[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
If God Exists, Why Doesn’t He Throw Us, Like, A Really Fucking Sweet Party?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/if-god-exists-why-doesnt-he-throw-us-like-a-really,35674/[/quote]
Sounds like Valhall 
Fight all day, drink all night. We do that at some training camps.[/quote]
Training camps? Are you berserkers gearing up for another round of conquest?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The thing about a creator, who knows if there was one? Maybe there was just stuff? Or maybe there were multiple creators who just were for eternity? Maybe there were multiple successive ones? Maybe there is a creator line who are mortal like us, just making things and passing on how to maintain them? Maybe the creator died?
We don’t, and at this point cant know about any of this or the countless possibilities out there. I consider them all in the same category of possibility, which seem to be infinite and possibly not conceived.
[/quote]
That’s what the 5 arguments for God’s existence are for, to establish just that. Those arguments address all your above questions.
And if those are your questions, they are worth investigating and they are worth putting through their paces. If you really want to know, then you will give them the look they deserve.
We are not living in a time of ignorance, we live in a time where all these age old questions have been mulled over for centuries and answers do exist. Clearly some are better than others, but none have been refuted. That doesn’t mean objections haven’t been brought up, it just means that those objections either don’t stick, or they themselves require more proof to be valid.
This is logically impossible. If there is a creator, there can only be one.
[quote]
It just seems stupid to discount the magnitude of possibilities. If they all seem dumb they are like chances at the lottery, they all have some minute probability of being true, and not all have even been conceived… How do you discount that? You really can’t… Which is more the point I was trying to make. [/quote]
They haven’t been discounted, they have been addressed. It’s fine to have the questions, but it’s also incumbent that you find the answers because this has been dealt with. There’s not a subject that has been written about more, there is no shortage of resources… [/quote]
So, you are bent on there being only one God, no polytheism. No Remus and Romulus?
So certain are you? [/quote]
I don’t take issue with your belief in God. I take issue with your belief that you can prove God’s existence deductively.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The thing about a creator, who knows if there was one? Maybe there was just stuff? Or maybe there were multiple creators who just were for eternity? Maybe there were multiple successive ones? Maybe there is a creator line who are mortal like us, just making things and passing on how to maintain them? Maybe the creator died?
We don’t, and at this point cant know about any of this or the countless possibilities out there. I consider them all in the same category of possibility, which seem to be infinite and possibly not conceived.
[/quote]
That’s what the 5 arguments for God’s existence are for, to establish just that. Those arguments address all your above questions.
And if those are your questions, they are worth investigating and they are worth putting through their paces. If you really want to know, then you will give them the look they deserve.
We are not living in a time of ignorance, we live in a time where all these age old questions have been mulled over for centuries and answers do exist. Clearly some are better than others, but none have been refuted. That doesn’t mean objections haven’t been brought up, it just means that those objections either don’t stick, or they themselves require more proof to be valid.
This is logically impossible. If there is a creator, there can only be one.
[quote]
It just seems stupid to discount the magnitude of possibilities. If they all seem dumb they are like chances at the lottery, they all have some minute probability of being true, and not all have even been conceived… How do you discount that? You really can’t… Which is more the point I was trying to make. [/quote]
They haven’t been discounted, they have been addressed. It’s fine to have the questions, but it’s also incumbent that you find the answers because this has been dealt with. There’s not a subject that has been written about more, there is no shortage of resources… [/quote]
So, you are bent on there being only one God, no polytheism. No Remus and Romulus?
So certain are you? [/quote]
I cannot disprove the existence of other deities nor prove them. The existence of the Creator or a Creator can be and has been proven via logic in the context of the 5 arguments. The arguments deduce that there is one and can only be one Creator. So if there are other deities they are of lesser nature and more akin the magicians as they aren’t necessary agents and they need not exist, for existence to be.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The thing about a creator, who knows if there was one? Maybe there was just stuff? Or maybe there were multiple creators who just were for eternity? Maybe there were multiple successive ones? Maybe there is a creator line who are mortal like us, just making things and passing on how to maintain them? Maybe the creator died?
We don’t, and at this point cant know about any of this or the countless possibilities out there. I consider them all in the same category of possibility, which seem to be infinite and possibly not conceived.
[/quote]
That’s what the 5 arguments for God’s existence are for, to establish just that. Those arguments address all your above questions.
And if those are your questions, they are worth investigating and they are worth putting through their paces. If you really want to know, then you will give them the look they deserve.
We are not living in a time of ignorance, we live in a time where all these age old questions have been mulled over for centuries and answers do exist. Clearly some are better than others, but none have been refuted. That doesn’t mean objections haven’t been brought up, it just means that those objections either don’t stick, or they themselves require more proof to be valid.
This is logically impossible. If there is a creator, there can only be one.
[quote]
It just seems stupid to discount the magnitude of possibilities. If they all seem dumb they are like chances at the lottery, they all have some minute probability of being true, and not all have even been conceived… How do you discount that? You really can’t… Which is more the point I was trying to make. [/quote]
They haven’t been discounted, they have been addressed. It’s fine to have the questions, but it’s also incumbent that you find the answers because this has been dealt with. There’s not a subject that has been written about more, there is no shortage of resources… [/quote]
So, you are bent on there being only one God, no polytheism. No Remus and Romulus?
So certain are you? [/quote]
I don’t take issue with your belief in God. I take issue with your belief that you can prove God’s existence deductively. [/quote]
I didn’t create the arguments. The arguments that exist employ deductive logic. So if you take issue with the arguments, you don’t have me to blame.
There might be a prime mover, but there is no evidence for it having much to do with humanity after the big bang.
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No. [/quote]
Thought so. Proof of god got out of hand.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No. [/quote]
Thought so. Proof of god got out of hand.[/quote]
And yet we always arrive at a point where we cannot prove nor disprove and then you see ludicrous lines thrown at agnostics like pick a side. Odd how everyone is always trying to convince the unconvinced. I may turn into a full fledged atheist one day and I may turn into a believer again. I cannot predict the future. I would be highly shocked to find that the undeniable proof anyone was looking for was hiding behind an anon. forum users words on a bodybuilding website 
However…the fight continues to preach and not preach on for all eternity! Or at least until we die or log off.
Sorry for the absence, gemtlemen, but the norovirus plague of 2014 has been tearing through my household. Terrible thing this strain, fucking terrible. One could almost classify it as biblical. LOL
There’s great conversations going on here; I’ll be back to participating as soon as I can.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sorry for the absence, gemtlemen, but the norovirus plague of 2014 has been tearing through my household. Terrible thing this strain, fucking terrible. One could almost classify it as biblical. LOL
There’s great conversations going on here; I’ll be back to participating as soon as I can.[/quote]
Hope you get to feeling better.
If it starts raining frogs guard your first born!
[quote]espenl wrote:
There might be a prime mover, but there is no evidence for it having much to do with humanity after the big bang.[/quote]
They are not designed to do that. They only establish existence.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
If there are premises you take issue with your welcome to bring them up and address. You can’t just say you don’t believe them and that be sufficient.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No. [/quote]
SMH and I were not talking about proof of God. We were discussing an argument regarding contingent entities, period. Had nothing to do with God. Can you tell the difference?
Discussing a particular specific argument about contingent entities does not equal God. Especially since God is non-contingent. If you want to try to prove them wrong. Pick one, and we can discuss it. That is, if you can keep your ad hominems at bay and talk about them like a man.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No. [/quote]
Thought so. Proof of god got out of hand.[/quote]
Again, we weren’t discussing God. An argument for the contingency of things. Big difference.
We were not discussing the arguments for God’s existence. I would suggest however, if you want to discuss it, then start another thread and not hi-jack this one. If you want to discuss the arguments, I’ll be happy to. But we shouldn’t derail Bigflamer’s thread.
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
The best argument from God imo is the argument from fine tuning, which is a form of argument from design. But, it’s quickly shot down when you imagine life other than how we experience it. Simply imagining life on a sun, as something like a lithivore/ something that lives in lava etc. seem to run that argument into the mud.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sorry for the absence, gemtlemen, but the norovirus plague of 2014 has been tearing through my household. Terrible thing this strain, fucking terrible. One could almost classify it as biblical. LOL
There’s great conversations going on here; I’ll be back to participating as soon as I can.[/quote]
I am sorry man, I had that tear through my house a few weeks ago. It SUCKS… The norovirus won’t kill you, but you wish it would. I’d take the flu any day.
When you’re finally sick of gatorade, then you’re better.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
[/quote]
By whom and since when? Give me the great counter argument that ‘put it to rest’…
[quote]
The best argument from God imo is the argument from fine tuning, which is a form of argument from design. But, it’s quickly shot down when you imagine life other than how we experience it. Simply imagining life on a sun, as something like a lithivore/ something that lives in lava etc. seem to run that argument into the mud. [/quote]
Fine tuning isn’t bad, but you have to really understand what it’s trying to establish to get it. But then thee atheist will counter with a infinite multiverse and then you are back to Aquinas’s argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
[/quote]
By whom and since when? Give me the great counter argument that ‘put it to rest’…
[quote]
The best argument from God imo is the argument from fine tuning, which is a form of argument from design. But, it’s quickly shot down when you imagine life other than how we experience it. Simply imagining life on a sun, as something like a lithivore/ something that lives in lava etc. seem to run that argument into the mud. [/quote]
Fine tuning isn’t bad, but you have to really understand what it’s trying to establish to get it. But then thee atheist will counter with a infinite multiverse and then you are back to Aquinas’s argument.[/quote]
It can be multiverse, another argument comes from pre-value… Recognizing that we assign a particular value to the way things are and not realizing it’s just as likely things did turn out different, and those ways would have been just as unique. It’s like pre-valuing a winning lottery ticket in hindsight and not seeing the possibility of another ticket having the winning number.
The Aquinas arguments have been beaten to death. Simply google, “refuting Aquinas’ five ways.” You should get pages and pages of valid refutations published online by students, writers, professors, etc.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]
smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.
No. No. No. [/quote]
SMH and I were not talking about proof of God. We were discussing an argument regarding contingent entities, period. Had nothing to do with God. Can you tell the difference?
Discussing a particular specific argument about contingent entities does not equal God. Especially since God is non-contingent. If you want to try to prove them wrong. Pick one, and we can discuss it. That is, if you can keep your ad hominems at bay and talk about them like a man.[/quote]
SMH and yourself have talked of god many times. Do I really need to show all the posts and threads to prove you wrong with your own words? Of course not. Though you feeling like I was talking about you it quite telling as is your plea to stop ad hom attacks (of which I haven’t done) by questioning my manhood.
I knew there was a reason I was posting on this forum less. Same circular nonsense and juvenile discussion tactics.
Perhaps the “man” thing to do would be to stop coming to the conclusion everyone is talking about you? That sounds like paranoia.