[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Two reasons, first. Nothing cannot do anything because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist. So the logic is flawed. Second, it forces existence itself to be the besis of it’s own existence. That’s circular and therefore impossible. Third, God, or the Necessary Being, or Uncaused-cause, by definition cannot have been created. The whole ‘What created God?’ question is illegitimate because said Being could not have been brought in to existence.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
That is correct. If God were created, that which create Him would be God. You have to look at the argument like a math problem. And just like a math problem, everything on the other side of the equal sign, or in this case the ‘therefore’ is the inverse of the that which is on the left.
It’s true, by definition, which is absolute.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
Hey Pat good to see you again. I have read the bible most likely more times than you and in more languages. As well, I have done lengthy studies of its verses. You miss my points by great margins because of your myopic view that is programmed and dictated by the directors in charge of your mind leading your religion. I wish you well and to keep hoping something you will never have. The worms will eat your flesh along with the bacteria, etc. and your essence will return to the never ending cycle of earth and universe and so on. Your statements about me have no credence and you have no knowledge of my pedigree. Bless you and I hope you fulfill your insecure life by attempting to disillusion only yourself with your misgivings.
I’ve had fun reading everyone’s comments and now I will return to living and working and being successful. Hope you all have a great time beating each other up with no outcome besides reassuring yourself that you are correct.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know if you’ve read it or not, but your expressions are of someone who does not have demonstrative knowledge of the book.
And your right about one thing, one day we will all find out who was right. If I am wrong, it’s no loss. But I know I am not wrong.
I can use logic and such to prove things, but I cannot convey my personal experience that gives me this certainty.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
If the non-contingent Being is not God, there is no God. There cannot be 2, only one that meets the cosmological criteria. Of course, the religious knowledge of God being the Non-contingent Being is an inference, but both hold the same claimed properties and only one thing can have those properties.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
Everything but an uncaused cause has to come from something.
But this uncaused cause doesn’t “come from nothing”.
It is, but it doesn’t “come from”, at all, since it’s uncaused.
or non-contingent.
or necessary.
[/quote]
I see, this must be that irrefutable “logic” Pat is talking about. Nothing can come from nothing, except God of course. Got it.
[/quote]
Clearly you don’t understand the argument. The stop gap to the argument necessarily begets that said Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. It is irrefutable. It’s necessary and true by definition. Go ahead, try to prove it wrong… Go nuts. People have been trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries.[/quote]
Oh, I understand the argument. I just think it’s bullshit.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
In non circular speak, there is no difference. You are saying everything BUT God had to come from something.[/quote]
Everything but an uncaused cause has to come from something.
But this uncaused cause doesn’t “come from nothing”.
It is, but it doesn’t “come from”, at all, since it’s uncaused.
or non-contingent.
or necessary.
[/quote]
I see, this must be that irrefutable “logic” Pat is talking about. Nothing can come from nothing, except God of course. Got it.
[/quote]
Clearly you don’t understand the argument. The stop gap to the argument necessarily begets that said Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. It is irrefutable. It’s necessary and true by definition. Go ahead, try to prove it wrong… Go nuts. People have been trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries.[/quote]
Oh, I understand the argument. I just think it’s bullshit.[/quote]
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
If the non-contingent Being is not God, there is no God. There cannot be 2, only one that meets the cosmological criteria. Of course, the religious knowledge of God being the Non-contingent Being is an inference, but both hold the same claimed properties and only one thing can have those properties.[/quote]
It’s not only an inference, it’s a very bold one.
Granted, you can safely say that the non-contingent being is omnipotent. It caused everything, after all.
But you can’t derive the other characteristics of God (omniscience, omnibenevolence, personhood, trinity) from the concept of a non-contingent being.
So, when you make the inference “the non-contingent being is God” you simply add all these characteristics into the concept, “for the same price”, so to speak.
Each of these additions should be paid with good, solid, heavy evidences.
Because “extra-ordinary claims etc”
Actually, the expression “a non-contingent being” is slightly misleading.
The cosmological argument proves the necessary existence of a non-contingent thing.
Saying that this thing is a being already suggest that it has some kind of life, consciousness or personhood, which is suggesting too much.
…Saying that this thing is a being already suggest that it has some kind of life,
consciousness or personhood, which is suggesting too much. [/quote]
So suggesting “little” is the ticket, huh?[/quote]
Not really.
Logic tells us that there is a non-contingent thing.
Nothing less, but nothing more.
We should all agree, at this point.
After that point, religious people must look elsewhere to prove that this non-contigent thing has all the other characteristics of God.
And atheists must look elsewhere to prove that the existence of such a being is impossible.
Anyway, the cosmological argument is not an “I win” button for the believers.
It’s only useful to make those atheists who know nothing about philosophy embarass themselves.
Which is hardly an impressive achievement.
Anyway, the cosmological argument is not an “I win” button for the believers.
It’s only useful to make those atheists who know nothing about philosophy embarass themselves.
Which is hardly an impressive achievement.
[/quote]
This.
But - regardless whether or not the achievement is impressive, or if it can be considered an achievement at all for that matter - there is an entertainment value to watching ignorant atheists embarrass themselves. I’m sure that the opposite is also true when intelligent, rational atheists can reciprocate.
[quote]kamui wrote:
And atheists must look elsewhere to prove that the existence of such a being is impossible.
[/quote]
We are not the ones claiming to have proof of a god, or a god not existing. There could be one, but there is no evidence of one. Until the religious come with a real proof, all we can say is “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it.”.
[quote]pat wrote:
Clearly you don’t understand the argument. The stop gap to the argument necessarily begets that said Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. It is irrefutable. It’s necessary and true by definition. Go ahead, try to prove it wrong… Go nuts. People have been trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries.[/quote]
Prove the universe itself is not the uncaused element in this equation.
I’ll wait.
P.S. you can’t say “it’s necessary” and not qualify that statement.
[quote]pat wrote:
Clearly you don’t understand the argument. The stop gap to the argument necessarily begets that said Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. It is irrefutable. It’s necessary and true by definition. Go ahead, try to prove it wrong… Go nuts. People have been trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries.[/quote]
Prove the universe itself is not the uncaused element in this equation.
I’ll wait.
P.S. you can’t say “it’s necessary” and not qualify that statement.[/quote]
Are you serious? Mak your smarter than that. The universe, by all scientific evidence was indeed caused. Big Bang theory? Now, if you believe hawking he claims that the universe was brought into existence by the laws of physics, the question then becomes the contigency of the law’s of physics, they don’t exist in a vacuum. The laws of physics has lots of dependencies. The only thing that solves this problem is an Uncaused-cause. Nothing else can because everything else is contingent. The universe cannot be it’s own contingency, because that is circular. The universe cannot be a function of itself. It becomes, it is, because it is. That logic don’t work on any level.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Muslim also use the prime mover as a “proof” of allah. Who is correct?[/quote]
They also put forth the worst version of the cosmological argument known. However, we aren’t talking about religion. Before you have religion, you have to have God. Muslims believe in the same God, they are the after birth of Judaism and Christianity. So naturally they also stole a lot of philosophy.
[quote]gorillavanilla wrote:
I don’t watch Bill Maher’s show but I do love John Stewart’s show as well Colbert’s show. Maybe the christians on here are not vilifying atheists, I don’t know, but the condemning of every other religion by each religion is rampant in much more than threads like this. The pain is felt economically, by exclusion, by tacit bigotry, etc. The outdated model of religion which is nothing more than the evolution of past beliefs we call mythology(another condescension), will die. The new ideals will link into the common group think and most people will say it is the truth and anyone who disagrees will be anathema.
Look at the way religions are evolving. Women are now accepted as priests and reverends, homosexuals are included in the beliefs, single parents are allowed, all races can be included, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Anyone with any liturgical historical knowledge will know that these things and many more were not allowed 50 or a hundred years ago and more. So, was religion false then and true now. Horse-hockey! The smokescreen will obfuscate the world(group mind) and continue.[/quote]
You don’t understand religion at all. You’re looking at it through a fish-eye lens. I understand atheism very well… What I don’t understand is how anybody who uses logic and seeks wisdom could be an atheist. It’s the most illogical stance of all. It requires you to believe ‘something from nothing’, that is the most illogical, unreasonable stance a person can take. It’s completely indefensible. An atheist who claims they don’t believe that is a lair. Atheism demands it.[/quote]
How is that any different than believing God came from nothing?
[/quote]
Because God is, by definition, a non-contingent being. He doesn’t need a cause.
Strictly speaking, the cosmological argument doesn’t prove that there is a God. It only prove that there is a non-contingent being. which may or may not be God.
[/quote]
If the non-contingent Being is not God, there is no God. There cannot be 2, only one that meets the cosmological criteria. Of course, the religious knowledge of God being the Non-contingent Being is an inference, but both hold the same claimed properties and only one thing can have those properties.[/quote]
It’s not only an inference, it’s a very bold one.
[/quote]
I disagree. It’s only an inference because you have to know some thing about God first to make the connection. It’s not a flying leap though.
Correct, you cannot derive all the qualities of God that we know of based on that argument. But the qualities that the Prime Mover must have to be what it is, is also share by what we know about God through what we call revelation. Now for a Prime Mover to cause and yet not be caused, tells us something about that being. It must have something resembling a ‘will’. It’s illogical for the Uncaused being to randomly cause without willing it to be. What caused the Uncaused-cause to cause? (say that 10 times fast) It had to want to. It had to will it to be.
Once you accept the existence of the Uncaused-cause, then it’s necessary to try and understand it. The argument tells us somethings about the Uncaused-cause. At the very least it should lead one to a deistic understanding. It’s does not posit the said being is actively involved in the creation, post creation. But it also does not eliminate the possibility.
[quote]
Actually, the expression “a non-contingent being” is slightly misleading.
The cosmological argument proves the necessary existence of a non-contingent thing.
Saying that this thing is a being already suggest that it has some kind of life, consciousness or personhood, which is suggesting too much. [/quote]
I think being is more accurate. Mainly because as previously stated, what caused the Uncaused-cause to cause, is something it had ‘decided’. An inanimate object with no cause, cannot cause without something within itself to make that move. It has to be part of that being’s nature to create. Otherwise we start to violate it’s nature. Something outside itself could not have compelled the creative process. It has to be part of it’s nature to do so.
Anyway, the cosmological argument is not an “I win” button for the believers.
It’s only useful to make those atheists who know nothing about philosophy embarass themselves.
Which is hardly an impressive achievement.
[/quote]
This.
But - regardless whether or not the achievement is impressive, or if it can be considered an achievement at all for that matter - there is an entertainment value to watching ignorant atheists embarrass themselves. I’m sure that the opposite is also true when intelligent, rational atheists can reciprocate. [/quote]
But they still lose the argument. I prefer the well thought out rational atheist who has done his homework, like Kamui. The discussion is more reasonable and both sides benefit from the knowledge of the other. I do think the atheist should do his homework to make good and rational arguments rather than embarrass themselves with willful ignorance.
Honestly, I think the horsemen for atheists, Hitchens and Dawkins in particular have done more harm than good to the average atheist. Their arguments are emotive not rational. Their counter claims are based on things that theists do not believe and do not actually argue. It makes the atheist feel good for a moment, but when met with real challenge, their arguments fall to pieces.
If you are going to be atheist, at least be intelligent about it and make good counter claims.
Far to often the claims of the atheist is “you cannot prove a negative”, which is false, you can. Second, that the theist should make their claims first. The second is correct, we theists have to make an argument, but what they fail to recognize far to often is that the arguments have been made, now they have to disprove it and so far, they have not come close.
[quote]pat wrote:
Correct, you cannot derive all the qualities of God that we know of based on that argument. But the qualities that the Prime Mover must have to be what it is, is also share by what we know about God through what we call revelation. Now for a Prime Mover to cause and yet not be caused, tells us something about that being. It must have something resembling a ‘will’. It’s illogical for the Uncaused being to randomly cause without willing it to be. What caused the Uncaused-cause to cause? (say that 10 times fast) It had to want to. It had to will it to be.
[/quote]
Are you mixing gods and logic now? I thought logic was off limits when discussing religion.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think being is more accurate. Mainly because as previously stated, what caused the Uncaused-cause to cause, is something it had ‘decided’. An inanimate object with no cause, cannot cause without something within itself to make that move. It has to be part of that being’s nature to create. Otherwise we start to violate it’s nature. Something outside itself could not have compelled the creative process. It has to be part of it’s nature to do so. [/quote]
Still, it doesn’t prove the middle eastern god. It is just a theory of how the universe was caused, and as we can only observe the universe caused, all else is guessing.
[quote]kamui wrote:
And atheists must look elsewhere to prove that the existence of such a being is impossible.
[/quote]
We are not the ones claiming to have proof of a god, or a god not existing. There could be one, but there is no evidence of one. Until the religious come with a real proof, all we can say is “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it.”.[/quote]
Case-in-point. The arguments exist, you have to prove them wrong. Nobody has claimed that you have to prove something with no claim to exist, does not exist. But the claims of it’s existence already exist. So since they exist, you have to prove them wrong, or accept that you are wrong. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of God. Some are really bad, some are plain, flat irrefutable. I don’t particularly care for design arguments. Based on the universe itself a 1 in an billion chance is actually a pretty high probability. But the cosmological arguments, particularly based on contingency are irrefutable. I like the ontological argument as well, but it takes a very good understanding of metaphysics to have that discussion. Quite frankly, very few people know metaphysics well enough to discuss ontology. Kamui again, being the exception. He is the smartest and most honest atheist I have ever known. You other atheist should look to him for understanding. He is not motivated by emotion, but pure reason and a desire for truth.
Most atheists simply argue against religion. That won’t get you very far. Maybe all religion is flawed, maybe it’s all wrong, but that has no bearing on God’s existence. You have to have God first, then you can talk religion. Without God, all religion is worthless and stupid.