Has Anyone Noticed Neopolitan's "Craig's Top Errors"?

[Lion IRC]

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

No. It's not a misconception.
It's stock standard biblical theology that God is the maximally greatest Being above Whom there is no other.
If there was a 'mega-God' even higher than Jehovah/Yahweh guess who Rostos and me would be worshipping?

[neopolitan]

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

No. It's not a misconception.
It's stock standard biblical theology that God is the maximally greatest Being above Whom there is no other.
If there was a 'mega-God' even higher than Jehovah/Yahweh guess who Rostos and me would be worshipping?

Clearly not the god of grammar.  It's "Rostos and I".  You've placed the two people Rostos and LionIRC in the subject position meaning that you should use the subject pronoun "I" rather than the object pronoun "me".

You're probably confused because if you were to ask "Who would be worshipping the mega-god?" your rhetorical answer could be "Rostos and me" - unless you made it into a sentence stem in which case it would be "Rostos and I would (be)".

You do realise that atheists don't take the bible as authoritative, don't you?

---

Meesa gonna has to be such carefuls with the grammars then.  Thems is well tricksy.

[neopolitan]

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

Interesting argument, could you unpack it a little?

Honestly, I don't do debate.  Be my guest.

I didn't want to tromp over you by unpacking your argument.  Thanks for your permission to do so.

If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that we could posit an "ultimate supreme being" USB that is infinitely powerful, knowledgeable and so on.

That USB could conceivably create a being that was minimally capable of creating the universe (ie not able to do anything else than is necessary to produce us and everything around us).

Similarly, the USB could conceivably create a being that was minimally capable of being able to create the being that was minimally capable of creating the universe.

And so on down an infinite chain of slightly greater beings.

Each of these beings (with the possible exception of the USB), as you point out, would have a beginning.  Since this isn't conceptually impossible, then it is not conceptually impossible for the god of LionIRC and Rostos to have had a beginning.  It'd be no more than dogma that their god was beginningless (or timeless or eternal).

Similarly, if the USB is so powerful, etc etc, then it would be entirely possible for that USB to snuff out any of these beings at any point.  (For example, it could notice the hissy fit leading to Noah's flood and think "I'm going to have to decommission that sub-god, it's playing up again".)  Therefore, it's entirely possible that there was a god of LionIRC and Rostos, that even did the whole short-order universe creation thing, had the Eden arrangement, flooded the Earth because people were being naughty and was smited by its superior (a "mega-god" as you put it).  Then a more senior, but deistically inclined god came along, fixed the universe to make it more natural - precisely like the universe wasn't created at all, but rather developed over billions of years - and buggered off.

This would even explain the Moses encounter, given the Dunning-Kruger effect (I'm the best god, don't listen to the rest).

But even if we consider a more vanilla version of this scenario, what you have is an effectively infinite divide between the ultimately responsible creator god and the local creator god.  This unpacking, or infinite expansion of gods effectively makes the concept incoherent, I agree.  But what theist might not be able to argue convincingly is why, once they have posited an infinitely powerful (etc) god, this scenario is impossible - they trigger the scenario, even if it was us (as atheists) who noticed it.

The idea that LionIRC (and possibly Rostos, but I don't know that LionIRC can talk for Rostos) would turn his back on his creator and worship instead some hugely distant being that probably doesn't care is bizarre and, I would have thought, insulting.  It'd be like some schmuck on the production line being given a raise by his line manager and then kneeling down and prostrating himself before the altar of Donald Drumpf, because the Old Double D happens to be his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss' boss.

[Philip Rand]

Meesa gonna has to be such carefuls with the grammars then.  Thems is well tricksy.

Freudian slip... neopolitan... interesting...you speak like Gollum.. very interesting...

[Lion IRC]

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

No. It's not a misconception.
It's stock standard biblical theology that God is the maximally greatest Being above Whom there is no other.
If there was a 'mega-God' even higher than Jehovah/Yahweh guess who Rostos and me would be worshipping?

Clearly not the god of grammar.  It's "Rostos and I".  You've placed the two people Rostos and LionIRC in the subject position meaning that you should use the subject pronoun "I" rather than the object pronoun "me".

You're probably confused because if you were to ask "Who would be worshipping the mega-god?" your rhetorical answer could be "Rostos and me" - unless you made it into a sentence stem in which case it would be "Rostos and I would (be)".

You do realise that atheists don't take the bible as authoritative, don't you?

---

Meesa gonna has to be such carefuls with the grammars then.  Thems is well tricksy.

You and me are going have a problem if you try and get all in my face with that grammar-nazi stuff.

And if you don't want to provisionally grant something as true hypothetically - for the sake of an argument about metaphysics, what on earth are you doing here are RF quibbling about the color of the Kings new clothes?

[neopolitan]

Freudian slips are, by definition, unintentional.  Did that look unintentional to you?

It's more Jar Jar Binks than Gollum.  I don't think that Jar Jar used "tricksy" but I wanted a word that was wrong but instantly recognisable as meaning "tricky", so I borrowed Gollum's precious "tricksy".

[neopolitan]

You and me are going have a problem if you try and get all in my face with that grammar-nazi stuff.

You and I might.  But at least you saw the humour in it, unlike our precious little friend Philip Rand.  I think we're good.

And if you don't want to provisionally grant something as true hypothetically - for the sake of an argument about metaphysics, what on earth are you doing here are RF quibbling about the color of the Kings new clothes?

I provisionally grant stuff to theists all the time.  However else would I lure them into my traps?

What specifically are you talking about?  Do you mean the bible?  It's far too late to take that as hypothetically true, it's got far too many plot holes to take seriously.  You'll have to prove the existence of your god without relying on biblical authority.  Sorry about that.

[Lion IRC]

If you promise not to post any quibbling about the nature of God until I prove to you that He exists
then we have a deal.

[Philip Rand]

“Yes, perhaps, yes' said Gollum. 'Sméagol always helps, if they asks - if they asks nicely.'
''Right!' says Sam. 'I does ask. And if that isn't nice enough, I begs.”

[neopolitan]

If you promise not to post any quibbling about the nature of God until I prove to you that He exists
then we have a deal.

I might quibble about the definition of "quibbling", but otherwise, fine, we have a deal ... on the basis that your proof does not rely, at all, on any equivocal claim related to a purported nature of your god.  For the purposes of the discussion, you will have to make concrete your conception of your god's nature (or, more simply, just not rely on claims with respect to that nature).

I'll even ignore that you used "He" rather than "it", which would be more appropriate for a being that is immaterial and, therefore, cannot have testicles or ovaries.  I can't say fairer than that.

[Philip Rand]

Don't believe him Lion!

He said it himself... he's tricksy...

[neopolitan]

Don't believe him Lion!

He said it himself... he's tricksy...

Another misrepresentation.  I'm getting tired of these.

Meesa gonna has to be such carefuls with the grammars then.  Thems is well tricksy.

In other words, grammar is tricksy.

I did mention something about traps, but just ignore that.  I'd never lead you into a trap.  Or lie.

[Lion IRC]

If you promise not to post any quibbling about the nature of God until I prove to you that He exists
then we have a deal.

I might quibble about the definition of "quibbling", but otherwise, fine, we have a deal ... on the basis that your proof does not rely, at all, on any equivocal claim related to a purported nature of your god.  For the purposes of the discussion, you will have to make concrete your conception of your god's nature (or, more simply, just not rely on claims with respect to that nature).

I'll even ignore that you used "He" rather than "it", which would be more appropriate for a being that is immaterial and, therefore, cannot have testicles or ovaries.  I can't say fairer than that.

Logged.
Now, no more from you about the nature of God
...including speculation about His gender.

[Pathos]

This is the one and only warning for those participating in this thread. Keep your posts respectful.

Regards,

Pathos.

[neopolitan]

If you promise not to post any quibbling about the nature of God until I prove to you that He exists
then we have a deal.

I might quibble about the definition of "quibbling", but otherwise, fine, we have a deal ... on the basis that your proof does not rely, at all, on any equivocal claim related to a purported nature of your god.  For the purposes of the discussion, you will have to make concrete your conception of your god's nature (or, more simply, just not rely on claims with respect to that nature).

I'll even ignore that you used "He" rather than "it", which would be more appropriate for a being that is immaterial and, therefore, cannot have testicles or ovaries.  I can't say fairer than that.

Logged.

Um, okay?  Should I applaud or something.  This seems rather petty on your part.

Now, no more from you about the nature of God
...including speculation about His gender.

It's not speculation.  There is no reason to believe that your god is male.  It never claims to be male, so you are merely making an assumption.  If you are Pathos, then you need to tell me, as Pathos, that specuation about your god's gender is not accepted.  Otherwise you can point to the rule that I am breaking.  If there is one, I am not aware of it.  If there is no rule, which seems to be the case given that I search the rules and guidelines and found no mention of the word "gender", then as a fellow member of the forum you need to know that you cannot lay down the rules arbitrarily (I doubt that you could do so as a moderator either).

I find your imperiousness offensive and inappropriate.  Can we get on with the proper discussion and leave such nastiness behind?