Bill Maher Gets a Little Edgy..

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]
Well that’s a factor of your own self imposed ignorance then. Truth is truth whether it comes from a Holy Book or nature, or philosophy doesn’t matter. That which is true in religion is true outside of it. Logic is just as necessary as faith. One has to seek for truth, in or out of religion and one has to be honest about the journey.
Taking pot shots at religion actually doesn’t help your cause. If anything it fulfills biblical prophecy.

[quote]

[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]

There is no ‘Chistian God’ or ‘Muslim God’ or ‘Hindu God’, there is just God. Relgion is a means by which one interacts with God. Maybe some are better than others, maybe not. Maybe they are all wrong. That does not disprove God’s existence. It just proves man is fallible, something we already know. God comes first, then religion.

402

[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]

The argument of something causing the universe doesn’t really phase an agnostic atheist. The argument is against religion because that is humanitys youths attempts at explaining observable phenomenon they couldnt explain with logic, like Thor the god of thunder. There is no evidence of a god interfering with the observable universe after it was caused. Claiming something that is not neither provable or disprovable is not the same as an evidence.

403

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]

Strictly speaking the proposition “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it” is not an atheistic proposition.

This is an agnostic one.

Atheism is the “strong” position that “there is no God”.
Consequence : Atheists have to prove that the very concept of the existence God is logically impossible.

Atheists should also acknowledge that their own position is an ontological and metaphysical one. Therefore any atheistic argument based on the refutation of the field of metaphysics itself is doomed to contradict itself.

404

Agreed. Strict atheism is claiming something not proveable just like the religious are doing. I don’t know if this board has any strict atheists, most seem to be agnostic atheists.

405

[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.[/quote]

The only thing we can say about the uncaused-caue is “It has to be part of thing’s nature to cause”. Not “to create”.
the word “create” is equally as misleading as the word “being”.
And both terms works together to allow this deistic understanding of the argument : as soon as the thing becomes a being and causation becomes creation, you already have your demiurge.

A thing need some kind of power to cause. What the Greek called an Entelechy. But no will is needed.
I stand by what i said. You can derive omnipotence from the cosmological argument. But nothing else.

406

[quote]espenl wrote:
Agreed. Strict atheism is claiming something not proveable just like the religious are doing. I don’t know if this board has any strict atheists, most seem to be agnostic atheists.[/quote]

I’m probably the “stricter” atheist of the band.
My main argument is that the concept of a transcendent God is inherently unintelligible.

But this is not a “true” refutation of the concept of the existence of God.
The consequence of this argument is that God could very well exist, but only as an absolute mystery.

Some christian mystics don’t believe otherwise, actually.
See pseudo-dyonisus the Aeropagite and the “via negativa” for example.

407

[quote]Karado wrote:
Anyone who digs a little deeper and learns the origins and similarities is aware.
Islam’s roots are in “Baal” Worship…most Christians don’t know that 'cause they don’t
read their Bibles…Yes, Islam WAS warned about in scripture, it just wasn’t called “Islam” back then.

Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.

[/quote]

Obviously you don’t read the British press where one Liberal pundit make a (tortured, IMHO) argument that Islam was really repackaged Christianity and concluded that all the fundamentalism and mayhem are caused by this. He could, within his PC worldview finally get to his main point which is it would be just fine to oppress them because they are, in the finally analysis, just really bad Christians – and that is the only truly evil religion and should not be tolerated in any capacity…

blink blink

– jj

408

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
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.[/quote]

The argument of something causing the universe doesn’t really phase an agnostic atheist. The argument is against religion because that is humanitys youths attempts at explaining observable phenomenon they couldnt explain with logic, like Thor the god of thunder. There is no evidence of a god interfering with the observable universe after it was caused. Claiming something that is not neither provable or disprovable is not the same as an evidence.[/quote]

Did you take time to think about this before you wrote it? It makes no sense what so ever. If the argument doesn’t phase the average atheist, it’s because they don’t actually understand what the argument is saying. There is no way in hell you can draw the conclusions about the observable universe, nor the admonitions about religion from that argument. It’s a complete and total non sequitur.
Look, I have no problem completely destroying your claims. For instance, show me where in the argument, it argues against religion? Seriously, that was just sad.
Thor of thunder? You’ve obviously been reading to much Hitchens or Dawkins. Niether made valid claims about the argument. The argument argues from the point of existence, the abosoluteness that that existence is contingent and the absoluteness that the only thing that can stop a circular reasoning (a.k.a. infinite regress) is a non-contingent existence. If you read all that shit from the argument, you have draw way to many conclusions from points it does not make.
Don’t base your reasoning on fiction, I will destroy it joyfully along with the arrogance that so often accompanies it.

409

[quote]kamui wrote:

Okay, you got me on terminology. Correct, the Uncaused-cause, has only need to cause. It still requires that something about it has that ability and it does not stand to reason that it can cause for no reason. So something resembling a will is necessary for it to make that first step. However, being uncaused, nothing outside itself can compel this causation. It must be a property of the Uncaused-cause inherently.

410

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Agreed. Strict atheism is claiming something not proveable just like the religious are doing. I don’t know if this board has any strict atheists, most seem to be agnostic atheists.[/quote]

I’m probably the “stricter” atheist of the band.
My main argument is that the concept of a transcendent God is inherently unintelligible.

But this is not a “true” refutation of the concept of the existence of God.
The consequence of this argument is that God could very well exist, but only as an absolute mystery.

Some christian mystics don’t believe otherwise, actually.
See pseudo-dyonisus the Aeropagite and the “via negativa” for example.

[/quote]

At this point,we don’t need to argue transcendence. Just existence. If said, Non-contingent entity can initiate cause, there is no reason why it cannot transcend it’s resulting effects. The thing about the Uncaused-cause that does not stand to reason is that it caused and expired, or is incapable of doing more. By definition, it’s necessarily eternal. It could not expire because that would be caused, and it by definition is not subject to causation.

And yes, you are the stricter brand of atheist. I don’t think your less educated commrads understand the work it takes to be true atheist. Hence, they are far more vulnerable than you.

411

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[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]

You’re making an awful lot of assumptions there.

Yes, we can assume the universe exists in its current state due to a cause (big bang), but I can also state (with the same amount of evidence as you have for your uncaused cause) that it existed in a different form before that. After all, I was born significantly shorter and lighter than I am now.

All you’ve done is invent something out of thin air to explain what we don’t know.

Here’s some clarification for you:

  • The laws of physics are theories. Quite plausible ones, but theories all the same.
  • I think the universe in its current state was caused by aforementioned theories (or for clarity, the principle behind them). I also think that I will likely have to revise that thought in time to suit tangible evidence should it arise.
  • I have no idea what caused the “big bang”.
  • I don’t profess to know, especially on the basis of books written by a wandering tribe of bankers and lawyers who would go on to one day invent Hollywood.
412

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

The underlying principle at work is that if you want to make a claim, you have to be able to prove it.

Otherwise I can make grand assumptions about a teapot that circles between Jupiter and Saturn. Do you have to disprove this assumption, or am I required to prove it?

413

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]

Strictly speaking the proposition “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it” is not an atheistic proposition.

This is an agnostic one. [/quote]

Which makes your post about semantics. You would be hard pressed to find a sizable group of atheists who fit the term as you are putting it forward.

You of all people should know that the root meaning of a word can become irrelevant to its use over time.

414

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]

Strictly speaking the proposition “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it” is not an atheistic proposition.

This is an agnostic one. [/quote]

Which makes your post about semantics. You would be hard pressed to find a sizable group of atheists who fit the term as you are putting it forward.

You of all people should know that the root meaning of a word can become irrelevant to its use over time.[/quote]

Marxists are not a sizeable enough group ?

It’s the official, mandatory philosophy of a third of mankind.

Not only they KNOW that there is no God, but they KNOW why some people believes there is one : Ideology. Superstructure.
They even KNOW that this superstructure has been sentenced to death by the dialectic of History.

This is actually the position of many atheists on this board.
They “KNOW” that God is a stupid and anachronistic idea.
But, being “cultural marxists” rather than true marxists, they do not know how to justify their own belief in “progress”.
They lack a proper formation but they do not lack ambition.
Agnostics do, and it’s not only a semantic distinction.

415

Yes. But these characteristics are directly derived from omnipotence. They still say nothing more.

416

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]

Strictly speaking the proposition “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it” is not an atheistic proposition.

This is an agnostic one.

Atheism is the “strong” position that “there is no God”.
Consequence : Atheists have to prove that the very concept of the existence God is logically impossible.

Atheists should also acknowledge that their own position is an ontological and metaphysical one. Therefore any atheistic argument based on the refutation of the field of metaphysics itself is doomed to contradict itself.

[/quote]
Not even close. The position is that “There is no evidence for god, therefore there is no reason to consider its existence.”

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with atheism claiming that noone knows at this point in time, exactly what was happening at the time of, or immediately before the big bang. Noone does know, and this is a significantly better stand than saying “we know what it was and it was god.”

417

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[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]

You’re making an awful lot of assumptions there.

Yes, we can assume the universe exists in its current state due to a cause (big bang), but I can also state (with the same amount of evidence as you have for your uncaused cause) that it existed in a different form before that. After all, I was born significantly shorter and lighter than I am now.

All you’ve done is invent something out of thin air to explain what we don’t know.

Here’s some clarification for you:

  • The laws of physics are theories. Quite plausible ones, but theories all the same.
  • I think the universe in its current state was caused by aforementioned theories (or for clarity, the principle behind them). I also think that I will likely have to revise that thought in time to suit tangible evidence should it arise.
  • I have no idea what caused the “big bang”.
  • I don’t profess to know, especially on the basis of books written by a wandering tribe of bankers and lawyers who would go on to one day invent Hollywood.[/quote]

You’re stuck in the same kinds of things other atheists get hung up on, positivism. I don’t require the universe to exist. I don’t require anything physical to exist. Physical existence is not provable. All I need is the afore mentioned laws of physics to make my point.
You committed an interesting contraction in your above statement… “The laws of physics are theories”. No, the laws of physics are laws. Based on those laws people create theories, but that does not make the laws, theories. Nevertheless, in either case, the laws of physics, like anything else that exists in the causal change, is a contingent entity. Itself is not a sufficient explanation for it’s existence, hence it is depended. Like any other contingent entity, you must follow the logic to it’s own reasonable conclusion.
Forget about what anybody says, where does the logic take you and what does it demand. The cosmological argument solves the problem elegantly, simply and irrefutably.

418

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

The underlying principle at work is that if you want to make a claim, you have to be able to prove it.

Otherwise I can make grand assumptions about a teapot that circles between Jupiter and Saturn. Do you have to disprove this assumption, or am I required to prove it?[/quote]

I think anybody making a claim, has to prove that claim, be it positive or ‘negative’. Nevertheless, the arguments have been made and sit unrefuted. So to say, ‘the theist must prove his claims’ is an argument from ignorance because the work has already been done. It is then on the atheist to disprove it.

419

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[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]

Strictly speaking the proposition “We don’t know how the universe started, something might have started it” is not an atheistic proposition.

This is an agnostic one.

Atheism is the “strong” position that “there is no God”.
Consequence : Atheists have to prove that the very concept of the existence God is logically impossible.

Atheists should also acknowledge that their own position is an ontological and metaphysical one. Therefore any atheistic argument based on the refutation of the field of metaphysics itself is doomed to contradict itself.

[/quote]
Not even close. The position is that “There is no evidence for god, therefore there is no reason to consider its existence.”

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with atheism claiming that noone knows at this point in time, exactly what was happening at the time of, or immediately before the big bang. Noone does know, and this is a significantly better stand than saying “we know what it was and it was god.”[/quote]

This as I just stated, is an argument from ignorance. First, there is evidence for the existence of God, second, the arguments have been made and have not been refuted. To say, “I have not paid attention, sat with bliders on and made no effort what so ever to see what has been argued and the validity of such arguments.” is not to say that the arguments and evidences don’t exist, it just means you’re lazy and haven’t bother to look.

420

[quote]kamui wrote:

At some point yes, if we are going to argue the existence of revelation and religious claims that God is activly interested in participating in the existence he put in motion. I think transcendence is an easy enough claim to make in that, by definition and Uncaused-cause, would be transcendent. That, however, does not mean that it interacts with the existence which it sprung forth.
Yes, it is a causal principle, but there is something more. Simply, for the Uncaused-cause to be what it is, it must have somethings about it, that are not like the things it caused. Like, being uncaused and hence transcendent. That it’s impetus to cause must be something within itself since it could not be compelled and so on.
What we start to get a picture of, is an entity that shares many of the qualities a God as described from the point of revelation also has.

Yes. But these characteristics are directly derived from omnipotence. They still say nothing more. [/quote]

See above. When you look at the argument, and start to parse out what the argument demands said Uncaused-cause must be, to be what it is and do what it did( or does). We get a more complete picture. It’s not defined in the argument itself, the argument simply states it exists. It requires one to start thinking about what an Uncaused-cause must be, to be what it is.

It does not speak to to wrongness or rightness of any religion, but what these religions profess God to be, at His core, matches the Uncaused-cause.

Just because revelation is not provable in a logical sense does not mean it does not exist or never happened.