[quote]pat wrote:
Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…[/quote]
I postulated a sky wizard?
Damn, I didn’t even know.[/quote]
Don’t be a chump. “Cosmology is a God of gaps argument? Prove it…Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…” That is what pat told you to prove, since you asserted it, not that you postulated a sky wizard. Don’t be a bitch.[/quote]
I never said cosmology was a God of the Gaps argument. I said his assertions were. To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.
Don’t be a retard.[/quote]
Pat clearly pointed out that it wasn’t a G-d of gaps, it was cosmology. You then proceeded to say that it was a G-d of gaps argument. He told you to prove it, you then did whatever you call that.
How the universe started is only part of it, it makes no difference if it’s this universe, a multiverse, a million accordion universes, it’s an inescapable problem…I guess your fresh, so, prove it wrong.
If you manage to prove it a ‘God of gaps’ argument, I’ll concede.[/quote]
Again, its a God of gaps argument because you find a gap in our current understanding (How did the universe come to exist?) and fill in that gap with “Must be god!”
Its possible that a particle too small to previously be seen has always existed. Hell, its possible that all matter has always existed -and that a particular form of said matter is contingent while the matter itself is not- and the A theory of time is incorrect. Of couse, you’ll say its absurd that something has always existed… right before re-asserting that your personal creator God exists and has always existed.
Its also a god of gaps argument because it does nothing to prove your god exists. Please make compelling arguments that:
This original cause is sentient
It has particular desires
It has a plan
It still exists
It can and has intervened in the lives of human beings
It particularly values human beings over other lifeforms
It can be communicated to telepathically
It took on human form
It is Yahweh and only Yahweh and cannot be any other recognized or unrecognized creator god (not allah, not zeus, etc, etc)
It is all knowing, all seeing, everywhere at once, and all loving.
Oh, wait… your “prime mover” argument proves NONE of those things? And is based entirely around the fact that “Nobody knows, therefore my god is the best explanation”? Yup. God of gaps.
[quote]pat wrote:
Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…[/quote]
I postulated a sky wizard?
Damn, I didn’t even know.[/quote]
Don’t be a chump. “Cosmology is a God of gaps argument? Prove it…Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…” That is what pat told you to prove, since you asserted it, not that you postulated a sky wizard. Don’t be a bitch.[/quote]
I never said cosmology was a God of the Gaps argument. I said his assertions were. To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.
Don’t be a retard.[/quote]
That’s THE argument, nimrod.
I have never, ever, ever asserted a God of gaps argument ever. You’ll never find any evidence that I have.
If you can prove I made a ‘God of gaps’ argument, or that cosmology asserts a God of gaps argument, I am on board.
‘It’s a classic debating trick to exagerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position’. Several people on this forum have deliberately misrepresented what I have said in the last 24 hours. Others have misrepresented what THEY have just said(i.e. murder innocents/kill innocents). I can honestly say I have never used these methods.[/quote]
Of course you do, you just dont know it when you do it.
How the universe started is only part of it, it makes no difference if it’s this universe, a multiverse, a million accordion universes, it’s an inescapable problem…I guess your fresh, so, prove it wrong.
If you manage to prove it a ‘God of gaps’ argument, I’ll concede.[/quote]
Again, its a God of gaps argument because you find a gap in our current understanding (How did the universe come to exist?) and fill in that gap with “Must be god!”
[/quote]
That’s not what it asserts, at all. There is no gap in the understanding. It and it doesn’t matter what caused the universe, only that it was caused. Causal relationships is all it’s about, what those are can take any form. Therefore in is not A ‘God of gaps’ argument because it does not try to explain a gap. It explains what must be the case.
See causation.
See Principal of Sufficient Reason.
It doesn’t matter if it has always existed, it is still contingent. Nothing exists with out relying on another something for it’s existence. That would be something from nothing.
YOU explain to ME how out of nothingness, an utter lack of existence, begets anything.
It does a fine job if you understand it, it has never been refuted in 2000 years.
Has nothing to do with existence. If you want to concede God’s existence then we can discuss whether or not he’s sentient.
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
By very definition it must sit out side the causal chain. Time is also an effect. Everything not bound by time is eternal
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
See answer to 1.
[quote]
Oh, wait… your “prime mover” argument proves NONE of those things? And is based entirely around the fact that “Nobody knows, therefore my god is the best explanation”? Yup. God of gaps.[/quote]
Oh wait, the argument isn’t designed to, that’s not it’s purpose. Once you concede existence then we can talk about the rest. If you think nothing exists, nothing can’t have any properties what so ever…
So, like I said prove, out of nothingness, a complete utter lack of existence, comes something. Then please provide an example of something that happen for no reason what so ever.
You see, you have the easier task, all you need is one thing that exists uncaused and my argument falls apart. In cosmology everything is caused, even the unknowns.
It’s your turn to answer MY questions. One simple one, really.
Yes, there is. The fact that the universe cannot exist per the current understanding means there is a gap in the understanding.
[/quote]
That has nothing to do with the cosmology. That’s a scientific problem, not a philosophical one. The argument doesn’t need to fill in the gaps to be correct, it is completely unnecessary. There is no gap, at all; look it up. You don’t understand the argument if that’s really what you think.
The prime mover must necessarily sit outside the chain , therefore God cannot be created nor destroyed. Things can only depend on it, not the other way around, definitionally.The logic dictates it necessarily.
Prove the logic wrong if you don’t like it. The logic dictates it must be the case, nothing magical about it’s plain, simple logic.
[quote]
Except I never said that, so I have no need to explain it to you. You just drew that false conclusion.[/quote]
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.
No, dude. Logic says that if our current understanding of the universe leads to the conclusion that the existence of the universe is a contradiction - it means our current understanding is incorrect NOT the a magical impossible being must exist.
Here is the gap:
The unverse exists.
All the stuff in the universe came from something before it
We dont know how the first stuff got here <---- this is the gap right here!!!
See? See how our current understanding leaves a gap there? You try to fill that gap with God. God of gaps.
‘It’s a classic debating trick to exagerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position’. Several people on this forum have deliberately misrepresented what I have said in the last 24 hours. Others have misrepresented what THEY have just said(i.e. murder innocents/kill innocents). I can honestly say I have never used these methods.[/quote]
Of course you do, you just dont know it when you do it.
Highly entertaining.
[/quote]
Perhaps you can draw my attention to these instances so I can rectify this problem?
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.[/quote]
So let me get this strait, you don’t know the origin of the universe, but the one thing it can not be is God? How did this process elimination proceed? Have you eliminated anything else, or by default God cannot be a factor at all?
THIS universe has not always existed. That is pretty verifiable, however it would no matter if it did. As I explained before it does not matter there were a series of universes (accrdien universe theory), if we exist in a mutiverse, or if the universe is an illusion, so long as it exists, it has a sufficient reason for doing so.
I never said anything resembling God is YHWY, I only claim that if something unusual happens, I do not assume direct involvement from God unless there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
If you believe God exists, then we can argue about his nature and his method of revelation. If you dont believe in God, then something that does not exist doing cannot be anything, much less a Yahweh.
No, dude. Logic says that if our current understanding of the universe leads to the conclusion that the existence of the universe is a contradiction - it means our current understanding is incorrect NOT the a magical impossible being must exist.
Here is the gap:
The unverse exists.
All the stuff in the universe came from something before it
We dont know how the first stuff got here <---- this is the gap right here!!!
See? See how our current understanding leaves a gap there? You try to fill that gap with God. God of gaps.[/quote]
I’m also an atheist but let me point out that whilst the law of conservation of energy applies in our universe we have no way of knowing if it applied pre-Planck time.
No, dude. Logic says that if our current understanding of the universe leads to the conclusion that the existence of the universe is a contradiction - it means our current understanding is incorrect NOT the a magical impossible being must exist.
Here is the gap:
The unverse exists.
All the stuff in the universe came from something before it
We dont know how the first stuff got here <---- this is the gap right here!!!
See? See how our current understanding leaves a gap there? You try to fill that gap with God. God of gaps.[/quote]
That’s a scientific problem, not a philosophical one. I am discussing what must has the case, not the direct moment of the universes creation prior to the moments we already postulated…
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.[/quote]
So let me get this strait, you don’t know the origin of the universe, but the one thing it can not be is God? How did this process elimination proceed? Have you eliminated anything else, or by default God cannot be a factor at all?
THIS universe has not always existed. That is pretty verifiable, however it would no matter if it did. As I explained before it does not matter there were a series of universes (accrdien universe theory), if we exist in a mutiverse, or if the universe is an illusion, so long as it exists, it has a sufficient reason for doing so.
I never said anything resembling God is YHWY, I only claim that if something unusual happens, I do not assume direct involvement from God unless there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
If you believe God exists, then we can argue about his nature and his method of revelation. If you dont believe in God, then something that does not exist doing cannot be anything, much less a Yahweh. [/quote]
Can I just butt in here? Presumably we’re talking about the God of Christianity(and Judaism if you consider them the same God)? What about Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, Artimes/Diana, Nike/Victoria? Don’t they get a look in? What about the demigods like Heracles, Persius, Alexander the Great etc? Monotheism is Godist! Stop this Godism please.
[quote]pat wrote:
Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…[/quote]
I postulated a sky wizard?
Damn, I didn’t even know.[/quote]
Don’t be a chump. “Cosmology is a God of gaps argument? Prove it…Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…” That is what pat told you to prove, since you asserted it, not that you postulated a sky wizard. Don’t be a bitch.[/quote]
I never said cosmology was a God of the Gaps argument. I said his assertions were. To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.
Don’t be a retard.[/quote]
Pat clearly pointed out that it wasn’t a G-d of gaps, it was cosmology. You then proceeded to say that it was a G-d of gaps argument. He told you to prove it, you then did whatever you call that.
So, prove it. Don’t be you an atheist. ;)[/quote]
“To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.”
[quote]pat wrote:
Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…[/quote]
I postulated a sky wizard?
Damn, I didn’t even know.[/quote]
Don’t be a chump. “Cosmology is a God of gaps argument? Prove it…Burden of proof is on you, you made the assertion…” That is what pat told you to prove, since you asserted it, not that you postulated a sky wizard. Don’t be a bitch.[/quote]
I never said cosmology was a God of the Gaps argument. I said his assertions were. To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.
Don’t be a retard.[/quote]
Pat clearly pointed out that it wasn’t a G-d of gaps, it was cosmology. You then proceeded to say that it was a G-d of gaps argument. He told you to prove it, you then did whatever you call that.
So, prove it. Don’t be you an atheist. ;)[/quote]
“To say God did it with no proof is a God of the Gaps argument.”[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< You assume that I’m using the word “know” and “believe” interchangeably. I believe what i feel is right more strongly thsn what i feel is wrong, but i don’t know for sure either way.
I do know that if i stop breathing i’ll die. I believe that if there is a god, it doesnt have a human-like existance, but there is no way to know that for sure. I believe it to be that way because it makes sense to me, but i wouldn’t preach it as unquestionable truth because I can’t honestly say it is.[/quote]Well that is very honest of you my dear and I do genuinely respect that. You’re ok with simply not really knowing anything except the certainly of death for sure? I’m not being sarcastic. That’s what you seem to have just said and I wanna understand.
[/quote]
That is what I said and I’m honestly okay with it. I can say that after watching my grandma (who was like a fill-in mother to me) die three weeks ago that I feel peace when thinking about death (only sadness that they aren’t a part of your story anymore). It’s natural and only feels wrong with it comes with a lot of pain. Uncertainty of many things is a part of life and I don’t believe that you have any more of an answer than I ever did before I started exploring away from Christianity; which was also just another guess to distract yourself from the fact that when it comes down to it, you don’t really know. You just believe to the point of blindness because you’re scared.
Relax. It’s okay not to know.
[/quote]This may be the best response I’ve ever gotten here. Didn’t see it til this morning. Fair enough. Conversation’s over. I am very sorry for the loss of your grandmother.
[/quote]
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.[/quote]
So let me get this strait, you don’t know the origin of the universe, but the one thing it can not be is God? How did this process elimination proceed? Have you eliminated anything else, or by default God cannot be a factor at all?
THIS universe has not always existed. That is pretty verifiable, however it would no matter if it did. As I explained before it does not matter there were a series of universes (accrdien universe theory), if we exist in a mutiverse, or if the universe is an illusion, so long as it exists, it has a sufficient reason for doing so.
I never said anything resembling God is YHWY, I only claim that if something unusual happens, I do not assume direct involvement from God unless there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
If you believe God exists, then we can argue about his nature and his method of revelation. If you dont believe in God, then something that does not exist doing cannot be anything, much less a Yahweh. [/quote]
Can I just butt in here? Presumably we’re talking about the God of Christianity(and Judaism if you consider them the same God)? What about Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, Artimes/Diana, Nike/Victoria? Don’t they get a look in? What about the demigods like Heracles, Persius, Alexander the Great etc? Monotheism is Godist! Stop this Godism please.[/quote]
The cosmological argument on its own doesn’t give one enough information to determine who God is, however it does give one some insight into his properties. From the argument and its derivatives he is non contingent, one, moral, has a will and mind, gives purpose and all other things are contingent upon him. So your rant on why couldn’t contingent gods have done it is done in ignorance when from the argument logically follows monotheism. I am sure Pat would be more than happy to explain why God happens to be the christian one once one concedes that he exists in the first place.
