Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

Authority has nothing to do with it, the immateriality of the One is easily explained logically.

I don't believe you have. Give it again, or point us to it.

I won't look for links, but I'll give the explanation again.
From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.

Okay. Good so far.

The First Cause is immutable, otherwise it is subject to other causes which produce change, and therefore is not the First Cause.

Yes, the First Cause is immutable. That does not imply that what He creates must be immutable.

Everything material is changeable, and therefore is not the First Cause.

Oh, I see your mistake. You think that God is constituted of materials.

God is not constituted of materials. But there isn't any reason God cannot use materials to reveal Himself. He does so all the time. God is manifest in nature, evident in the things that are made. The Creator is immanent in the creation. Torah says that's so. Christians agree.

Let me ask you this: did God manifest to Abraham as a man? Genesis says he did. Did Jacob wrestle with anybody? Did God appear to Moses on Sinai? Did Joshua worship a mere angel, or God? Did God walk with Adam? Joshua, Manoah and Isaiah see God as a man? What about Elijah? What about Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel 3? The Tanakh is full of such instances.

If the Tanakh says repeatedly that HaShem did this, how is it that you say He could not?

[Immanuel Can]

I have already said many times that the greatest stupidity is the literal understanding of the entire Tanakh.

What parts of the Tanakh do you believe?

The entire Tanakh is sacred.
The literal understanding of what is said in it is not so important to me.

So it's "sacred," but not worth believing?

[Fairy]

You shall not die the second death, in the name of Jesus.
For the second coming never comes.
One of the ways that we know that God exists is because we cannot replicate what God has done.
We cannot create from nothing.

[phyllo]

One of the ways that we know that God exists is because we cannot replicate what God has done.

The undoable and the incomprehensible are attributed to God.

God is the explanation that explains nothing.

But "God did it" feels better than "I don't know".

[Impenitent]

One of the ways that we know that God exists is because we cannot replicate what God has done.

The undoable and the incomprehensible are attributed to God.

God is the explanation that explains nothing.

But "God did it" feels better than "I don't know".

ignorance is bliss

-Imp

[Janoah]

I don't believe you have. Give it again, or point us to it.

I won't look for links, but I'll give the explanation again.
From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.

Okay. Good so far.

The First Cause is immutable, otherwise it is subject to other causes which produce change, and therefore is not the First Cause.

Yes, the First Cause is immutable.

I am glad that you and I have a consensus on these fundamental issues, this is important to me.

***Oh, I see your mistake. You think that God is constituted of materials.***
Of course I don't "think that God is constituted of materials", God forbid.
On the contrary, I explained that, being immutable, God is not material.

Rambam proves the existence of God based on the non-creation of the world in time.
Rambam says that one can believe in Creation, but the existence of the One can and should be proven from the uncreation in time. Proof of the existence of the One should not be tied to an unproven Creation.
And I agree with him on this, there is no need for Creation to prove the existence of the One.
By the way, there were also Muslim philosophers who proceeded from the uncreation of the world, for example, Avicenna, when Islam was on the rise intellectually.

[Fairy]

One of the ways that we know that God exists is because we cannot replicate what God has done.

The undoable and the incomprehensible are attributed to God.

God is the explanation that explains nothing.

But "God did it" feels better than "I don't know".

Did you ever play with play dough? Perhaps you made something out of it. You cannot deny that something was of your doing, of your own creation. You know you made something out of what was originally nothing.

So all you’ve got to know now, is who made you. I’m sure you’ll think of something, and while you’re thinking about that, ask yourself how are you even thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

I won't look for links, but I'll give the explanation again.
From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause, independent of anything, but the cause of everything.

Okay. Good so far.

The First Cause is immutable, otherwise it is subject to other causes which produce change, and therefore is not the First Cause.

Yes, the First Cause is immutable.

I am glad that you and I have a consensus on these fundamental issues, this is important to me.

"I, the Lord your God, change not." So says Mal. 3:6. However, I think you are taking some assumptions from this that the Tanakh will not support.

***Oh, I see your mistake. You think that God is constituted of materials.***

Of course I don't "think that God is constituted of materials", God forbid.
On the contrary, I explained that, being immutable, God is not material.

In what sense do you suppose God is "immutable," then? If he's not some kind of fixed "substance," He can certainly participate immanently in the affairs of the world. That's quite a different thing from suggesting that HE has to change in order to do so.

Proof of the existence of the One should not be tied to an unproven Creation.

Whether that's true would depend on what Rambam means by "tied to." He surely can't mean that God is not both revealed in, and immanent in His creation, or that His nature is not evident in what He has created, since Torah flatly contradicts those sorts of assumptions. So what are you understanding him to mean when he says that?

And I agree with him on this, there is no need for Creation to prove the existence of the One.

Well, there's "no need of" this particular message to prove my existence, either. Nevertheless, this message constitutes one evidence of my existence. Does Rambam see it the same way, or has he got some other slant on it?

By the way, there were also Muslim philosophers who proceeded from the uncreation of the world, for example, Avicenna, when Islam was on the rise intellectually.

Yes; and then he joined a military campaign to slaughter "infidels," and died of opium poisoning, as I recall.

I don't think the actions of Muslim philosophers make an argument for a good idea. Muslim 'philosophers' also believe in slitting Jewish throats, enslaving Christians, and 72 perpetual rape-victims waiting for them in Muslim paradise if they die in the process. I wouldn't follow them very far, were I you.

[Janoah]

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.

[Janoah]

Okay. Good so far.
Yes, the First Cause is immutable.

I am glad that you and I have a consensus on these fundamental issues, this is important to me.

In what sense do you suppose God is "immutable," then?

In the sense that the Law of Nature is immutable. I spoke about this in my topic "The concept of God as the One Law of Nature."

[MikeNovack]

I don't think the actions of Muslim philosophers make an argument for a good idea. Muslim 'philosophers' also believe in slitting Jewish throats, enslaving Christians, and 72 perpetual rape-victims waiting for them in Muslim paradise if they die in the process. I wouldn't follow them very far, were I you.

I think you have looked at too few examples of Muslim philosophers over too little of Muslim philosophy's history. Same with Muslim theology.

How the heck do you imagine what we have of Greek philosophy survived the "Dark Ages" in Europe?

[Immanuel Can]

I am glad that you and I have a consensus on these fundamental issues, this is important to me.

In what sense do you suppose God is "immutable," then?

In the sense that the Law of Nature is immutable.

Nature is entirely mutable.

And what we call "laws" in nature are nothing but our best descriptions of phenomena, not some sort of absolute fiat. So I can't see how appeal to some "natural law" makes such a conclusion remotely necessary.

[commonsense]

One of the ways that we know that God exists is because we cannot replicate what God has done.

The undoable and the incomprehensible are attributed to God.

God is the explanation that explains nothing.

But "God did it" feels better than "I don't know".

As to the undoable point, science has created a nearly living cell from scratch. I don’t know what may come next.

As for latter comment, blind faith, always feels more comfortable, but you don’t know if it’s right or not.

[promethean75]

Well, as Frank Z. remembers it... when scientists had introduced an electrical charge to an amino acid instead of being on the front page of the papers it was waaay in the back under the heading "scientists create life". On the front of the paper was, of course, a picture of our president playing golf.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think the actions of Muslim philosophers make an argument for a good idea. Muslim 'philosophers' also believe in slitting Jewish throats, enslaving Christians, and 72 perpetual rape-victims waiting for them in Muslim paradise if they die in the process. I wouldn't follow them very far, were I you.

I think you have looked at too few examples of Muslim philosophers over too little of Muslim philosophy's history.

Islam's so-called "enlightened phase" was extremely short; and it was wiped out by Muslim conservatives, actually. If you actually look at Islamic history, it's almost all desert ethics, pillage and conquest by sword, slavery, brutality, destruction, rape and other forms of relentless jihad.

Douglas Murray has done a nice job of debunking the "Golden Age" myth. But here's a short sample of the kind of scholarship that has shown the same:
https://medium.com/@relentlessreasoning ... 4b81344a54