Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 19 Aug 2005 23:14:37 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1124518477.603526.10410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 19 Aug 2005 13:36:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1124483806.815213.305120@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Then DanielSan is an author of events. If DanielSan were simply a
point in the endless interlocking chains of Cause and Event, DanielSan
would "create" nothing. DanielSan would be the effect of what came
before and the creator of nothing.

For that meaning of creator, can you show that the Universe was
created?

Probably not.

Then you used an equivocation, two different meanings for one word.

You asked me, "Can you show that ... ?"

The answer is, "Probably not."

Proof is a difficult thing at the best of times,

even for simple
concepts. The usenet medium is severely limited, and you are hostile
student.

Given a team of artists and craftsmen to construct forensic models,
could I show that the Universe was created? Still, probably not.

Conversely, given the same resources, could you show that the Universe
was NOT created? Probably not.

No one. God was not "created". To create means "to bring into
existence." God is the author of existence. As such, God is external
to existence. God is outside of existence, yet permeates existence
because for God, there is no "inside/outside."

The technical term for this is special pleading. You assert some
Universal characteristic, then assert that something, for some unknown
reason, does not share that characteristic. Sorry, but simply
asserting this does make it so.

Of course not. If it were not true before the assertion, it would not
be worth asserting.

When you have some *independent* support for this aspect of the
creators let us know. Now let me explain how this works in science by
giving a made up example. Suppose I say that humans start first.
SuperDuperSkeptic denies this. So I show some people using matches to
start a fire. SDS then, reasonably, say "But what about when people
did not have matches". So I show how people used bows and such as fire
starters. SDS then says "How do we know that people used to have
those?". So I show some archaeological evidence of bows from (making
this up) 10,000 years ago. So SDS asks, what about 20K years ago? I
don't have bows, but I do have evidence of human made tools and fires
near the tools and such. Do you see the point? I have evidence that
there existed entities at the appropriate time and place that had the
abilities required. ID has nothing like that.

Exactly. Some things are easy to prove and show, some things are
difficult.

For example, I could attempt to show you that a certain comic writer is
exceptional ability by showing you his writing. However, if you have
no sense of humor or his writing does not speak to you, the showing
does not happen.

I could show you certain stock transactions with multiple trades that,
while not exactly legal, will net us a small but dependable margin.
But if you are unfamiliar with the market or simply not facile with the
concepts, you will not understand - and the showing has not been
accomplished.

Apparently, I could talk all day without showing you anything about my
concept of God - without "showing" you anything. Conversely, you could
talk all day about your concept of a Universe without God - without
"showing" me anything.

This aspect of life is somewhat related to Plato's Meno Problem.

Also, as I have pointed out elsewhere recently, even if we accept this
assertion, you can't extend it to tell us something else about these
gods.

"Gods" is now plural? this is called "changing the subject."

I am sorry, but do you have evidence that there is only one designer?
That you want a single designer is not evidence. I use the plural to
make this point. You don't even have evidence to say whether there is
one or more of the entities, how can you make claims about what was
actually done?

I am of the opinion that enumeration is a part of the created universe.

Hence singular and plural does not apply to entities not of this
universe. The non-enumerability God is a very old concept in Christian
theology, too, though I come to it by a different route.

Suppose I accept that the Universe was created by gods, then
what? You can't show that the Earth was expected as part of that
creation,

The Earth is expected on the 9:37, sir. Now if you will please take a
seat in the waiting room, passengers will be boarded shortly.

I guess if you have no argument, try humor.

Your question was senseless.

you can't show that life was expected,

Life comes in on the 10:15.

Try again, it was not funny. Again, the point: even if we accept that
there was some willful entities that created the Universe, we don't
have any *evidence* connecting them in any way to the creation of the
Sun or the Earth or life.

Life is willful.

Again I can perceive this, though I may not be able
to show it to you. Life is invested with willfulness.

DanielSan wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 19 Aug 2005 13:36:46 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Terry Cross"
<tcross77@hotmail.com> in
<1124483806.815213.305120@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Then DanielSan is an author of events. If DanielSan were simply a
point in the endless interlocking chains of Cause and Event, DanielSan
would "create" nothing. DanielSan would be the effect of what came
before and the creator of nothing.

For that meaning of creator, can you show that the Universe was
created?

Probably not.

Why not? Isn't it in your deity's instruction manual?

I have never seen one.

No one. God was not "created". To create means "to bring into
existence." God is the author of existence. As such, God is external
to existence. God is outside of existence, yet permeates existence
because for God, there is no "inside/outside."

The technical term for this is special pleading. You assert some
Universal characteristic, then assert that something, for some unknown
reason, does not share that characteristic. Sorry, but simply
asserting this does make it so.

Of course not. If it were not true before the assertion, it would not
be worth asserting.

Then why are you asserting it?

Because it is true. I do hope you realize this is going in circles and
we have been here before.

Also, as I have pointed out elsewhere recently, even if we accept this
assertion, you can't extend it to tell us something else about these
gods.

"Gods" is now plural? this is called "changing the subject."

"Gods" is a blanket term for all deities, including the capital-G "God."

Not really.

Suppose I accept that the Universe was created by gods, then
what? You can't show that the Earth was expected as part of that
creation,

The Earth is expected on the 9:37, sir. Now if you will please take a
seat in the waiting room, passengers will be boarded shortly.

Non-sequitur. Funny, but still a non-sequitur.

you can't show that life was expected,

Life comes in on the 10:15.

Can we get back to the issue now?

you can't connect
those creators to the Bible, etc.

That filthy rag? Why would I want to do that?

So, which deity instruction manual do you use?

I have not seen one.

All you have really done is name the
origin of the Universe, nothing more.

Was I asked to do more? You would expect me to write a whole new
revelation scripture just for the asking?

You're the one wanting to redefine the origin of the universe.

The origin of the Universe has no been chronicled. By anyone. There
is no "re-" involved.

Your astrophysicists begin with the premise, "Let us learn everything
we can about the Universe without touching on deities or metaphysical
phenomena."

Very soon they are working with on the presumption that, "If there is
no deity or other metaphysical phenomena, then it must have happened
..."

Finally, having scrounged a few unconfirmed details from galactic
physics, they conclude with, "And therefore, there is no God."

The premise becomes a conclusion. It is bad logic.