking for believing it. You apply completely different standards. Those standards are confined in the natural world. Don't you see the folly in applying natural principles to things that are not natural?

Blessings

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hi Someday,

Originally Posted by Someday

That's an absolutely valid point, if seen from Russell's standard. That's the whole point of my post. People like yourself and Russell might well doubt our thinking for believing it. You apply completely different standards. Those standards are confined in the natural world. Don't you see the folly in applying natural principles to things that are not natural?

Oh duh! First you talk up the theistic position by arguments 'that are convincing to theists'. In other words you were saying: if you just believe the fairy tale, it all seems true. That is a laughable standard to set yourself. I come up with a better one, one that applies generally and doesn't require wild assumptions first. Your position fails completely by that standard of course. So what do you do: blame the standards.

I'm not asking anything special to go along with my views. You on the other hand, would want me to first assume the theistic position to be correct, then debate from within that. Rather than saying my reasoning is folly, perhaps you could explain why I should assume the theistic position to be correct without the 'Just believe first' that underlies your last few posts in this thread. That is essentially what your position is, a re-packaging of saying 'Be happy to live on blind, unquestioning faith'. It sounds less unintelligent the way you put it. But it is the same nonetheless. You simply can't stand up for your position and therefore flee into 'But if you see it the way I see it'.

greets,
Peter