Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)

The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.

Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?

Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.

You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]

Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.

At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.

On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)

So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.

[/quote]

Your blanket statement involving your “us” (science) against their “them” (religion) betrays the silliness of everything you are saying.

It is not the job of religions to “prove” anything. Indeed, my particular religion has no problem leaving the issues of science to the scientists. You won’t find me arguing against the world being billions of years old, or that the present species inhabiting Earth today do appear to have evolved somehow or another from prior creatures.

There are other religions who possess certain beliefs which may or may not be in opposition to the conclusions of scientific thought. However, there is no bogeyman called “Religion,” who is the Lex Luthor to science’s Superman.

Religion is about one’s relationship with God. It is essentially metaphysical.
Science is about figuring out the physical and how it works. Neither is necessarily incompatible, but it is not “religion’s” job to figure out how we got here. Just as it is not science’s job to figure out why.

To conflate the two and act as if you are making some sort of fair comparison is nothing more than a straw man. If you disagree with something, then pick something specific. And if you say “God,” then you had better be careful, as you have already admitted that your “scientific” knowledge of His existence (or not) is just as faith based as any street-corner preacher.
[/quote]

missed the point but oh well-

far be it from me or you to tell anyone how to live their lives, but I think it’s a tragedy that so many people live their lives in complete absence of wanting to know the truth about our existence. In my opinion, you’re either lazy like the atkins video was saying or are just happy to live your life without wanting to know. If its not religions or sciences job to find out how we were created, who’s job is it? It would seem you dont care about knowing the truth, as long as you can uphold your current belief system…immature comes to mind.

religion might be about your relationship with “god” but if you look at it from an outside perspective (that there isn’t a god) you’re borderline insane…

also, WE ARE PHYSICAL, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS PHYSICAL - therefore for no other reason should it be clearer it is up to science alone to find out how we began, religion just shouldnt have a say… i mean for fucks sake the bible is just a book written a gazillion years ago by, no disrespect, idiots(comparatively)…

782

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???

Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.

One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …

Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.

[/quote]

I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.

Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)

???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.

You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.

I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…

On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[/quote]

Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.

That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]

You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.

[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.[/quote]

Because of their obvious bias. Just the same, i would say atheist or any group of people for that matter should be the last people to condemn anyone, hence “an independent body”…

783

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.

Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]

Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]

What religion though, when making a conclusion (even without proper premises), one should not use abritrary words.[/quote]

You know full well that there is no irrefutable evidence against the existence of a god. (hence your confidence in telling people to prove it) - But if you’re worth half your weight in the amount of times you posted here, youll know the same can be said for your side of the argument. However, YOU are the one making accusations that there is a magic man who can create universes, so the responsibility lies on you to prove it. (why would i follow a religion that has no evidence to support it, (unless i had been brainwashed into it by my parents at a young age))[/quote]

Yes, I understand that there is an assumption that needs to be assumed. Thomas Aquinas referred to it as faith.

Please, if you will, let’s not use ad hominems and appeal to emotion because I am tired of listening to them and am ready to start ignoring people. God is not magic, Catholics are not superstitious. God is not man, he is being. Plus you show your age with comments like “magic man.” And, God isn’t on stage in Vegas seven nights a week.

If we are being completely rational I suppose that with the two arguments (although I have never heard of a good argument for God not existing, usually it is to complex for a person to explain it to me without having to pick up a book to read out of) that an agnostic would be most rational. That there is no proof of God, there for I can neither say he is real or not real.

However, I present the questions:

Is it more rational to think something came from nothing, or that there was an uncreated creator who formed universe?

From my short study in cosmology, mathematically speaking it is impossible for the universe to happen by chance.

Being in the Catholic Church, no I don’t. It doesn’t scare me, it is actually pretty cool. I offer you a challenge, five pieces of science that goes against the Catholic Church.

No, I do not get the idea, sorry I am being difficult. I just am not good with inferences. Guess that is why my woman get’s upset at me so much.

Not really, I am not Catholic by chance. There is a specific reasons why I am Catholic. And, I think .333 of the world that follows the same religion is not a coincidence. I live in a heavy populated Protestant and Mormon area. Matters what part of town you are in if you will deal with the Mormons or if you’ll deal with the Protestants.

Fill my boots, I’m not sure what this means. And, I didn’t know this was an opinion thing, I thought we brought logic and fact to the table. Oh well.[/quote]

Assume and you make an ass out of you not me :stuck_out_tongue: - I dont really know what to reply we seem to be getting off topic.

And i cant believe you said something about my age? and then went on to say “I thought we brought logic and fact to the table”.

I shall search for some good points to discuss my friend

784

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)

The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.

Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?

Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.

You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]

Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.

At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.

On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)

So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.

[/quote]

Your blanket statement involving your “us” (science) against their “them” (religion) betrays the silliness of everything you are saying.

It is not the job of religions to “prove” anything. Indeed, my particular religion has no problem leaving the issues of science to the scientists. You won’t find me arguing against the world being billions of years old, or that the present species inhabiting Earth today do appear to have evolved somehow or another from prior creatures.

There are other religions who possess certain beliefs which may or may not be in opposition to the conclusions of scientific thought. However, there is no bogeyman called “Religion,” who is the Lex Luthor to science’s Superman.

Religion is about one’s relationship with God. It is essentially metaphysical.
Science is about figuring out the physical and how it works. Neither is necessarily incompatible, but it is not “religion’s” job to figure out how we got here. Just as it is not science’s job to figure out why.

To conflate the two and act as if you are making some sort of fair comparison is nothing more than a straw man. If you disagree with something, then pick something specific. And if you say “God,” then you had better be careful, as you have already admitted that your “scientific” knowledge of His existence (or not) is just as faith based as any street-corner preacher.
[/quote]

missed the point but oh well-

far be it from me or you to tell anyone how to live their lives, but I think it’s a tragedy that so many people live their lives in complete absence of wanting to know the truth about our existence. In my opinion, you’re either lazy like the atkins video was saying or are just happy to live your life without wanting to know. If its not religions or sciences job to find out how we were created, who’s job is it? It would seem you dont care about knowing the truth, as long as you can uphold your current belief system…immature comes to mind.

religion might be about your relationship with “god” but if you look at it from an outside perspective (that there isn’t a god) you’re borderline insane…

also, WE ARE PHYSICAL, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS PHYSICAL - therefore for no other reason should it be clearer it is up to science alone to find out how we began, religion just shouldnt have a say… i mean for fucks sake the bible is just a book written a gazillion years ago by, no disrespect, idiots(comparatively)…[/quote]

Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.

Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.

I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.

785

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

786

756×373 42.1 KB

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?

787

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

  1. that doesn’t answer my question.
    where is the logical contradiction here ?

  2. you’re adding nothingness into the equation
    and this is quite incompatible with most catholic readings of Genesis.

(the Christian) God doesn’t exist from nothing, but by its own power and nature.
ie : he is (fully) cause of Himself : it’s the very definition of His omnipotence.

see the distinction between essentia and substantia by Augustine. or Origene’s theology.

uncreated / outside of Time =/= uncaused

788

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
At the moment, I trying to figure out a working definition of the word and concept of morality and whether or not I believe in it so I’m really not sure at the moment. I’ll get back to you (it may take a while).[/quote]

Unless you can do this without using words, you’re going to experience the problem I talked about earlier.

789

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
evolutionary construct[/quote]

Likely not.[/quote]

Is this because you don’t believe macro-evolution can happen or another reason?

790

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.

[/quote]

It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]

Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.

And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.

[/quote]

So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?

If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]

I do not concede that.

One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.

That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.

[/quote]

Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.

Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.

People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.[/quote]

Oh I know that you can do that, but that does not make it valid just because a lot of people actually did.

Just because human beings are somehow wired to search for causality does not mean that is necessarily exists in any specific circumstance or at all for that matter.

Also, if you can postulate an uncaused cause, I can simply postulate an eternal universe.

Pretty much has the same explanatory power, without the need to drag something into it that blows up your whole argument.

Why is there only one uncaused cause?

Why not many?

They could pop up all the time, which would pretty much ruin causality as we know it.

edit: Plus, I cannot refute something that is completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

I could make up tons of stuff you could not refute, which would not really make them true.

791

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.

Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.

I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.

[/quote]

SORRY MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” - but I think the miscommunication is probably more likely due to this form of medium being unable to convey the message ie tone etc etc

I think I addressed some of the issues you wrote about so maybe we should both re-read it?

The only thing I didnt talk about was the fact you dont want to compare religion and science but I think that is at the core of what we are talking about.

792

To those who state why isn’t the universe the uncaused, the universe is not the first cause because one of the properties of the first cause is that its eternal, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Pat’s argument is not that everything has a cause but that as one follows the casual chain it cannot have an infinite regress and the logical conclusion is you start with a first cause. Why not more than 1 uncaused cause? Occum’s razor say not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Hey krsoneeeee you going to respond to my reply on page 30?

793

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
To those who state why isn’t the universe the uncaused, the universe is not the first cause because one of the properties of the first cause is that its eternal, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Pat’s argument is not that everything has a cause but that as one follows the casual chain it cannot have an infinite regress and the logical conclusion is you start with a first cause. Why not more than 1 uncaused cause? Occum’s razor say not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Hey krsoneeeee you going to respond to my reply on page 30?[/quote]

Because time is linear.

794

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???

Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.

One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …

Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.

[/quote]

I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.

Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)

???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.

You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.

I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…

On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[/quote]

Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.

That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]

You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.

[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.[/quote]

Because of their obvious bias. Just the same, i would say atheist or any group of people for that matter should be the last people to condemn anyone, hence “an independent body”…
[/quote]

Isn’t that ad hominem abuse? What does it matter that the Catholic Church is religious when it comes to the legitimacy of their condemnation?

795

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.

Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]

Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]

What religion though, when making a conclusion (even without proper premises), one should not use abritrary words.[/quote]

You know full well that there is no irrefutable evidence against the existence of a god. (hence your confidence in telling people to prove it) - But if you’re worth half your weight in the amount of times you posted here, youll know the same can be said for your side of the argument. However, YOU are the one making accusations that there is a magic man who can create universes, so the responsibility lies on you to prove it. (why would i follow a religion that has no evidence to support it, (unless i had been brainwashed into it by my parents at a young age))[/quote]

Yes, I understand that there is an assumption that needs to be assumed. Thomas Aquinas referred to it as faith.

Please, if you will, let’s not use ad hominems and appeal to emotion because I am tired of listening to them and am ready to start ignoring people. God is not magic, Catholics are not superstitious. God is not man, he is being. Plus you show your age with comments like “magic man.” And, God isn’t on stage in Vegas seven nights a week.

If we are being completely rational I suppose that with the two arguments (although I have never heard of a good argument for God not existing, usually it is to complex for a person to explain it to me without having to pick up a book to read out of) that an agnostic would be most rational. That there is no proof of God, there for I can neither say he is real or not real.

However, I present the questions:

Is it more rational to think something came from nothing, or that there was an uncreated creator who formed universe?

From my short study in cosmology, mathematically speaking it is impossible for the universe to happen by chance.

Being in the Catholic Church, no I don’t. It doesn’t scare me, it is actually pretty cool. I offer you a challenge, five pieces of science that goes against the Catholic Church.

No, I do not get the idea, sorry I am being difficult. I just am not good with inferences. Guess that is why my woman get’s upset at me so much.

Not really, I am not Catholic by chance. There is a specific reasons why I am Catholic. And, I think .333 of the world that follows the same religion is not a coincidence. I live in a heavy populated Protestant and Mormon area. Matters what part of town you are in if you will deal with the Mormons or if you’ll deal with the Protestants.

Fill my boots, I’m not sure what this means. And, I didn’t know this was an opinion thing, I thought we brought logic and fact to the table. Oh well.[/quote]

Assume and you make an ass out of you not me :stuck_out_tongue: - I dont really know what to reply we seem to be getting off topic.

And i cant believe you said something about my age? and then went on to say “I thought we brought logic and fact to the table”.

I shall search for some good points to discuss my friend

[/quote]

Show your age = figure of speech.

796

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.

797

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]

Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.

798

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

  1. that doesn’t answer my question.
    where is the logical contradiction here ?
    [/quote]

If something is not of being, then it does not have the ability to cause. Therefore, it cannot cause itself into being, since in the first instance the something is not of being, and lacks of the ability to cause and not allowing of the second instance of something to be.

I am not adding nothingness into the equation. Where did I add nothingness into the equation. Everything came from God (which has always been), that which is the uncaused first cause, which nothing came before since God is always.

God is not caused. Sorry, you should pick up T. Aquinas and some other Catholic doctors if you think that is what the Church teaches. God is the First Cause, which is uncaused.

[quote]
see the distinction between essentia and substantia by Augustine. or Origene’s theology.

uncreated / outside of Time =/= uncaused[/quote]

God is not caused, he is uncaused, this is truth. To argue otherwise is inapplicable, I can spit out defenses all day. I have, I’m an RCIA assistant at a college.

God did not cause himself to exist. He always existed, so nothing caused him to exist, he did (or as He said, “I am.”), therefore he is uncaused.

799

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Either you cannot read, you don’t want to, or you are just responding without having done so.

Please re-read what I wrote and respond to what I actually said, not some imaginary dialog that you want to hear me saying.

I’m one post away from abandoning this argument if you continue to refuse to respond in good faith.
[/quote]

SORRY MR “IM FUCKING AWESOME” - but I think the miscommunication is probably more likely due to this form of medium being unable to convey the message ie tone etc etc

I think I addressed some of the issues you wrote about so maybe we should both re-read it?

The only thing I didnt talk about was the fact you dont want to compare religion and science but I think that is at the core of what we are talking about.
[/quote]

See Cortes, already getting angry responses.

800

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
To those who state why isn’t the universe the uncaused, the universe is not the first cause because one of the properties of the first cause is that its eternal, the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Pat’s argument is not that everything has a cause but that as one follows the casual chain it cannot have an infinite regress and the logical conclusion is you start with a first cause. Why not more than 1 uncaused cause? Occum’s razor say not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Hey krsoneeeee you going to respond to my reply on page 30?[/quote]

Because time is linear.[/quote]

4th dimension, yo?