[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sorry about my absence, patty cakes, I trust that you missed me? LOL
[quote]Pat wrote:
I’d say you do believe in quite bit of magic. Because when you eliminate all other variables, you have only two choices, either something came from something, or something came from nothing. To avoid the question is a cop out.[/quote]
Does true nothing really exist? Has it ever really existed? Don’t be a cop out, and answer the question. Do you know, for a fact, that true nothing has ever really existed?
Your religion; rife with burning talking bushes, virgin births, talking snakes, and Jewish carpenter zombies, is the real bastion of belief in magic I’d say. Atheism can’t hold a candle to your religious beliefs w/r/t magic, nice try though.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You really are a very simple man, are you not? So there can only be two choices? LOL…how very convenient for you and your god. Fact is, we still don’t really know alot about what REALLY took place at the beginning of our universe. We just don’t know, and you know that. From what I’ve read, scientists suggest it was a singularity; a first tiny pinpoint of incipient mass and energy. Whatever came first, if time HAD a beginning, did not have to be a god. If god came first then you are defining god as simply an entity that did not require a beginning. Or, your “god” could’ve been something quite natural at the beginning of the universe, a something that was certainly not intelligent, not omnipotent, (in fact has no power), not omniscient and cares about nothing.
The “can’t get something from nothing” argument fails to prove that a god exists, especially YOUR god above all the others. [/quote]
I am simple, yes, the reason is that things just aren’t that complicated.
What failed was your sad little “scientists say…” attempt at a counter argument is sad at best. Why do you assume that existence, is always just this universe that we are familiar with? There is much more to existence than the physical universe, first. The singularity claim, if true, just simply kicks the can down the road a little further, it solves nothing. Okay, what caused the ‘singularity’? What is a ‘singularity’? Nobody knows. What is responsible for the laws and behavior physical objects obey? What you fail to get is that it’s the metaphysics that controls what the physical does. Physical objects don’t violate their own rules, why?
There are only to choices, and I am not talking about “the universe” per se, it could be anything. We know there is existence either there is a reason for existence, or there is no reason for existence.
You can whine, hem and haw all you want to, there is nothing you can do about it. If you say ‘nothing’ you have to explain how something can come from absolutely nothing. Something from nothing is logically impossible, so you really have your hands full.[/quote]
sigh…
Since we cannot rule out the possibility that true nothingness may have never existed, then we have to make room for the possibility that some form of matter and energy have always existed. Yes, it seems as though it’s possible that matter (and energy) have always existed.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
That’s what is required for atheism to be true, maybe you don’t know or don’t care to know whether that is true or not, but if you don’t know that, you don’t know much about atheism. The answer to that question is the core of one of the other thought processes.[/quote]
For atheism to be true, it must set out to prove something; it does not, and you’re still failing to understand atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief, due to an OVERWHELMING lack of credible evidence for a deity. There is no proof for any deity, atheists therefore do not believe in any deities, or supernatural happenings, or sky wizard magic stuff.
So no, you’re still wrong. [/quote]
There is evidence for something with ‘God-like’ qualities to exist, it’s called existence. It’s completely illogical to say that nothing can cause, or be responsible for anything. So your ‘absence of belief’ has to be able to explain things and it does not. You are claiming to not have made a choice, but that’s a lie. You have chosen to believe there is no way a god of any kind can exist, therefore, existence came from nothing. What you fail to understand, and I have little hope you ever will, is that that is the stance you are taking. No amount of ad hominems or arrogance will help you with that. I can only assume that you have to insult me or mock me because you really don’t have an argument and you know it. Otherwise you could simply present your argument and let that speak for you. [/quote]
BAH!..LOL
So now you’ve arrived at “god like qualities”!? What the fuck does that mean?
Why don’t you sack up and knock it off with the whole deistic/catholic charade for crying out loud. Do you believe in the very personal, interactive, christian god or not? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior, or not? You always backpedal with crafty footwork that would make even a good boxer jealous, into this cosmological argument, and now we’ve arrived at “god like qualities”. At least Tirib stands by his beliefs for the christian god, and doesn’t feel the need to constantly move the goal post as you do.
Good grief, “god like qualities”? LOL…at one time, it was believed that the sun itself was a god, with god like qualities. But hey, as Carlin said, at least you could fucking SEE the sun.
Yes, I have absolutely made a conscious choice to not believe in things that are not real. And yes, atheism is an absence of belief based on the overwhelming lack of evidence. I say “there is no god”, because there is no proof of said god. How many times must I repeat myself? Show me some real proof for god, and I will convert to a full on believer again, and get my ass back to mass. Until then, prove it…
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
No, the fact of this matter is that I don’t know, and you don’t know; nobody knows for sure. AND we know that there is ZEEEERO evidence for any sort of deity. Atheism truly is acknowledging that fact, coming to the humble conclusion that there is no reason to believe in any of the gods, and moving on with life. [/quote]
No atheism, is a conclusion. You drew a conclusion that God and no other dieties exist. That’s not a humble position. The position you described above is agnosticism which is not what you are claiming. You are claiming not to know for certain, you are claiming for certain, there is no God. So you aren’t sure about how it all got here, but you know for certain one thing, God couldn’t have been responsible for any of it because he does not exist. [/quote]
Yes, I’ve already stated that atheism is a conclusion, as I’ve stated previously before that. Of course it’s a fucking conclusion, good grief. My claim as an atheist, one that I’ve already put out there ad nauseam, is that there is no reason to believe in any sort of deities, being that there is NO EVIDENCE for any sort of deities; my conclusion for is drawn from that fact.
Burden of proof is still on you. If you have any real evidence for the existence of a deity, then by all means man, get on with it.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Have the humility to accept that there’s so reason to believe in god, and the good sense to not believe in archaic mythological stories of god magic as a means to fill in that big “I don’t know” gap.
LOL…you believe in a god of which you have no proof of, and yet you label ME as a wishful thinker. There’s that sense of humor again. [/quote]
I have an a priori argument based on causation that leads to a conclusion you cannot refute the premises or the conclusion. In a basic sense, your screwed. You cannot refute it, any part of it. You’re the one that has nothing, literally nothing.
Let’s examine what you have to support your conclusion:
- No physical evidence, which if you know anything about the reality of physical objects, you know actually isn’t true.
- Just don’t believe it.
- Something from nothing.
- Oh and let’s not forget “I don’t know”
Basically, you got shit. Actually, shit would be an improvement over what you have currently.[/quote]
Sorry patty cakes, but these conversations of ours always seem to end the same, with you falling back into a cosmological argument and backpedaling into deism. Quite frankly they’re beginning to get boring.
[/quote]
It’s all I need. It’s not beatable. Backpedaling into ad hominems doesn’t make you right. It’s not my problem if you don’t understand it. It’s a pretty simple argument and you stili cannot beat it and you never will.
If I have to constantly change my arguments, like you do, it means I don’t have one that’s solid. It’s all I need, why would I use something else?
Making sure your entertained isn’t a particular goal of mine.
Like I said before, ‘always existing’ is irrelevant. Something that always exists is still dependent. All of metaphysics is technically ‘eternal’ but metaphysical object are a function of something else. You’ll never ‘get it’ if you cannot wrap you mind around non-temporal existence.
Incorrect. Total non-sequitur. It doesn’t stand to reason that God directly created the universe, nor that it’s complicated, nor that any of that makes God complicated. That’s just bad reasoning all around.
Why do you perpetuate this idea that God necessarily brought forth this universe? It could be one of a million, it could be a succession of many, the universe isn’t that important. Existence is all that is needed, it what ever form it comes in. It’s really NOT that complicated.
Whether God is infinitely complicated, or not is irrelevant. Even if he is an infinitely complicated being, it does not mean he does not exist.
I already explained a hundred times why and how that does not matter one iota. Eternal existence means nothing. It’s still dependent, whatever exists, exists as a function of something else. That’s where you cannot have the infinite regress. Eternity isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t fall into the realm of regression…
Further our best guesses right now put matter as a function of energy and energy a function of ‘information’. The information is likely a metaphysical entity which is defacto eternal, yet still dependent.
If you understand the argument, claiming the eternal existence of matter and energy only serves to strengthen, not weaken it.
[quote]
Now please don’t forget to answer the question; Do you believe in the very personal christian god, and that his son Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins? [/quote]
This question is irrelevant and a red herring to boot. Why do you want to divert the conversation to religion when you haven’t established God’s existence? Religion assumes the existence of God. If God doesn’t exist, all religion is irrelevant anyway and not worth the trouble of discussing.
Ask relevant questions that have to do with the topic at hand. Discussing theology with an atheist makes about as much sense as discussing Algebra with an English teacher…
Try to stay focused. You want to talk about a million things and only one thing matters, the existence of God. If we cannot establish that, then there is nothing else to discuss.
Atheists cannot understand theology and that’s where you guys screw up. The flow chart demand you circle back around to the main question. If the answer is ‘No’ nothing else matters beyond that point.
