[quote]orion wrote:<<<How would that be possible with our concept of causality?[/quote]NOTHING is possible except in GOD’S concept of it, including causality. I’m on your guy’s side with the traditional logical “proofs”. I believe they are almost worse than useless to modern educated people. I say again. The traditional “proofs” establish the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no god in particular which is brushing shoulders with idolatry. The God I know and love is not interested in seeing his saints championing the possible existence of other gods. He commands that we be CERTAIN of His existence alone.
[/quote]
Does that not make you wonder sometimes whether or not he is a tiny bit insecure?[/quote] =] He commands light and matter to exist from nothing. He upholds the continued existence of both every millisecond by Word of His power. He fills both time and space, yet as their creator is subject to neither. He decrees from all eternity the exact number and activity of every particle of His mind numbingly (to us) vast cosmos. He is blindingly holy, spotlessly pure and flawlessly just, yet His lovingkindness is from everlasting, He IS love and His mercy endures forever.
YOU (and I)are His. Every breath you take is in His hands to do with as He alone pleases. I assure you. Of all that He is, “insecure” is not in any way included.
[quote]pat wrote:
Actually it does a rather good job. You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong. [/quote]
Not how it works, patty cakes. YOU make the claim, so YOU prove it right.
Should be easy for you, right? If it’s such a supportable claim then shower me with evidence, evidence NOT being a philosophical argument that uses god magic to create something from nothing. That’s faith based reasoning, and it’s shit.
[/quote]
Wow! You really, really don’t understand the argument, at all. I am thinking now you really don’t even know what it is, but your damn sure it’s wrong… he he.
It is both a claim and logic all wrapped up in one convenient bundle. I really find it irritating when I have to educate my counter parts on their own counter arguments.
Here is link. It’s short, it talks about the various forms of the argument and some counter arrangement’s you can even borrow. It’s my standard go to when I am dealing with somebody who doesn’t understand the argument.
It’s not perfect, but it gives you a pretty good general idea of what it actually is, not what you think it could sorta might be because somebody said so. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Uh yeah you do, there is an argument for it’s existence on the table. You have no choice but to deal with it and try and prove it wrong, or admit defeat which I seriously doubt you have the humility to do.
See, burden of proof shifts when an argument is made. I need to prove my point, so I present the argument that does so. Saying “Bullshit!” is not a counter argument.
Well see, there, your making a claim that’s counter to the claim I made. I have a claim that God exists, one of my proofs is the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. This argument has never been proven wrong and many, many really smart people have tried. So, you now have to climb this mountain.
God exists because the cosmological argument from contingency logically illustrates ,using deductive logic, that a Necessary Being is at the root of existence. The Necessary Being, must have some God like properties to be what it is, since you cannot have God-like properties with out God, God exists.
This is not what people think God is, or some mystical hocus pocus, it’s just a simple reality that has to be dealt with. Again ‘Bullshit!’ is not a counter argument, saying thing about it that are true like ‘God of gaps’ is not a counter argument. There is no point even discussing ‘religion’ with out establishing the existence of God.
Without God, they are all bullshit, every one. If God does exist, they may still all be bullshit, or some may be right and some wrong, or all are a little right, or a little wrong, etc. This discussion though is utterly meaningless with out dealing with God’s existence first.
Like I said, you need to learn it. You haven’t poke any holes in it because you haven’t even remotely reported anything accurate about it at all, not even a little bit. So in other words, you don’t know it, but you’re damn sure it’s wrong because somebody once upon a time said it was without actually dealing with the argument.
And I have other arguments, but if you don’t even understand this one, you’ll never ever get the others. I pick this one because it is the simplest of all.
Evidence you say? Evidence is in existence itself. Existence didn’t happen for no reason, by nothing at all, from nowhere, because of nothing. That’s much more absurd if you ask me.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
Here is a better one, which is not really appreciated by many.
What he claims is that everything has a cause.
Yet, if you think about it, a causal relationship requires both time and space.
[/quote]
No it does not. It requires neither. Metaphysical objects are also cause and there is no time or space there. The only thing a causal relationship requires is a cause and an effect, nothing more. Further it doesn’t matter in what order.
[quote]
However, spacetime as we know it is a function of our universe.
Yet he claims that the universe itself has been caused by something or someone.
How would that be possible with our concept of causality?
edited[/quote]
Universe, multi-verse, succession of universes, the universe being a illusion, etc. None of that matters.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Actually, if they are predestined to go to heaven (and if God is consistent), then they won’t and can’t “go full retard”.
They are be predestined to live a christian life, too.
There’s no “half grace”. [/quote]
Are you sure you don’t want to switch sides? You can still have sex.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
Here is a better one, which is not really appreciated by many.
What he claims is that everything has a cause.
Yet, if you think about it, a causal relationship requires both time and space.
[/quote]
No it does not. It requires neither. Metaphysical objects are also cause and there is no time or space there. The only thing a causal relationship requires is a cause and an effect, nothing more. Further it doesn’t matter in what order.
[quote]
However, spacetime as we know it is a function of our universe.
Yet he claims that the universe itself has been caused by something or someone.
How would that be possible with our concept of causality?
edited[/quote]
Universe, multi-verse, succession of universes, the universe being a illusion, etc. None of that matters. [/quote]
Yes it does, because causality means that A causes B, meaning that B happens after A because A happened.
If there is neither before nor after, causality goes out of the window.
It is a concept that is strictly limited to this universe, which is why it is unsuited to discuss any questions regarding to what went on “before” a universe.
There was no before in any traditional sense of course.
Causality is a category of thinking, a necessary requirement of our minds without which we could not reason at all, but that is at best a good argument for how well adapted we are to this universe and not a failsafe way to acquire cosmic truths.
You mistake “I could not think any other way” for “it could not be any other way”.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
Here is a better one, which is not really appreciated by many.
What he claims is that everything has a cause.
Yet, if you think about it, a causal relationship requires both time and space.
[/quote]
No it does not. It requires neither. Metaphysical objects are also cause and there is no time or space there. The only thing a causal relationship requires is a cause and an effect, nothing more. Further it doesn’t matter in what order.
No the only thing that is required, is the A causes B, nothing more. It doesn’t have to happen in temporal succession.
[quote]
If there is neither before nor after, causality goes out of the window.
It is a concept that is strictly limited to this universe, which is why it is unsuited to discuss any questions regarding to what went on “before” a universe.
There was no before in any traditional sense of course.
Causality is a category of thinking, a necessary requirement of our minds without which we could not reason at all, but that is at best a good argument for how well adapted we are to this universe and not a failsafe way to acquire cosmic truths.
You mistake “I could not think any other way” for “it could not be any other way”.
That is hubris.[/quote]
This is armature hour apparently.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
Here is a better one, which is not really appreciated by many.
What he claims is that everything has a cause.
Yet, if you think about it, a causal relationship requires both time and space.
[/quote]
No it does not. It requires neither. Metaphysical objects are also cause and there is no time or space there. The only thing a causal relationship requires is a cause and an effect, nothing more. Further it doesn’t matter in what order.
No the only thing that is required, is the A causes B, nothing more. It doesn’t have to happen in temporal succession.
[quote]
If there is neither before nor after, causality goes out of the window.
It is a concept that is strictly limited to this universe, which is why it is unsuited to discuss any questions regarding to what went on “before” a universe.
There was no before in any traditional sense of course.
Causality is a category of thinking, a necessary requirement of our minds without which we could not reason at all, but that is at best a good argument for how well adapted we are to this universe and not a failsafe way to acquire cosmic truths.
You mistake “I could not think any other way” for “it could not be any other way”.
That is hubris.[/quote]
This is armature hour apparently.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Pretty sure that it is after anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard it the first time.
Oh, wait, He hath always been there.
Yeah, right.[/quote]
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence heard something that wasn’t being argued?[/quote]
Anyone, and I mean anyone, that hears something like “anything has a cause expect for the uncaused cause that I will now postulate” (which is the point of the whole argument) and is not immediately skeptical should stick to the practical arts, like pulling lint out of his belly button.
And no BC, this is not a strawman, I fully understand the whole point and its bullshit.
[/quote]
Wow, I have been posting in the other religion thread and we are having this exact same argument. I do not know all the fancy philosophical terms like you and Pat do, but I have come to the same conclusions as you just based off of thinking it through.
[/quote]
Here is a better one, which is not really appreciated by many.
What he claims is that everything has a cause.
Yet, if you think about it, a causal relationship requires both time and space.
[/quote]
No it does not. It requires neither. Metaphysical objects are also cause and there is no time or space there. The only thing a causal relationship requires is a cause and an effect, nothing more. Further it doesn’t matter in what order.
No the only thing that is required, is the A causes B, nothing more. It doesn’t have to happen in temporal succession.
If B is dependent on A, totally or in part then A is a defacto cause of B.
[quote]orion wrote:
By the way, that could mean that the universe caused God.
Bummer. [/quote]
No, it’s not reverse causation, backwards there’s a difference.
Reverse causation is not possible by definition. Effects are results and causes are reasons or acts, if you reverse that, then the role of the effect has switch to a cause and therefore the role reverse, but the cause and effect relationship is still unidirectional.
[quote]orion wrote:
By the way, that could mean that the universe caused God.
Bummer. [/quote]
No, it’s not reverse causation, backwards there’s a difference.
Reverse causation is not possible by definition. Effects are results and causes are reasons or acts, if you reverse that, then the role of the effect has switch to a cause and therefore the role reverse, but the cause and effect relationship is still unidirectional.[/quote]
What is reverse and backwards though? You already said time does not matter so what are you basing this on?
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
Pat, you know better than this. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That is a fact. “If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right” is false. Technically, if something is not wrong, it’s right, but you have to prove it so and not base your argument on my inability to prove the contrary. Otherwise, still, blue monkeys created the world. You cannot deny this when I use an argument from ignorance.
You must prove your argument true. Truly, aside from playing devil’s advocate, I am not asserting that God is nonexistant. I am stating a FACT that it is not clear. Your choice to hold faith in a supernatural being is respectable, but don’t force the issue into binary logic where it will surely fail.
Your entire argument is built on the fallacy I have just quoted. There is nothing solid about your argument other than the fact you keep saying “IT MUST BE!”
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
Pat, you know better than this. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That is a fact. “If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right” is false. Technically, if something is not wrong, it’s right, but you have to prove it so and not base your argument on my inability to prove the contrary. Otherwise, still, blue monkeys created the world. You cannot deny this when I use an argument from ignorance.
You must prove your argument true. Truly, aside from playing devil’s advocate, I am not asserting that God is nonexistant. I am stating a FACT that it is not clear. Your choice to hold faith in a supernatural being is respectable, but don’t force the issue into binary logic where it will surely fail.
Your entire argument is built on the fallacy I have just quoted. There is nothing solid about your argument other than the fact you keep saying “IT MUST BE!”[/quote]
His argument may not be as faulty as it sounds, depending on what his definition of this “God” thing is.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Pat, I won’t quote everything you said, but you say “You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong.”
Absolutely false. You must prove something right for it to be right. Otherwise, my argument that Blue Monkeys are the creators are the universe is equally valid as yours.[/quote]
Well, OBVIOUSLY God’s existence debunks your hypothesis. How could blue monkeys have created the universe when God did? It’s all in the bible… WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EVEN READ! There, not you have to prove me wrong, or else I’m right! ;)[/quote]
Oh brother. It’s not that you have to prove me wrong. If you want to argument to be wrong, then you have to prove it wrong, because if it’s not wrong, then it’s right. The point isn’t that the argument hasn’t been proven wrong yet, it’s that it’s so solid, it cannot be.
The premises are correct the conclusion they lead to are correct, it’s really that simple.[/quote]
I didn’t read any of the conversation you were having before this, but I sincerely doubt your argument was flawless.
[quote]pat wrote:
You want proof? Go ahead, take the argument, list it out correctly, then show me this third option. Prove your case.
[/quote]
This here shows you have an argument from ignorance. Since neither us can posit a 3rd option there can’t be none. No pat, you cannot prove to an absolute certainty there isn’t a 3rd option, I am just not ruling it out as a possibility.
On top of that you keep beating this drum that “something from nothing” is illogical or goes against common sense.
Well I have news for you, a lot of science goes against what we would perceive as logical or common sense.
For instance you and I can only be one place at a time. Seems illogical for anything to be more than one place at a time right? Well electrons for instance CAN be in more than one place at a time.
There are some things our brains aren’t equipped to intuitively understand.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< This here shows you have an argument from ignorance. Since neither us can posit a 3rd option >>>[/quote]This is called “faith” and EVERYBODY’S entire intellectual life is built squarely upon it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Actually it does a rather good job. You have to prove it wrong for it to be wrong. [/quote]
Not how it works, patty cakes. YOU make the claim, so YOU prove it right.
Should be easy for you, right? If it’s such a supportable claim then shower me with evidence, evidence NOT being a philosophical argument that uses god magic to create something from nothing. That’s faith based reasoning, and it’s shit.
[/quote]
Wow! You really, really don’t understand the argument, at all. I am thinking now you really don’t even know what it is, but your damn sure it’s wrong… he he.
It is both a claim and logic all wrapped up in one convenient bundle. I really find it irritating when I have to educate my counter parts on their own counter arguments.
Here is link. It’s short, it talks about the various forms of the argument and some counter arrangement’s you can even borrow. It’s my standard go to when I am dealing with somebody who doesn’t understand the argument.
It’s not perfect, but it gives you a pretty good general idea of what it actually is, not what you think it could sorta might be because somebody said so. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/[/quote]
Yea, you’ve posted that link before, and I’ve read it before. You still can’t get past the fact that for the argument to work, you have to invoke “god” to terminate the regression, a god that you want to also endow with supernatural capabilities.
You want so bad for this to be irrefutable, rock solid hard evidence, but unfortunately for you it falls short. It’s still a philosophical argument trying to support a preconceived idea. I understand the argument just fine, and I’ve read the incredible spin off of it that believers love so much, and it always comes back to the same problem; the unwarranted assumption that your god must’ve been at the helm of it all.
But since we’re into throwing up links, I’ll post some as well. Please actually read them.
“The third premise of the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Even if we accept the causal rule, the truthfulness of the Big Bang theory, the impossibility of an actual infinite, Craig’s definition of causation, and his insistence that this sort of causation applies to the universe as a whole, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe.”
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Here’s the difference between you and I; while neither of us know with a certainty how the universe was created, I’m not willing to fill in the gaps with “god did it”.
I’m comfortable with the fact that there’s ZERO evidence for any sort of a deity. Not one shred. I’m also comfortable with the fact that there’s brilliant scientists out there who aren’t willing to just fill in the gaps with “god did it”, and are trying to figure the whole thing out.[/quote]
Oh goody, you want to tell me the difference between you and I. You don’t know me therefore you aren’t qualified to make this determination.
This is not a “God of gaps” argument. If you understood the argument, then you’d know that. If you think it’s a God of gaps argument, show me where. Don’t give me your ignorant ad hominems, come on with it. Prove me wrong.
Oooooooo brilliant scientists! Now I am scared. Wow, really? This is your counter claim and appeal to Authority?
And if you are comfortable with ignorance, than why are you here? If you are going to have these discussions, you have to deal with the issue of God’s existence. If you are comfortable not knowing, then you don’t need to be here. This is about proving your case, which you have failed miserably thus far.
Your arguments are as follows. I read some books and some really smart people don’t think God exists, therefore neither do I.
Hardly compelling but what ever floats your boat. I have actually heard better arguments by the flat earth society. Who actually make a really good case for their claims.[/quote]
Again, I don’t have to prove you wrong; prove yourself right first. But of course, you can’t. Sorry about this, patty cakes, but there is ZERO evidence for the existence of any diety.
Zero.
None.
Doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Uh yeah you do, there is an argument for it’s existence on the table. You have no choice but to deal with it and try and prove it wrong, or admit defeat which I seriously doubt you have the humility to do.
See, burden of proof shifts when an argument is made. I need to prove my point, so I present the argument that does so. Saying “Bullshit!” is not a counter argument.[/quote]
And yes, I have read some books written by some really smart people, and yes they did in fact help in shaping me. They got me asking the right questions; questions that had no answers. They had me examining the evidence, of which there is none. They had me looking at religion with a critical, skeptical perspective, and it became obvious that religions and their gods are man made, not the other way around. With zero evidence to support the existence of any deity, I came to the conclusion that “god” does not exist.
“God” was created in mans image, not the other way around.[/quote]
Well see, there, your making a claim that’s counter to the claim I made. I have a claim that God exists, one of my proofs is the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. This argument has never been proven wrong and many, many really smart people have tried. So, you now have to climb this mountain.
God exists because the cosmological argument from contingency logically illustrates ,using deductive logic, that a Necessary Being is at the root of existence. The Necessary Being, must have some God like properties to be what it is, since you cannot have God-like properties with out God, God exists.
This is not what people think God is, or some mystical hocus pocus, it’s just a simple reality that has to be dealt with. Again ‘Bullshit!’ is not a counter argument, saying thing about it that are true like ‘God of gaps’ is not a counter argument. There is no point even discussing ‘religion’ with out establishing the existence of God.
Without God, they are all bullshit, every one. If God does exist, they may still all be bullshit, or some may be right and some wrong, or all are a little right, or a little wrong, etc. This discussion though is utterly meaningless with out dealing with God’s existence first.
[/quote]
Never been proven wrong? LOL…that’s false, even if you choose not to accept it. At best, at it’s very best, all the cosmological argument does for you is make a case for first cause, a first cause which need not be supernatural. You say that something cannot be created out of nothing, but then what created god? LOL…now I know you’ve heard that argument before, but it needs to be addressed without resorting to the supernatural (aka…“god magic”).
How could god have created the universe out of nothing, if nothing existed previously? God magic? So creating something out of nothing IS possible, as long as you’re a super rad god with god magic?
LOL…you beleivers are a hoot.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Science improves our lives and helps to explain our universe. Science doesn’t settle for “god did it”.
Do us all a favor, and just show us your evidence for the christian god, or any deity for that matter. After that, I’ll apologize and get to praying. Until then, have fun with your god magic stories.[/quote]
Science didn’t ask the question or test it. Apparently you don’t know much about science either. So tell me, when was the “God Experiment” conducted?
Further it’s a ridiculousness notion, science just measures things. It infers causal relationships. It’s an empirical philosophy that draws conclusions based on observation and is considered correct on the basis of correlations. Highly correlated events are thought to be true, poorly correlated events are false.
My proof is based on the cosmological argument from the point of contingency and you may want to learn it, if you really want to have this conversation. I don’t care if you do or don’t, but you saying stupid shit about it that isn’t true doesn’t help you in the least at proving your case.[/quote]
Again, show me all of your evidence for god’s existence. Go on, get to it, it should be easy for you. Your cosmological argument relies on a god, using god magic, to create something out of nothing. That’s a fail, and it seems to be all you have.
Evidence or STFU
But even if I was to look past all of the holes on the cosmological argument, and we agreed that it does in fact prove the existence of a deity (LOL), it would do NOTHING to support the existence of your christian god, and all of his peculiar personality traits, which happen to also be the personality traits of mankind at large. Coincidence? I think not.
Gods are always made in MAN’S image, yours is no different.[/quote]
Like I said, you need to learn it. You haven’t poke any holes in it because you haven’t even remotely reported anything accurate about it at all, not even a little bit. So in other words, you don’t know it, but you’re damn sure it’s wrong because somebody once upon a time said it was without actually dealing with the argument.
And I have other arguments, but if you don’t even understand this one, you’ll never ever get the others. I pick this one because it is the simplest of all.
Evidence you say? Evidence is in existence itself. Existence didn’t happen for no reason, by nothing at all, from nowhere, because of nothing. That’s much more absurd if you ask me.[/quote]
You’re argument is getting holes knocked through it all over these forums, not just between you and I. You have to prove how the cosmological argument proves the existence of a personal god with any of the qualities normally attributed to it by the faithful. You have to prove how, even if there was a "first cause, how that first cause was supernatural and not natural. You have to prove how god created something out of nothing (GOD MAGIC!! LOL)
You’re cosmological argument falls flat, patty cakes. It’s a fallacy IMHO, because it completely relies on the idea that god came before and is capable of anything (nothing in nature acts that way). Now, the ontological argument is interesting to me because, in actuality, it’s (partially) right. God does exist, but only in the minds of his fan club. He does not exist in reality.
But on to a serious question that I’d like to ask of you; how do you square black holes in all of this? You say that something can’t come from nothing, but isn’t this how a black hole behaves?
