[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]
Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]
Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).
Then you have to consider that time must also exist in heaven, because wae have stories that chronical before, during, and after events in heaven (Lucifers fall, etc).
Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.
Forlife, seriously, I dont see why we even bother. The Kalam Cosmological argument is nothing but a red herring.
See, in every way that the existence of God could be proven, it has failed to. God was said to live up in the sky, we went there… no god. God was said to have flooded the entire earth for 40 days. No evidence. God was said to have put a flaming sword blocking a magic tree whos fruit would make you live forever. No evidence.
See, it was easy when “The universe” or “the world” was actually a small scrap of planet earth. It was easy to say “It happened!” when there were no historical records (beyond the ones you felt like making up) and you could kill anyone who said otherwise. It was easy to make claims about things on earth when you didnt have google maps able to look over the whole earth at any time.
Of course the christians just make up cop outs. Dont find god up in the sky? Invisible, omnipresent. No evidence of a worldwide flood? God used god-magic to poof away the evidence. No proof the sun and moon ever stopped so Joshua could win a battle? God used god-magic to make everything go back to normal. No proof of the flaming sword protecting the tree of life? God used god-magic to poof it away.
By the way, isnt the Tower of Babel story about how God was afraid of the power of men because they built a large building, so he scattered them? What kind of omnipotent God is afraid of a bunch of humans? And why, since, has God allowed huge buildings, rocket ships, and the internet (the internet allowing worldwide communication, something a God who gets squirmy over “what humans can do” with buildings wouldnt allow).
So, what the people who think nonsense is true (aka believers) HAVE to do is bring the debate into things we dont yet know. Because every single time the subject is something we can prove, they lose, and have to make up another cop out.
And, I’m sure in a few thousand years, when humanity has a solid explanation for the origin of the universe, they’ll pull another cop out and say “god used god-magic!”
Capped, I agree that no amount of logic or objective evidence will make any difference to people who deeply want to believe in God. When they dismiss logic and evidence in the name of God’s ways being higher than our ways, it allows them to believe anything with sincerity.
Any contradiction, no matter how compelling, is dismissed as only an apparent contradiction, since we are only fallible men who can’t see the big picture.
They recognize these flaws in believers who don’t agree with their particular views, but are incapable of admitting the same flaws in themselves.
The truth is that all of us are subject to very powerful human biases, which insidiously influence our perceptions and beliefs, often beyond our awareness. That is why I am so reluctant to trust any of my conclusions as absolute facts, and instead treat them as working theories.
There’s a lot I don’t know, and honesty compels me to admit my ignorance.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct. >>>[/quote]I proclaim logic as an integral component of the image of God in man, even fallen man. What I “deride” (we’ll use your term) is it’s misuse for ungodly beliefs and purposes as universally and unavoidably practiced in every one of the human race yet dead in trespasses and sins. Repent, believe and live and you too can see.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct. >>>[/quote]I proclaim logic as an integral component of the image of God in man, even fallen man. What I “deride” (we’ll use your term) is it’s misuse for ungodly beliefs and purposes as universally and unavoidably practiced in every one of the human race yet dead in trespasses and sins. Repent, believe and live and you too can see.
[/quote]
You claim God chooses some to save, and some to damn, directly CONTRARY to their will.
You also claim that, mysteriously beyond our comprehension but somehow consistent with logic, God gives us the ability to choose.
You can’t have it both ways. Logically, men either have free will or we don’t. You don’t get to claim people have choice, while in the same breath insisting that God is the one doing the choosing, despite what we actually choose or desire.
When I called you on this, you accused me of worshiping at the altar of rationality, and of using sinful, fallen man logic. Somehow, it all makes sense to God, because His ways are higher than our ways.
Classic example of the powerful, insidious biases I was talking about, where men have the capacity to dismiss all logical contradictions and objective facts in order to rationalize their beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct. >>>[/quote]I proclaim logic as an integral component of the image of God in man, even fallen man. What I “deride” (we’ll use your term) is it’s misuse for ungodly beliefs and purposes as universally and unavoidably practiced in every one of the human race yet dead in trespasses and sins. Repent, believe and live and you too can see.
[/quote]
Nope. You freely admit you start from a conclusion and work from there. That is antithetical to logic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]
Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]
Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).
Then you have to consider that time must also exist in heaven, because wae have stories that chronical before, during, and after events in heaven (Lucifers fall, etc).
Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.[/quote]
Because matter, the universe and the first law of thermodynamics, including the governing law itself is contingent upon other things. You guys think two dimensionally about this stuff.
A beam of light travels at the speed of light if unimpeded. The speed of light is time=0, right? If a beam of light is timeless it is also eternal, but it begins from somewhere. Itâ??s something eternal and has a beginning. If it runs in to something it can end, but if you are in the beam of light, youâ??ll never know it, it just is. Matter is made of stuff and comes from stuff, the laws that govern stuff is also made of stuff and comes from stuff and none of that is material.
Also, you have read that the theories that the laws of thermodynamics may not hold true under the pressure of gravity, i.e. black holes. There are other theories as well, but the destruction of information is one of them and is a possibility and is currently viable.
Further, there is no evidence, not a tiny little shred of empirical evidence that universe and matter are actually infinite. There is no evidence of randomness anywhere in the universe, nor a place or moment of absolute nothingness. Yet, that is what you are trusting, unfulfilled logic with a complete absence of evidence.
You know how all these big brains and academics came up with these theories? Math and reason, both incomplete. The math takes them somewhere, but then they infer what the results mean. They are logical inferences, based on the results of equations.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct. >>>[/quote]I proclaim logic as an integral component of the image of God in man, even fallen man. What I “deride” (we’ll use your term) is it’s misuse for ungodly beliefs and purposes as universally and unavoidably practiced in every one of the human race yet dead in trespasses and sins. Repent, believe and live and you too can see.
[/quote]
No you don’t. You adhere to divine revelation alone. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not logic.
You still cannot even explain logically or illogically why I am going to hell except for there was some bishop 500 years ago gave funds for the Vatican through ill-gotten means. Or I wasn’t chosen to go to heaven.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]
Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]
Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).
Then you have to consider that time must also exist in heaven, because wae have stories that chronical before, during, and after events in heaven (Lucifers fall, etc).
Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.[/quote]
Because matter, the universe and the first law of thermodynamics, including the governing law itself is contingent upon other things. You guys think two dimensionally about this stuff.
A beam of light travels at the speed of light if unimpeded. The speed of light is time=0, right? If a beam of light is timeless it is also eternal, but it begins from somewhere. Itâ??s something eternal and has a beginning. If it runs in to something it can end, but if you are in the beam of light, youâ??ll never know it, it just is. Matter is made of stuff and comes from stuff, the laws that govern stuff is also made of stuff and comes from stuff and none of that is material.
Also, you have read that the theories that the laws of thermodynamics may not hold true under the pressure of gravity, i.e. black holes. There are other theories as well, but the destruction of information is one of them and is a possibility and is currently viable.
Further, there is no evidence, not a tiny little shred of empirical evidence that universe and matter are actually infinite. There is no evidence of randomness anywhere in the universe, nor a place or moment of absolute nothingness. Yet, that is what you are trusting, unfulfilled logic with a complete absence of evidence.
You know how all these big brains and academics came up with these theories? Math and reason, both incomplete. The math takes them somewhere, but then they infer what the results mean. They are logical inferences, based on the results of equations.
[/quote]
So your point is scientists dont yet know. So what? You’re making the same argument from ignorance. “We dont know, therefore God.” “Nothing else seems to make sense, therefore god.”
Ok. We dont know yet because our tools are insufficient to figure it out. We can either say its impossible magic (God) or build better tools. You just want to give up and say “Well, its too hard a problem, lets posit an impossible being as responsible for this impossible thing.”
[quote]forlife wrote:
Capped, I agree that no amount of logic or objective evidence will make any difference to people who deeply want to believe in God. When they dismiss logic and evidence in the name of God’s ways being higher than our ways, it allows them to believe anything with sincerity.
Any contradiction, no matter how compelling, is dismissed as only an apparent contradiction, since we are only fallible men who can’t see the big picture.
They recognize these flaws in believers who don’t agree with their particular views, but are incapable of admitting the same flaws in themselves.
The truth is that all of us are subject to very powerful human biases, which insidiously influence our perceptions and beliefs, often beyond our awareness. That is why I am so reluctant to trust any of my conclusions as absolute facts, and instead treat them as working theories.
There’s a lot I don’t know, and honesty compels me to admit my ignorance.[/quote]
I don’t dismiss logic, I thrive on it. Careful who you stereotype. My logic is solid.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Forlife, seriously, I dont see why we even bother. The Kalam Cosmological argument is nothing but a red herring.
See, in every way that the existence of God could be proven, it has failed to. God was said to live up in the sky, we went there… no god. God was said to have flooded the entire earth for 40 days. No evidence. God was said to have put a flaming sword blocking a magic tree whos fruit would make you live forever. No evidence.
See, it was easy when “The universe” or “the world” was actually a small scrap of planet earth. It was easy to say “It happened!” when there were no historical records (beyond the ones you felt like making up) and you could kill anyone who said otherwise. It was easy to make claims about things on earth when you didnt have google maps able to look over the whole earth at any time.
Of course the christians just make up cop outs. Dont find god up in the sky? Invisible, omnipresent. No evidence of a worldwide flood? God used god-magic to poof away the evidence. No proof the sun and moon ever stopped so Joshua could win a battle? God used god-magic to make everything go back to normal. No proof of the flaming sword protecting the tree of life? God used god-magic to poof it away.
By the way, isnt the Tower of Babel story about how God was afraid of the power of men because they built a large building, so he scattered them? What kind of omnipotent God is afraid of a bunch of humans? And why, since, has God allowed huge buildings, rocket ships, and the internet (the internet allowing worldwide communication, something a God who gets squirmy over “what humans can do” with buildings wouldnt allow).
So, what the people who think nonsense is true (aka believers) HAVE to do is bring the debate into things we dont yet know. Because every single time the subject is something we can prove, they lose, and have to make up another cop out.
And, I’m sure in a few thousand years, when humanity has a solid explanation for the origin of the universe, they’ll pull another cop out and say “god used god-magic!”[/quote]
The Kalam argument is the worst form, but cosmology is a form, not a single argument. That’s why I specifically mentioned to stay away from it. But it is not a red herring, just badly constructed. You are just throwing around words, there is no diversionary tactics involved. Kalam was just some arab moron who wanted to look as smart as Aristotle, but failed. Then you go on to rely on your personal biases in lieu of what was actually stated. The bible does not even say God lives in the sky, so thatâ??s just stupid right there. You are trying to refute arguments made by cavemen 3,000,000 years ago.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]
Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]
Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).
Then you have to consider that time must also exist in heaven, because wae have stories that chronical before, during, and after events in heaven (Lucifers fall, etc).
Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.[/quote]
Because matter, the universe and the first law of thermodynamics, including the governing law itself is contingent upon other things. You guys think two dimensionally about this stuff.
A beam of light travels at the speed of light if unimpeded. The speed of light is time=0, right? If a beam of light is timeless it is also eternal, but it begins from somewhere. Itâ??s something eternal and has a beginning. If it runs in to something it can end, but if you are in the beam of light, youâ??ll never know it, it just is. Matter is made of stuff and comes from stuff, the laws that govern stuff is also made of stuff and comes from stuff and none of that is material.
Also, you have read that the theories that the laws of thermodynamics may not hold true under the pressure of gravity, i.e. black holes. There are other theories as well, but the destruction of information is one of them and is a possibility and is currently viable.
Further, there is no evidence, not a tiny little shred of empirical evidence that universe and matter are actually infinite. There is no evidence of randomness anywhere in the universe, nor a place or moment of absolute nothingness. Yet, that is what you are trusting, unfulfilled logic with a complete absence of evidence.
You know how all these big brains and academics came up with these theories? Math and reason, both incomplete. The math takes them somewhere, but then they infer what the results mean. They are logical inferences, based on the results of equations.
[/quote]
Pat, I’m still not seeing where you derive a 98% probability that the laws of thermodynamics haven’t always applied. A remote theoretical possibility is a far cry from a 98% certainty. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the laws of thermodynamics, which state that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed, and hence are infinite.
Light doesn’t travel at an infinite speed. It is quantifiable (186k miles/second). And creating light by turning on a flashlight doesn’t actually create matter/energy; it converts it.
Those big brains and academics you mention are the best logicians on the planet. Do you believe that all of them fail at logic, because they disagree with your claim of 98% certainty?
The bible does not even say God lives in the sky, so thatâ??s just stupid right there. You are trying to refute arguments made by cavemen 3,000,000 years ago. [/quote]
Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven. Bible says god put a dome over the earth to seperate the waters of earth from the waters of heaven. This means heaven is up, above the earth, in that place that we fucking call “sky”.
So, the bible says God lives in Heaven which is above the earth, in the sky.
So, the bible says god lives in the sky (the part called heaven).
in the bible, God also says “As the heavens are above the earth”. Again, heaven = above earth = sky = where God lives.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Capped, I agree that no amount of logic or objective evidence will make any difference to people who deeply want to believe in God. When they dismiss logic and evidence in the name of God’s ways being higher than our ways, it allows them to believe anything with sincerity.
Any contradiction, no matter how compelling, is dismissed as only an apparent contradiction, since we are only fallible men who can’t see the big picture.
They recognize these flaws in believers who don’t agree with their particular views, but are incapable of admitting the same flaws in themselves.
The truth is that all of us are subject to very powerful human biases, which insidiously influence our perceptions and beliefs, often beyond our awareness. That is why I am so reluctant to trust any of my conclusions as absolute facts, and instead treat them as working theories.
There’s a lot I don’t know, and honesty compels me to admit my ignorance.[/quote]
I don’t dismiss logic, I thrive on it. Careful who you stereotype. My logic is solid.[/quote]
I mentioned every human being on the planet, including myself, as being subject to powerful, insidious psychological influences on our beliefs and on the evidence we rely upon to inform those beliefs. I know you believe you are logical. I believe I’m logical as well. But who is right?
The only honest answer is that we simply don’t know. That is why I choose not to claim something is true when I don’t really know it is true.
Here’s what happened: You had this group of people who said “God exists.” And some people said, “I don’t believe that. I’ve never seen this God you speak of, he does not exist. I’ve never seen evidence of the garden of eden or any of these things”
And the believers made an argument of ignorance. They said “The garden of eden is very far away, farther than you can travel. You must just believe.” They said “God lives up in Heaven, which is very far up in the sky, farther than you can see. You must just believe.”
So humanity progressed and the whole earth was discovered, with no garden. Humans built rocket ships and went way up into the sky where the believers claimed God was. With no God.
And, rather than just admit they had been wrong about the garden and wrong about God they make up cop outs as to why no evidence was found of these things they made claims about. God is invisible, they said. God made the garden of eden vanish from the earth. You must just believe, they said.
And the nonbelievers said “Sorry, you made claims that would give us great evidence if they were true. We’ve found no evidence, so we decide your claims are not true.”
And the believers made an argument of ignorance. They said “Oh, well then, explain the origins of the universe?”
And, eventually, humanity will have the tools needed to answer the question. And it will be answered, and the believers will make up more nonsense lies on top of their previous nonsense lies and call it “logic”.
You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]
No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.
Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.
As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”
If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.
If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.
Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”
Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.
[/quote]
Then you are unique among athiests, because many claim to know how and why the universe came from nothing.
I’ll rephrase if you do not believe that existence came from something you must necessarily believe it came from nothing. And this something must have at least two properties, it must be uncaused and yet cause. There’s only two options on the table and you reject one of them, therefore you must accept the other. You cannot reject both with a simple I don’t know.
If you don’t care, that’s fine with me.
But you asserting this “I don’t know and I don’t care, but God could not have created it.” Not knowing and/ or not caring does not support the conclusion that God does not exist.
So what you have is this. ‘I don’t know, but I know it wasn’t God’ ← Oh really? How?[/quote]
Too much fail. Can not handle.
Aliens from another universe created ours for sport. Please disprove.
My friend Matt used a magic wand to create the universe. Please disprove.
How do I know it wasn’t god? Because you geniuses have had two thousand fucking years to come up with a scrap of evidence and you’ve failed. You have a book of nonsense mythology and now artistic interpretations of natural occurences (Babies being born proves god!!) to lean on.
You believed there was a man up in the sky. People built rockets. Found no god. That just…uhhhhhh… means god is invisible, yeah! he’s everywhere at once! [/quote]
Um…straw man? [/quote]
Argument from ignorance?
“The universe exists, we dont know how or why. Must be God.”[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.
There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]
Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]
Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]
Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).
[/quote]
God created Space and Time, so why would he be restrained to his own creation. You’re making large theological jumps that have no basis. God does not solely exist in Heaven, we are not the Athens that believe that God exists up on Mt. Olympia.
Why does there have to be time in Heaven?
[quote]
Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.[/quote]
Article 3. Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence â?? which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Forlife, seriously, I dont see why we even bother. The Kalam Cosmological argument is nothing but a red herring.
See, in every way that the existence of God could be proven, it has failed to. God was said to live up in the sky, we went there… no god. God was said to have flooded the entire earth for 40 days. No evidence. God was said to have put a flaming sword blocking a magic tree whos fruit would make you live forever. No evidence.
[/quote]
You should really pick up a book, or you know stop talking to fundamentalists. Pat and I are not fundamentalist, we’re Catholic. Theologically, we have never held that if you go into the sky you will find God. Never has a Catholic held that you could see God, except when he was incarnated flesh in Jesus.
I know why I bother explaining this and dealing with the fallacies, because I love you. And I do not see this as an challenge, but an opportunity.
[quote]
See, it was easy when “The universe” or “the world” was actually a small scrap of planet earth. It was easy to say “It happened!” when there were no historical records (beyond the ones you felt like making up) and you could kill anyone who said otherwise. It was easy to make claims about things on earth when you didnt have google maps able to look over the whole earth at any time.[/quote]
You should really pick up a book, that is a straw-man, Catholics don’t believe the whole world was flooded. However, there is records to prove that there were floods.
Poof away the evidence? Who have you been hearing this shit from, because this isn’t sound theology at all. You should really stop talking to fundamentalist, because your understanding of Christian theology isn’t even in left field anymore, it is in the bleachers.
I’ll have to get back to you, but I think the reason he scattered like he did was because of their pride, not because he was scared.
What can you prove wrong that Catholics believe?
[quote]
And, I’m sure in a few thousand years, when humanity has a solid explanation for the origin of the universe, they’ll pull another cop out and say “god used god-magic!”[/quote]
Not the Catholic Church, we’ll still be believing that evolution is true and that science that studies within the dominion of space and time can’t study something that is outside space and time.