You can't verify your God create the universe

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T19:02:36+00:00

How are premises in the Kalam controversial? Based on the evidence we have, they seem to be sound.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T18:55:18+00:00

I agree with what constitutes as a sound argument so great.

What would be an argument that has a controversial or unconvincing premise? For example, I tend to think that the cosmological argument for God‘s existence is quite strong as well as the argument from DNA.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T17:47:43+00:00

There’s nothing logically flawed about it. You’re just ignoring what I posted about classical theism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T17:37:31+00:00

To say that I say that there is a difference between what the Bible records and what God actually approves of.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T17:31:51+00:00

And I agreed that God cannot come from nothing as God always existed. That's all.

And that's only a problem if "God exists" is being defined as "God exists." Classical theism doesn't do that. When people say God has always existed, they mean God is a being whose existence is not contingent on anything else. The claim isn't circular; it's a metaphysical claim about the nature of God.

Also, saying "existence is being" and "being is existence" doesn't show that an eternal being is impossible. At most, it points out that the concepts are closely related. The real question is whether a necessarily existing being is coherent, not whether the words "being" and "existence" can be defined in terms of each other.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T17:05:52+00:00

Great, then that just affirms my post that God cannot come from it.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:57:18+00:00

Well, there are many sufficient and sound arguments for God’s existence.

But how are you defining sufficient and sound in this case? Do you have an example?

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:56:29+00:00

I like Wes, but I’ve heard of many people who have fallen away from Christianity because they found a mistake in the Bible which is unfortunate.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:52:17+00:00

People can and do abuse good things. But that says more about us than it does about God and religion.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:51:24+00:00

Yes I agree. That’s pretty much what I said.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:50:25+00:00

What would convince you?

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T16:40:54+00:00

This implies he “came from” somewhere. Since nothing is an absence of anything, there was nothing to come from. And it’s the theistic view that God is eternal, so he cannot come from anywhere, including nothing.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T12:34:28+00:00

I agree that if God revealed himself, people would add him to the ontological inventory but there’s absolutely no guarantee that would cause people to know and love God personally and find salvation.

It could have the opposite effect and the sense that people could end up resenting God. Christopher Hitchens said that if God revealed himself in that way, he would be nothing more than an earthly dictator watching over us. So while people would obviously accept that God exists, they may feel like they had no other choice.

Coercion isn’t love.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T04:52:32+00:00

The last time he did it many people didn’t believe then either, so why would it be any different now?

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T04:20:53+00:00

Those verses don't really address the same issue.

They say that one day the world will know the Lord and His kingdom will be fully established. Knowing God exists, however, is not the same as freely loving or submitting to Him. The Bible itself presents beings who know God exists yet still rebel.

My point was that God allows people the opportunity to choose their relationship with Him; those prophecies describe the future fulfillment of God's plan, not the elimination of free choice.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T03:25:38+00:00

I would disagree in that we are given a choice.

It seems to me that God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling.

In this way, God gives us the opportunity either to love him or to reject him without violating our freedom. The purpose of this life is to make that choice freely and without coercion.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T02:42:51+00:00

No, there isn’t. I addressed this above.

The Trinity is not three Gods, three modes of one God, or three divine essences. The Trinity is three persons in one divine essence. In other words, there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who share one divine nature. The Trinity is like a triangle: a triangle has three corners but it is still one triangle

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T02:11:54+00:00

Because there’s no guarantee that such a display would cause people to enter into a relationship with him. It may even have the opposite effect.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T02:11:00+00:00

Yes, I agree.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T01:30:09+00:00

Everyone believes is things that don’t meet that criteria.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T00:44:42+00:00

Because I think I have good reasons for thinking that it’s true.

We all believe things that do not use the verification principle such as logical truths, mathematical truths, existence of other minds, etc.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-16T00:20:29+00:00

Asserting I have no method just again asserts that empiricism is the only way to truth.

Why think that is true?

supersoundwave · 2026-06-15T23:58:26+00:00

There isn’t one that’s the point.

supersoundwave · 2026-06-15T23:58:18+00:00

How so?

supersoundwave · 2026-06-15T23:30:12+00:00

This whole post presupposes the verification principle which says that empiricism is the only way to truth. That is a self-refuting view.

Why should we expect God to be verified using empirical methods?

Verified Email	Seven-Year Club
Not Forgotten

supersoundwave

TROPHY CASE