I submit that it is impossible now to have Hume here to tell us what he really means with his writings.

What we can do now is to agree on what he means among ourselves, in order that we can take him to have contributed something useful or at least interesting in the problem of induction.

So, all who are keen on citing Hume should first get together to set up a list of propositions which they agree on to be the genuine thoughts of Hume as they can gather from his writings.

Otherwise it is useless because people who cite Hume in support of a position are going to be in effect arguing or should be in effect arguing on what is the true mind of Hume in his writings.

Best thing to do at present and in our present situation and with our present knowledge and also in the physical circumstances that we are in today, to not bring in authorities who are dead and cannot anymore give us their thoughts as to decide for us what they indeed truly think to be their messages.

Now, as regards the God debate, everyone interested must work together to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God and also the rules in the debate to abide by, otherwise it is a futile and I will say crazy engagement.

But if you want to dispute the existence of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe again in the Christian faith, people have got to get from the Christian faith what is for Christians their concept of God.

Now you will say that Christians don't have the same concept of God, and that is not the fact, they do have the same concept of God in God's fundamental relation to the universe.

If you insist that there are Christians who don't have that concept of God in God's fundamental relation to the universe, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then just get the ones who do believe that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I am not asking you to assume anything.

I am asking you whether you are informed about the concept of God which is the correct one in the Christian faith in God's relation to the universe.

You don't have to admit anything at all, just that you have got to get the correct information about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, that is all in the Christian faith.

If you don't have the right concept as believed in in the Christian faith, then you are not barking up the right tree at the right God insofar as the Christian faith is concerned.

You could be barking up the right tree at the right God insofar as your own concept of God is concerned even though yes I know you don't accept the existence of any God, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

I am asking you to please keep to the conceptual realm; when we have agreed on the concept of God in the Christian faith, then we can logically go forth to prove His existence in the objective reality realm of existence, that God that is in concept considered by Christians to be the correct concept of God.

I have already mentioned about the need for man to distinguish between logic and intelligence: if your logic is going to make you act un-intelligently then it is about time you choose to act intelligently than keeping to your logic.

Thinking on Hume more carefully I see clearly the man did not give importance to the fact that the input of man's senses is restricted to the access of his senses in the actual situation mankind finds himself to be living in.

For example, when mankind was living without any telescope, etc., it was obvious to mankind that the sun goes around the earth, and that occurs everyday, so that mankind then concludes that it is a fact that the sun goes around the earth.

Coming to the problem of induction, if all the inputs of man's senses in his actual situation in time and in space confirms repeatedly his observation that every swan he sees is white, then it is obvious that he should conclude every swan is white.

But the color of swan is not any crucially important piece of information for mankind, in order for mankind to guide himself so as to survive and to continuously enhance his life and his knowledge of the world.

Before anything else about the color of swans being only white or also black, the power of man's mind to imagine things, that is a very crucial endowment in man from the Creator, that enables man to survive and to enhance his life situation and also increase his knowledge of the world.

If man had imagined that color in a swan need not make up the true nature of a swan, that it is something that can change and a swan is still a swan, then he could have gone to as much as possible all places to try to meet a swan that is not white but of another color for example black.

When man did go to other places and saw black swans even just one, then he realized that there are also black swans.

So, I submit Hume was very poor in thinking, he forgot to use his intelligence but he stuck to his mastery of logic, that is the reason why some people never get to know better things, and do better things by being most most most logical but neglecting the habit of thinking intelligently which intelligent thinking starts with an open mind.

So matter is the only thing in the universe, and therefore matter and the universe are identical, do I get you correctly?

And what is your concept of the universe, as also again your concept of matter, be concise, precise, and definitive.

Thanks for finding me agreeable, I try my best to express my thoughts about the existence of God which I submit for myself with a reason is obvious.

But to prove it to another person it takes concepts and words, that is where people can argue forever, and that is why I always ask people to first agree to come to mutually agreed on concepts and also to mutually agreed on rules in the exchange of thoughts, for otherwise people will be talking past each others' heads, which is irrational and what we call crazy.

What is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?

Here again is my concept of God:

"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."

And here is my concept of the universe:

"The universe is the totality of existence where we humans live in and are parts of, so also everything that exists or can exist, and even imaginary things subjects of man's discourse; the observable to man universe is just a part of the total universe."

And here is my first rule for the viability of our conversation:

"Please keep to the universe where we are living in and seeing the components of even though we don't see everything at all in the universe, but we do see the stars, the distant galaxies, etc."

Where and how am I asking you to assume the truth of my premises?

Read again carefully.

I submit that srom 1883 is making a good argument for the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

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

srom1883(619) 1 point

I have question for all those fellow atheists. Have you ever thought who created this earth? It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own. Its the same thing with the earth the earth can't be made on its own there for someone needs to start it.

17hrs 18mins ago

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

I will put it this way:

The observable to man universe cannot have created itself, can we agree to that?

But in the totality of existence that is the whole universe, not just the observable to man universe, there is an entity not directly observable to man unlike the observable to man universe part, that is the entity that always exists, and it is this entity that satisfies the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

If there is no such entity in the whole totality of existence that includes the observable to man universe part, then there is not always something, but there is nothing and we can stop talking once we postulate instead of there is always something, there is [sic] always nothing.

However, atheist cosmologists have another understanding of nothing, they understand nothing as something but they want you to wink both eyes of your mind to their very peculiar understanding of nothing as something anything, by which ultimately there is an explanation in the longest terms for the existence to them of the observable universe, they call it something like the laws of nature, etc.

That is what I have been doing, giving arguments.

Now that you mention evidence, will you agree with me to work together as to come to a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence?

ricedaragh(1364) Disputed 1 point

No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.

I know, but you did state "then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."

If I come to accept the existence of God, by your reasoning, have I then not been converted?

Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?

Yep.

Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Can you see that?

I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.

Can you see that?

17hrs 19mins ago

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

@ricedaragh:

You say:

"I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.

Can you see that?"

Read this post from me earlier, pay attention to the last part, after the [ here here here here ] line.

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

Marius(13) Disputed 1 point

sierrastruth(204) 2 points

You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.

One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)

7hrs 50mins ago

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

I disagree with you, unlike you I know that man with his reason and sincerity can prove to himself and others who are reasonable and sincere that God exists as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

You also say:

"Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe."

I find that very edifying for myself, thanks.

About your question:

"One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)"

My answer is that God is also the creator of everything in the unobservable to man universe, everything that is not God Himself.

You see, let us understand the universe as the totality of existence where anything that exists or can exist, exists in, even God Himself exists in the universe understood by me as the totality of existence.

[ here here here here ]

That makes the universe greater than God, because I say that God also exists in the universe?

First: when I say that God Himself exists in the universe which I understand as the totality of existence where everything that exists or can exist, exists in, I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.

I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.

Second: the totality of existence is a mental concept of a collection, a collectivity, that concept exists in my mind; in my mind the totality of existence is like an imaginary big shopping bag where I put my concepts of everything that exists or can exist, including the concept of God and everything else that is not God but created however by God.

So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.

Hope you can comprehend that.

In the Christian faith God is transcendent to the universe and also immanent in the universe; for myself I will say that God is both inside and outside the universe He has created.

An atheist keeps insisting that I am saying something ridiculous when I say that God is also outside the universe because for him there is no outside of the universe; I keep telling him that by outside I do not mean as like one is outside one's house which house is in a neighborhood, by outside I mean that God is not imprisoned inside the space in which the material universe is located; but the atheist keeps on and on and on insisting that I mean outside as like outside one's house which house is located in a neighborhood.

Well, that is one very stubborn atheist who just insists that you must mean what and how he wants you to understand things the way He wants it.

One irrational atheist.

Now, I ask everyone, can a human be inside his house and also outside his house?

Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.

38mins 20secs ago

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

ReventonRage(45) Supported 1 point

I agree with everything you've said, except for the point that "everything in the universe and earth can be explained through science." I can give you two very short arguments against this claim. First, the Scottish philosopher David Hume famously postulated an argument called "the Problem of Induction. This basically goes something like this: even if something has been observed to occur many times in the past, it does not necessarily imply that the same occurrence will happen again in future situations, even if you assume ceteris paribus. Thus, according to this argument, all sciences are logical fallacies (I dare you to challenge David Hume's argument.)

Second, David Hume also postulated another argument called the 'is-ought problem' (more affectionately known as "Hume's Guillotine"). This goes as follows: just because something IS happening in one way, it does not follow that it OUGHT to occur in this manner. Why is this important? Because science derive theories and concepts based on observations (and by "the Problem of Induction", these are logical fallacies) and even though science can tell us what IS happening, it does not tell us what OUGHT to happen due to the slippery slope.

Having said that, I agree fully that whether or not science can (or cannot) explain everything, it does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. By its own nature, such an 'argument from science' is a red herring.

8hrs 52mins ago

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

Well, I would tell Hume that even though there is a problem in logic with induction so that we can never say that something is certain to exist or to not exist or to occur again or to not occur again, I will tell him to not dispense with intelligent self-guidance.

Suppose he sees that people are getting themselves killed by shooting themselves in their heads, so to prove that the next occurrence of shooting oneself in the head will not get oneself killed, he accepts the challenge to shoot himself in his head, because he is not sure that the next shooting in this case of himself by himself will get himself killed.

I submit thinking people who care for him should stop him, unless like Hume they have become un-intelligent, have become stupid, and worse, crazy; the government should put all such crazies in an asylum for their own safe keeping.

So, dear ReventonRage, even though to the mind of a Hume there is a problem with induction, that does not mean that you can dispense with intelligence in your mind and become stupid or worse crazy.

There is a distinction between logic and intelligence, and in everyday life I hope you always choose to act intelligently instead of acting logically, when you do have a choice to act intelligently instead of logically.

Now, what about the existence of God, well you can go on and on and on with logic that God does not exist, but if you use your logic intelligently, God exists.

Anyway, I like you to tell me what is it according to you to prove something to exist in objective reality from the part of man to man -- or man to animals.

ReventonRage(45) Disputed 1 point

[...]

What you have said does not do anything to prove God is the creator of the observable universe. Let's look at your argument:

Premise 1: God in the Christian faith is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Premise 2: The universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of.

Conclusion: Therefore, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I see two big problems in your above argument. First, in your conclusion you have made two claims - 1) God exists and 2) God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I would say that you have attempted to prove the second claim, but not the first.

[...]

8hrs 51mins ago

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

Please read everyone here the answers I made already to earlier replies.

Dear ReventonRage, I like to invite you and me to come to agreement on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts and outside man's mind.

Unless we have a mutually agreed on concept on what it is to prove that something exists as described by also a mutually agreed on concept of that something, it is futile to talk about proving it to exist or to not exist, because it is illogical.

Will you tell me what is your concept of to prove something to exist, or you want me to give my concept; you be the one first, because I can see you are conversant with what it is to prove something, okay?

sierrastruth(204) 2 points

You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.

One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)

7hrs 50mins ago

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

I disagree with you, unlike you I know that man with his reason and sincerity can prove to himself and others who are reasonable and sincere that God exists as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

You also say:

"Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe."

I find that very edifying for myself, thanks.

About your question:

"One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)"

My answer is that God is also the creator of everything in the unobservable to man universe, everything that is not God Himself.

You see, let us understand the universe as the totality of existence where anything that exists or can exist, exists in, even God Himself exists in the universe understood by me as the totality of existence.

That makes the universe greater than God, because I say that God also exists in the universe?

First: when I say that God Himself exists in the universe which I understand as the totality of existence where everything that exists or can exist, exists in, I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.

I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.

Second: the totality of existence is a mental concept of a collection, a collectivity, that concept exists in my mind; in my mind the totality of existence is like an imaginary big shopping bag where I put my concepts of everything that exists or can exist, including the concept of God and everything else that is not God but created however by God.

So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.

Hope you can comprehend that.

In the Christian faith God is transcendent to the universe and also immanent in the universe; for myself I will say that God is both inside and outside the universe He has created.

An atheist keeps insisting that I am saying something ridiculous when I say that God is also outside the universe because for him there is no outside of the universe; I keep telling him that by outside I do not mean as like one is outside one's house which house is in a neighborhood, by outside I mean that God is not imprisoned inside the space in which the material universe is located; but the atheist keeps on and on and on insisting that I mean outside as like outside one's house which house is located in a neighborhood.

Well, that is one very stubborn atheist who just insists that you must mean what and how he wants you to understand things the way He wants it.

One irrational atheist.

Now, I ask everyone, can a human be inside his house and also outside his house?

Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.

supremepizza(544) 2 points

I think I have done these stupid God debates a billion times over now so I'm just gonna say a witty comment; If God was all knowing he should be able to beat himself at checkers or at chess, but in order to beat himself he has to outsmart himself, meaning that he really isn't all knowledgeable.

Suck me. I win. ;)

8hrs 41mins ago

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

Well, you are challenging God to play chess against Himself so that whether God loses or wins against Himself God is proven to you to be not all knowledgeable.

Do I get you correctly?

I ask you, why should it be that your conclusion is that God is thus not all knowledgeable whether He wins or loses in playing chess against Himself?

The conclusion should be God in playing chess against Himself God whether He losses or wins, He is still all knowing, because the same God Himself is winning as also is losing, so it's a draw between God and Himself, wherefore His all-knowing feature is not compromised.

Can you comprehend that?

Tell you what, you gamble your money against yourself, and see whether you lose or win against yourself you end up with less or more money than the money you got started with?

iamdavidh(3054) 2 points

"I am a Christian."

Uh oh, I'm have a sneaking suspicion I'm about to hear something completely one-sided, self-important and utterly rife with hypocricy and contradiction.

"To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:

"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.""

... I'm sorry, do you know an atheist who is not aware of this concept? Do you believe you've revealed some great secret only you intellectual Christians have considered?

"That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe."

Er, yeah, get on with it...

"Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?"

._. ... yawn... Yeah, got it. Carry on.

"If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God."

Er... okay. Good to know. Point yet?

"Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."

Okay easy.

If god could have always existed without being created, god being even more complex than general matter,

Than it is far, far more likely for matter to have simply always existed.

If matter (being the far simpler thing) could not have simply always existed, than god could not have simply always existed and must have been created himself.

Disproving your own definition.

That is actually a better defense of atheism.

Marius

Nice try though, better than that Srom dude.

12hrs 21mins ago

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

I think you have to define what is matter in its fundamental relation to the universe.

If you attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself, then I will grant that you have another name for the Christian God.

No need for you to quarrel with us Christians, you just have another name for God.

Is that okay with you, or you still will not accept God even by your name for God which is matter?

What we have to do now is to reconcile what you believe is the everything created by matter which is your God, with the everything that is created by God in the Christian faith, if you also attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself.

Do you comprehend my point now?

zombee(775) 2 points

Let me see if I am correctly rephrasing your two premeses and the conclusion you have so far drawn from them.

P1: According to Christianity, God created everything except himself.

P2: Everything that exists or can exist is part of the universe.

C: Therefor, God created everything except himself.

Is this right?

15hrs 31mins ago

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

That is correct, you get me correctly

What do you say, can you also accept the conclusion "God created everything except Himself," i.e. God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.

Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?

Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Can you see that?

Please come back everyone atheists and whatever specially Christians.

Why have everyone stopped posting here?

The topic is "Atheism is illogical," which means that atheists are illogical, who say that? but atheists are saying that Christians are irrational which means also illogical.

Now, suppose we use instead of the words irrational and illogical the word "intelligent" the opposite of which is unintelligent.

Now, what is intelligent the adjective?

Without defining what is intelligent the adjective, I guess we can all see some action or behavior of a human to be intelligent or unintelligent without being able to verbalize what is intelligence.

Of course atheists say that Christians are not intelligent, and they say that IQ tests of atheists disclose that atheists have higher IQ scores than Christians.

Let that pass, however.

Let us instead everyone agree to answer this question from each one's intelligence:

Which answer is intelligent to this question:

"The observable universe ultimately came about from 1. God, 2. itself, 3. randomness, 4. nothing, 5. infinite regression, 6. I don't know, 7. It always exists.

Remember, just answer as from an intelligent human.

If you don't know what is meant by the word God, then if you are aware that Christians believe in the existence of God, I think you must try to know correctly what is the most crucial concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe.

I hope a lot of people will join this debate now.