Prove me wrong: there is no God

[phyllo]

From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.

If it's independent, then it can't care about anyone or anything, including Israel.

Everything happens according to the Law of the World, and that includes Israel. If a Jew jumps off a roof, he'll fall like everyone else.
If Israel follows a more adequate worldview than others, then this will be its chosenness and success.
History is a struggle of worldviews, the more adequate worldview wins.

So you're not one of the people who thinks God does special miracles, answers prayers and alters the natural course of events.

You believe in a hands-off God who started the machine and who lets it run.

[MikeNovack]

You believe in a hands-off God who started the machine and who lets it run.

Whether you believe that don't, the argument "creation implies a creator" gets you no farther than that.

In other words, your belief "His eye is on the sparrow and I know He watches me." does NOT come from (is not justified by) "creation implies a creator".

[Fairy]

I’m agnostic. In my view, God must be benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Children with cancer make me believe that God is not those things. Therefore He/She is not God. No?

God is not in his created finite things. Created finite things live and move and exist in him.

“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen,” (Romans 1:25).

From beginning to end, the Bible presents us with a God who is distinct from creation and makes that central to our relationship to Him. This is not a tertiary fact, but rather a foundational biblical truth.

The human claim that cancer exists is evidence of the existence of cancer, but humans did not create cancer. Humans did not create humans. These things are simply creations of a creator that is not in his creation. Similarly, a man is not the car he built with his hands.

Just because I am in my office doesn’t mean that I am my office. To be at, with, in, or among something is not the same is to be that thing.

An author may write a story book but the author isn’t in the story book, the story is in the author, not the other way round.

Prove me wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, science has come a long and glorious way, but the Christian world is not able to reach Aristotle, because the dogma of the god-man does not allow them.

Your previous post made no sense regardless of whether Christianity has problems. This is one of the fundamental confusions. My team is right because there are problems with the other teams. Nah, they can all be confused. But further you are not Judaism. You can have a confused view that is not Judaic. Your post was not the core of Judaism challenging other worldviews. It stands or falls on its own. I certainly wasn't pointing out the problems with Judaism, but rather with your post. And I am neither Christian nor Muslim, so casting this as some intertribal reaction to your strange thinking is confused.

Who knows what you mean by reach Aristotle, but Thomas Aquinas is the first rebuttal to whatever it means.

Yes, Aristotle also refuted anthropomorphic gods, and in general the materiality of God.
But Christians rejected Aristotle.

But they didn't and they didn't have to. Not that that is relevant to my response to your post. Aristotle's God is indeed not an anthropomorphic deity in the Homeric sense.

However, Christianity also teaches that God is fundamentally immaterial. The Incarnation means that the divine Son took on human nature; it does not mean that God's essence is material. So Aristotle's rejection of a material god is not a direct argument against Christianity.

But whether Christianity can integrate Aristotle or not has nothing to do with your previous post and my response.

But when the monks saw that the Islamic world, armed with Aristotle, was overtaking the Christian world, then the monks became afraid and turned to Aristotle, and tried to adapt Aristotle.
But, anyway, either a god-man or Aristotle.

This is poor history. Artistotle was available in the Muslim world, not so in Europe. When he was translated into Latin, he got popular in Europe, also amongst monks. Their fear was not what brought them to Aristotle, but availability.

Judaism and Aristotle are a poor fit.
Aristotle
God did not create the universe, it is eternal.
God does not hear prayers, intervene, create stuff - no covenants, judments, laws, forgiving, interacting with history.
No providence - not a God caring about individuals
Knowledge comes via reason, not revelation

Maimonedes was a smart cookie and he also had to reject chunks of Aristotle.

But the odd thing here is. I don't really care about who gets to claim Artistotle is the better fit with religion ________________. It doesn't mean Islam is better since both Jews and Christians needed to benefit from Islam's care and love of Aristotle.

The strange implicit argument that Judaism is closer to science because Jesus doesn't fit with Aristotle in a post arguing that the weather in Europe has been caused by Europe being critical of Israel is ironic in the extreme. If only on basic logic: Aristotle would have rejected this completely. It is also theologically questionable that the quote from Deut was meant to apply to every event involving, here very indirectly, Israel. And why this interventionist God would change the weather instead of actually doing something effective is probably an argument left untried because it will look so silly. There are other reasons connecting science and divine weather punishments (and really quite a minor one) for criticism, but those are too obvious to mention.

If we move outside of logic and react humanely to this 'argument' the most pernicious thing is that it paints God as barely trying and indifferent to innocent life. Hey, I'll hurt a tiny % of Europeans with the weather because other Europeans or European governments were critical of my favorite country. I'll do it in a way where almost no one in Europe connects those deaths to the criticism of Israel, and the message will fail. I'll be ineffective and cruel, but a few Jewish people will realize I am looking out for them.

Christianity could be a terrible, loopy, totally unArtistotlean religion, and that doesn't help the ridiculousness and frankly inhumanity of your earlier post.

[Fairy]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

Disprove what is seen is not there, disprove there is no thing seen.

[phyllo]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

[Fairy]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

Seen things are not the seeing. But are clear evidence of a seer.

That’s not religion.

[Impenitent]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

Seen things are not the seeing. But are clear evidence of a seer.

That’s not religion.

vacationing optometrists' welding - helping the sightseers sear their seeing supplies

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

Disprove what is seen is not there, disprove there is no thing seen.

Look at the topic question again. The challenge was to prove wrong "there is no god". Posing that challenge does not make a claim able to disprove the existence of a god.

Note also, the challenge says NOTHING about the nature of this god. When you argue for the existence of God, and you have particular beliefs about the nature of God, you have to explain how you get from "existence" to "having property X". God exists and God created the universe (external* to God) does not in and of itself get you to "God cares about me and is interested in punishing me for/forgiving me of "sins"."

* as opposed say to a belief that God created the universe as an "emanation"

[Immanuel Can]

You believe in a hands-off God who started the machine and who lets it run.

Whether you believe that don't, the argument "creation implies a creator" gets you no farther than that.

Actually it does get you farther...much farther.

For the important question that it raises is WHAT ABOUT CREATION implies a Creator? And the answer is manifold.

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example), to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis. It's just far too obvious to miss. It takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and sophisticated re-explaining to convince oneself of anything else: which is why the whole no-God hypothesis has been such a late sell in civilizational history. Even if one opts for it, one has to admit that it's not at all plausible prima facie.

[Will Bouwman]

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example)

Well, the size of the moon creates the tides that it does, so in that respect, it is the perfect size for doing so. What makes that "the right gravitational effects on oceans"?

...to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis.

Oh I see: every ancient human society in history knew about triadic symbiosis and the complexity of DNA strands. Therefore they started with the God or gods hypothesis. I don't think the break you gave yourself to figure things out was long enough.

[Janoah]

If it's independent, then it can't care about anyone or anything, including Israel.

Everything happens according to the Law of the World, and that includes Israel. If a Jew jumps off a roof, he'll fall like everyone else.
If Israel follows a more adequate worldview than others, then this will be its chosenness and success.
History is a struggle of worldviews, the more adequate worldview wins.

So you're not one of the people who thinks God does special miracles, answers prayers and alters the natural course of events.

You believe in a hands-off God who started the machine and who lets it run.

The One does not create anything, and did not start anything, God is the Law by which everything happens.
The One, - unchangeable, that is, there are no “miracles” in the form of violation of the Law of Nature.
This means that if someone walks on water, he will drown, even if he loves, believes and hopes very much, and even if he is called the "Son of God" or the "Grandson of God."

[phyllo]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Immanuel Can]

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example)

Well, the size of the moon creates the tides that it does, so in that respect, it is the perfect size for doing so. What makes that "the right gravitational effects on oceans"?

"A larger moon would trigger catastrophic tidal surges, massive earthquakes, and extreme volcanic activity due to increased gravitational pull. Conversely, a smaller moon would result in much darker nights, requiring adapted vision for nocturnal animals , and a destabilized planetary tilt, triggering volatile climate shifts ." (Source: ABC)

...to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis.

Oh I see: every ancient human society in history knew about triadic symbiosis and the complexity of DNA strands.

We all see what you're trying: to ignore the evidence, and instead produce a reductio fallacy by pretending I said something I did not.

Nobody said they did know those things. But they had eyes in their heads, and could look around and see the complexity of nature, and the first hypothesis that seemed obvious to every single one of them was, "This must have been created."

And all those examples I actually did give are true. And they explain why the "spontaneous generation"-type theories were so hard to produce: they're not really plausible.

[Immanuel Can]

...there are no “miracles” in the form of violation of the Law of Nature.

I see you've mistaken the metaphor "law" for a fiat "law."

What we mean when we use the phrase "law of nature" is not something like "a rule that has such authority that it can never be broken," but rather, "the best current description of a regularity of nature as we observe it." There is no law that says "laws of nature" cannot be "violated." In fact, when they are, we may well revise our whole conception of the "law" in question.

It was once considered a "law of nature" that the universe was geocentric. It is no longer part of what we call the "laws of nature." Laws of nature are revisable. When some new phenomenon comes along, we either revise the "law" or declare it an anomaly or a "miracle." That's how it works.

But if there are no miracles, then neither was Israel delivered from Egypt through the Red Sea. The Law was not given by God. The People were not delivered by God though the wilderness. Nor was Abraham ever promised progeny, since his wife was both elderly and infertile, and Abraham himself did not have Isaac until he was "as good as dead," sexually, as the Bible puts it. Elijah must not have defeated the prophets of Baal. Nor did God smite the Assyrians to save Israel. Nor will Israel have a Messiah. No miracles, no Israel.

Are you prepared, then, to forgo any claim to Jewish particularism and specialness, to any promises of God, and to all right to the (presumably Un-)Promised Land? If you are, then at least you believe what you say, even if I think you're wrong.

But if you won't, then you don't believe yourself.