Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 12:52:18 PM

Look at it like this. The secular argument is that the big bang was the first event that set everything else in motion. But how logical is that? How could there be a first event? Believers in God make the same fallacy; how could God create Himself? And so, we give a definition to God that can explain how this could be. We don't know what God really is, but we know something of His nature must exist.

Seems like a very diffuse God of the Gaps argument. However, it doesn't work as a justification for theism (in case you're trying that), only deism.

Nonetheless, not knowing what first caused the Big Bang is no justification for attributing agency to it. You can call whatever that cause was "God", but that's so diluted of meaning as to be synonymous with anything you want to make it.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

He must exist.

But he doesn't HAVE TO exist

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

If I didn't make it clear enough before, I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.

Why's that?

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:31:19 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:28:59 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

He must exist.

But he doesn't HAVE TO exist

Something that set in the first movement;

Yes, it's called nature.

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:34:48 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:31:19 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:28:59 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

He must exist.

But he doesn't HAVE TO exist

Something that set in the first movement;

Yes, it's called nature.

Call Him what you want.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.

Only if you dilute the meaning of the word 'god' to the point that it could be anything. By that line of thought I could call the universe itself God, or even call myself the god of my personal perspective.

However God, especially when capitalized, has a very specific connotation with the vast majority of English speakers; an entity that created the universe, is in some way conscious, and has moral authority. You can assign whatever arbitrary personal definition you wish, but you can't go and assume everyone else uses that definition instead of the standard one I just gave. Language doesn't work like that.

So in short; this whole deal is an Semantic dispute, quite easily the most pointless of disputes. I see now what it is you're trying to say and can see the logic in it, but you completely fail to grasp that as a human construction language is not infallible and that you can't just declare you're own special idea of what a word means as being truer than the common meaning. You may think the word 'god' can be whatever you wish since you don't know what it actually is, but you must realize that the majority do think they know what it is and that is where the common meaning comes from.

So no, "under God" is not a secular term since almost everyone except you thinks "God" refers to a supernatural entity, and ultimately the meaning of a word is dependent on what the majority agrees too not whatever vague ideas individuals attribute to it. That's just how language works.

And like Vincent said, we already have words like "universe" or "nature," however nice you may think it is to consider those synonyms for the word "God," it's totally unnecessary and only generates confusion.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:40:34 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:38:48 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:36:46 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:34:48 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:31:19 PM

Quote from: Vincent Adultman on October 11, 2014, 01:28:59 PM

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM

He must exist.

But he doesn't HAVE TO exist

Something that set in the first movement;

Yes, it's called nature.

Call Him what you want.

him? no. It's not a being.

You don't know that.

I do. There isn't a single reason to think a supernatual being did anything. If you know something I don't, you should really share it with the world. Collect your Nobel prize or something.

For the Universe to exist as it if today, you would require something quite supernatural.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 01:44:07 PM

Something can't come from nothing.

While I take issue with that statement, you're still presenting a false dichotomy between nothingness or an unalterable, infallible, supernatural agency.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you, though, Dustin.

You mean Le Dustin from Bungie? I thought he was banned here?

His power. He is supernatural.

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 02:18:02 PM

His power. He is supernatural.

Now I'm confused. You kept saying you don't know what God is and that you only defined him as being whatever force cause the first motion, yet you then keep referring to it as "Him" and say he has power, as if to suggest you think he still exists and that creation was some kind of conscious decision.

Which is it?

Quote from: Craig Rock on October 11, 2014, 03:29:17 PM

It must have taken the supernatural for our universe to exist as it is. We know God must exist in order for everything else to exist. Something cannot come from nothing, not naturally anyway.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep calling God "him" if you don't know what it is?

Don't mean to sound like a bitch but the Bible, Torah and Quran are not historical texts.

Back in ancient times people believed the world was flat, didn't make it true.