What is the True Religion?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
ZEB wrote:

The only problem is you are interested in mouthing off. So when you don’t know what you’re talking about you will have only yourself to blame as you are just another uninformed kid.

I think I have engaged you respectfully.[/quote]

Not really, you speak about an issue that you know nothing about. You say there is no God without having done any research. You are not respecting me or your audience. Hence, I cannot respect you. You are someone who thinks he has all the answers when in reality (when it comes to God) you come up short. You don’t know it yet because you have shut out even the possibility of gaining more knowledge.

[quote]With respect to Jesus and his divinity:

When you try to determine if someone existed you have to take an assessment of what you know about them when you build this character story. Take George Washington’s life for instance. We try to find out what of it is true. When we find out a good chunk of it is true we can say you know what? This person most likely existed although there are most likely one or two things like the chopping down the cherry tree I cannot tell a lie story that are pretty much mythical and we throw them out.
[/quote]

Historical writers mentioning Jesus:

Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”

The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”

Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

The historical Jesus is debated by very, very few. You can find people that still believe the world is flat so just because you can find a few in a google search doesnâ??t mean that they hold much credit, regardless the above listing should answer your question.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Okay Pat, I usually don’t get into philosophical debates or discussions but this is getting interesting. You, in several posts in this thread and the “can atheists go to heaven” thread, berated atheists for “believing that something came from nothing.” I don’t buy that, mostly because I don’t know what atheists believe outside of that there is no god.
[/quote]
There is one atheist who acknowledges the Uncaused-cause, but rejects the idea that it’s necessarily God. However, atheist by in large go to great lengths to try and ‘prove’ there is no God, but coming up with various ad hoc theories on how this universe, or existence in general came to be without a ‘god’ or Uncaused-cause. And great pains are taken to illustrate this except it always without fail runs into this fallacious brick wall. To posit such a thing you have to also posit something from nothing. Whether you do it by causal succession or dependency, the ultimate source for everything cannot be nothing, but most atheist make this claim and the call us theists stupid idiots. It’s for this reason I berate because this flaw in logic isn’t minor, it’s a glaring inescapable problem that cannot simply be ignored. If you cannot solve it, then your house of cards falls. I have the problem solved so my house stands.

Well if you want to get real technical, we cannot ‘observe’ causation, it and inference based on observation. Such is the problem with science, it gives us probables, not absolutes. If your trying to approach a topic such as ‘God’, you don’t need probables, you need absolutes. Hence, whether you can observe or measure God is not relevant to the fact of his existence. His existence is necessarily true or false. Science, in the most pristine circumstances, could never give us this level of certainty.

[quote]
What I am saying is that there is no reason that this “first cause” or whatever you want to call it has to be a sentient being. It is entirely possible that it is, but at that point it comes down to which of the literally thousands of gods that are and have been worshiped here on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the universe is this actual “first cause”. There is also no reason that this “first cause” has to be a sentient being at all, which I doubt that it would be. Sentience implies existence and existence is governed by the rules of causality so I do not think that a sentient being, as most gods are described as being, could be this “first cause.” This basically means that it is still an even-odds bet on whether or not atheists or theists are correct.[/quote]
Actually no. For you have the argument itself explains this. For something to exist uncaused, it must be uncaused, for nothing else could possibly exist with out this necessary component. By definition, an Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. If it were, then it wouldn’t be an uncaused-cause.
As far as sentient being, the logic cannot speak for that directly, but then you must analyze what kind of properties an uncaused-causer must have. To cause without any other sort of provocation requires something like a will, which an insentient being cannot have.

As far as all the little ‘god of gaps’ gods of yore, no I cannot prove they don’t exist, but I can prove they are not the Uncaused-cause. The nature of causal regression necessitates their can only be one Uncaused-cause. So in the end it doesn’t really matter what you call it, it’s reality is that it must be independent of the causal chain, and yet cause. ← Thinking about what something like that must be, tells us what it is, and whether that “thing” is what we think of as God, I don’t know. But to be what it is, it must have some “God-like” properties.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< I think God is A LOT bigger than that. [/quote]Here’s the trouble. He doesn’t care what you think. Ya know bein God n all. To be clear, He doesn’t care what I think either. I do however care what He thinks, which is how I know He doesn’t care what we think. HE tells US what to think and we either think it or die. Couldn’t be simpler, though that’s not very groovy so you don’t like that.
[/quote]

Whatever God wants to do is groovy with me Tirib. Why do you say I wouldn’t like it?

Oh wait, you’re not going to tell me that God wants to punish people and banish them to hell are you? Hell is a man-made mental construct that denies that God is Loving, Omnipresent and Omnipotent.[/quote]Says who?
[/quote]

Says logic. Is God Love? Is God Omnipresent? Is God Omnipotent? Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If you said yes, then where is hell, exactly? It’s the place you think God is not. A man-made mental construct.

[quote]pat wrote:
There is one atheist who acknowledges the Uncaused-cause, but rejects the idea that it’s necessarily God. However, atheist by in large go to great lengths to try and ‘prove’ there is no God, but coming up with various ad hoc theories on how this universe, or existence in general came to be without a ‘god’ or Uncaused-cause. And great pains are taken to illustrate this except it always without fail runs into this fallacious brick wall. To posit such a thing you have to also posit something from nothing. Whether you do it by causal succession or dependency, the ultimate source for everything cannot be nothing, but most atheist make this claim and the call us theists stupid idiots. It’s for this reason I berate because this flaw in logic isn’t minor, it’s a glaring inescapable problem that cannot simply be ignored. If you cannot solve it, then your house of cards falls. I have the problem solved so my house stands.
[/quote]

This is why I do not like philosophy at all. You claim to “have the problem solved,” but in reality you just have an idea that might make sense, but is only one of a possibly unlimited series of potential answers to the question. You have identified the problem (i.e. everything that happens in the universe appears to have a cause, but if everything has a cause then how did anything begin? You simply state that there must exist something uncaused that started everything, and then make the leap to claim that that must be whatever god you choose to worship. The problem with that scenario is thus:

Your solution actually invalidates the problem. The paradox that you brought up is that since causality exists, and we think that there has to have been a beginning (that is an assumption since we don’t actually know this for sure. It is possible that there is no real beginning). If there was a beginning then where did everything come from, since you posit that something cannot come from nothing? Your solution really doesn’t make sense when you think about it. If god does exist, the basic premise of religion, then you have something (god) which does exist and has no cause. This is where your “house of cards” falls apart, since you now have something that came from nothing, which is the very problem that you brought up. Your answer to this paradox was something along the lines of “he exists and doesn’t, or he is something and nothing,” but all it amounts to is just a bunch of words that amount to “he just is.” That is all well and good if you want to believe that, but it is not a valid and logical argument by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t solve your paradox at all. If god can exist just because it is a convenient way to explain this paradox, then so can the idea of “everything just is and always has,” or any one of a number of explanations.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is one atheist who acknowledges the Uncaused-cause, but rejects the idea that it’s necessarily God. However, atheist by in large go to great lengths to try and ‘prove’ there is no God, but coming up with various ad hoc theories on how this universe, or existence in general came to be without a ‘god’ or Uncaused-cause. And great pains are taken to illustrate this except it always without fail runs into this fallacious brick wall. To posit such a thing you have to also posit something from nothing. Whether you do it by causal succession or dependency, the ultimate source for everything cannot be nothing, but most atheist make this claim and the call us theists stupid idiots. It’s for this reason I berate because this flaw in logic isn’t minor, it’s a glaring inescapable problem that cannot simply be ignored. If you cannot solve it, then your house of cards falls. I have the problem solved so my house stands.
[/quote]

This is why I do not like philosophy at all. You claim to “have the problem solved,” but in reality you just have an idea that might make sense, but is only one of a possibly unlimited series of potential answers to the question. You have identified the problem (i.e. everything that happens in the universe appears to have a cause, but if everything has a cause then how did anything begin? You simply state that there must exist something uncaused that started everything, and then make the leap to claim that that must be whatever god you choose to worship. The problem with that scenario is thus:

Your solution actually invalidates the problem. The paradox that you brought up is that since causality exists, and we think that there has to have been a beginning (that is an assumption since we don’t actually know this for sure. It is possible that there is no real beginning). If there was a beginning then where did everything come from, since you posit that something cannot come from nothing? Your solution really doesn’t make sense when you think about it. If god does exist, the basic premise of religion, then you have something (god) which does exist and has no cause. This is where your “house of cards” falls apart, since you now have something that came from nothing, which is the very problem that you brought up. Your answer to this paradox was something along the lines of “he exists and doesn’t, or he is something and nothing,” but all it amounts to is just a bunch of words that amount to “he just is.” That is all well and good if you want to believe that, but it is not a valid and logical argument by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t solve your paradox at all. If god can exist just because it is a convenient way to explain this paradox, then so can the idea of “everything just is and always has,” or any one of a number of explanations.
[/quote]
Not to put words in his mouth, but you are using caused in a bit different sense than what I think Pat is in his argument. I think he is at least putting his god as eternal instead of everlasting which would make a cause and effect timeline meaningless.

You unless I am mistaking you are using cause in a bit of a temporal way? Whereas he is likely not.

Why not like philosophy though. It certainly has the same amount of relevance to things outside the universe that physics does.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You have the internet. Research, make a decision.[/quote]

  1. Christianity 2.1 billion
  2. Islam 1.3 billion
  3. Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion
  4. Hinduism 900 million
  5. Chinese traditional religion 394 million
  6. Buddhism 376 million (see also buddhism by country)
  7. Primal indigenous 300 million
  8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million
  9. Sikhism 23 million
  10. Juche 19 million
  11. Spiritism 15 million
  12. Judaism 14 million
  13. Bah�??�?�¡'�??�?�­ Faith 7 million
  14. Jainism 4.2 million
  15. Shinto 4 million
  16. Cao Dai 4 million
  17. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
  18. Tenrikyo 2 million
  19. Neopaganism 1 million
  20. Unitarian Universalism 800,000
  21. Rastafari movement 600,000

Get cracking OP.[/quote]

Raj is just pissed because his always gets left off the list.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Haha

look a little closer
[/quote]

Dangit. I was so proud of my little joke I missed that in two checks of the list.

or

Alternate response: Completely missed #21, dude, very sorry.

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< I think God is A LOT bigger than that. [/quote]Here’s the trouble. He doesn’t care what you think. Ya know bein God n all. To be clear, He doesn’t care what I think either. I do however care what He thinks, which is how I know He doesn’t care what we think. HE tells US what to think and we either think it or die. Couldn’t be simpler, though that’s not very groovy so you don’t like that.
[/quote]Whatever God wants to do is groovy with me Tirib. Why do you say I wouldn’t like it? Oh wait, you’re not going to tell me that God wants to punish people and banish them to hell are you? Hell is a man-made mental construct that denies that God is Loving, Omnipresent and Omnipotent.[/quote]Says who?
[/quote]Says logic. Is God Love? Is God Omnipresent? Is God Omnipotent? Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If you said yes, then where is hell, exactly? It’s the place you think God is not. A man-made mental construct.[/quote]God is not in hell the same as He is not in unbelievers. God says there’s a hell. Now What? (This is JW bait fer sher)

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Religious differences= Devil’s trick. IT’S A TRAP!!!

No good parent would abandon their child just because they didn’t believe in them fully or even MOSTLY. I find it hard to believe any truly benevolent creator would effectively do the same. [/quote]

Have you read the Christian Bible?[/quote]

I’ve read parts.

To Zeb :

Have you read the Dao De Jing ?
If not, how do you know that Daoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Edda(s) and the Havamal ?
If not, how do you know that Norse paganism is wrong ?

Have you read the Tripitaka ?
If not, how do you know that Buddhism is wrong ?

Have you read the book of the dead ?
If not, how do you know that Egyptian polytheism was wrong ?

Have you read the Adi Granth ?
If not, how do you know that the sikhs are wrong ?

Have you read the Agamas ?
If not, how do you know that jainism is wrong ?

have you read the Kojiki ?
If not, how do you know that Shintoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Vedas ?
If not, how do you that Hinduism is wrong ?

Fact is that we are ALL atheists.

At least when it comes to the god(s) of old and/or foreign religions.

Believers just make a strange exception when it comes to their religion of choice.
An exception that they are usually unable to justify.

Btw, your “you didn’t read the bible” rebuttal may work in America (because the protestant majority do read the bible, and atheists are often young punks) but it doesn’t work where i live.
As a matter of fact, i know the bible way better than most christians i have met (“cultural catholics”, for the most part).

I KNOW they are all wrong because the comprehensive system of knowledge that I see unavoidably emerging from the soundest historical interpretation of the ancient Christian scriptures, a system the falsity of which is an utter impossibility, precludes in a decidedly ipso facto fashion, absolutely all others from consideration.

That is close minded, narrow, dogmatic and intolerant. This is called “conviction” and makes me the antichrist to broad minded modern man. On the other hand, EVERYbody has it. It’s only a matter of what about.

Im at a work conference will have a reply for you on Monday zeb .

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit[/quote]

In which war have you been in active combat?

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is one atheist who acknowledges the Uncaused-cause, but rejects the idea that it’s necessarily God. However, atheist by in large go to great lengths to try and ‘prove’ there is no God, but coming up with various ad hoc theories on how this universe, or existence in general came to be without a ‘god’ or Uncaused-cause. And great pains are taken to illustrate this except it always without fail runs into this fallacious brick wall. To posit such a thing you have to also posit something from nothing. Whether you do it by causal succession or dependency, the ultimate source for everything cannot be nothing, but most atheist make this claim and the call us theists stupid idiots. It’s for this reason I berate because this flaw in logic isn’t minor, it’s a glaring inescapable problem that cannot simply be ignored. If you cannot solve it, then your house of cards falls. I have the problem solved so my house stands.
[/quote]

This is why I do not like philosophy at all. You claim to “have the problem solved,” but in reality you just have an idea that might make sense, but is only one of a possibly unlimited series of potential answers to the question. You have identified the problem (i.e. everything that happens in the universe appears to have a cause, but if everything has a cause then how did anything begin? You simply state that there must exist something uncaused that started everything, and then make the leap to claim that that must be whatever god you choose to worship. The problem with that scenario is thus:

Your solution actually invalidates the problem. The paradox that you brought up is that since causality exists, and we think that there has to have been a beginning (that is an assumption since we don’t actually know this for sure. It is possible that there is no real beginning). If there was a beginning then where did everything come from, since you posit that something cannot come from nothing? Your solution really doesn’t make sense when you think about it. If god does exist, the basic premise of religion, then you have something (god) which does exist and has no cause. This is where your “house of cards” falls apart, since you now have something that came from nothing, which is the very problem that you brought up. Your answer to this paradox was something along the lines of “he exists and doesn’t, or he is something and nothing,” but all it amounts to is just a bunch of words that amount to “he just is.” That is all well and good if you want to believe that, but it is not a valid and logical argument by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t solve your paradox at all. If god can exist just because it is a convenient way to explain this paradox, then so can the idea of “everything just is and always has,” or any one of a number of explanations.
[/quote]

Sounds like you don’t like philosophy because it challenges your preconceived notions. And that’s precisely why I love it so…

Now as to your challenges…
Infinite possibilities on how it came to be… Maybe, but all those possibilties still share teh same two common problems, they are all caused and are all rooted in something that is not caused? How do I know, becuase logic dictate it must be so. There is no way around that problem . It’s easy to say, “You don’t know, it could be a million different ways.” But that statement doesn’t address the issue at hand. In other words it’s logical fallacy known as a Red Herring. I.E. it’s a diversion technique that is designed to avoid the problem rather than solve it.
Therefore, the reason this counter claim is not valid is because it does not prove the argument wrong. For you to claim there are millions of other possibilities you have to show how this argument is not the possibility. Because if this argument is true, then there are no other possible ways. So you can introduce other possible ways, when you prove this argument is wrong. You have no choice, you have to this first, because all I have to do for every counter claim is to prove it’s caused, which will not be hard.

Second, I thought I already went over this, but I will do it again. The argument to be true, necessitates an uncaused-cause exists. If it doesn’t the argument is false. If ‘God’ came from nothing the argument is false. That’s why it’s impossible to for it to be true. The uncaused-cause, by necessity, must be. It cannot have been begotten there could never be a realm in which “it” did not exist. All existence depends on this truth.
You’re a scientist, test it. Break it down, break anything down. No matter where you start, it always ends up in the same place.

Try this experiment, it’s one that Des Cartes went through. Try to make an argument for your own existence… You can’t. You cannot prove you’re not anything beyond an illusion. So in that sense, God is even more real that you.
You live in a world of empircal truths, such is the nature of your work. But think about what these truths are based on… Put them to the regression test and see where they end up. It’s always ends in the same way in the same place. And this is true for this ‘universe’ a muti-verse or a succession of millions of universes It always ends up in the same way every time. You cannot wish it way.

You wonder how I can be so sure? I wonder how it’s just not totally obvious. I don’t see how people don’t get it really. It’s so damn simple.

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Zeb :

Have you read the Dao De Jing ?
If not, how do you know that Daoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Edda(s) and the Havamal ?
If not, how do you know that Norse paganism is wrong ?

Have you read the Tripitaka ?
If not, how do you know that Buddhism is wrong ?

Have you read the book of the dead ?
If not, how do you know that Egyptian polytheism was wrong ?

Have you read the Adi Granth ?
If not, how do you know that the sikhs are wrong ?

Have you read the Agamas ?
If not, how do you know that jainism is wrong ?

have you read the Kojiki ?
If not, how do you know that Shintoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Vedas ?
If not, how do you that Hinduism is wrong ?

Fact is that we are ALL atheists.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Understood correctly religion is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Technically every ‘religion’ that attempts to reach out to the Creator of being, is not atheism. Some may be right, some may be wrong, they all may be right, or wrong, but the belief or religion is that you can interact with the Creator of being. Maybe they are wrong, but they are not atheists. They may call God different names, but it doesn’t matter what you call Him, his reality is the same. It’s the reality we seek, not the name.

Yes you do, you have demonstrated knowledge of the Bible.

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There is one atheist who acknowledges the Uncaused-cause, but rejects the idea that it’s necessarily God. However, atheist by in large go to great lengths to try and ‘prove’ there is no God, but coming up with various ad hoc theories on how this universe, or existence in general came to be without a ‘god’ or Uncaused-cause. And great pains are taken to illustrate this except it always without fail runs into this fallacious brick wall. To posit such a thing you have to also posit something from nothing. Whether you do it by causal succession or dependency, the ultimate source for everything cannot be nothing, but most atheist make this claim and the call us theists stupid idiots. It’s for this reason I berate because this flaw in logic isn’t minor, it’s a glaring inescapable problem that cannot simply be ignored. If you cannot solve it, then your house of cards falls. I have the problem solved so my house stands.
[/quote]

This is why I do not like philosophy at all. You claim to “have the problem solved,” but in reality you just have an idea that might make sense, but is only one of a possibly unlimited series of potential answers to the question. You have identified the problem (i.e. everything that happens in the universe appears to have a cause, but if everything has a cause then how did anything begin? You simply state that there must exist something uncaused that started everything, and then make the leap to claim that that must be whatever god you choose to worship. The problem with that scenario is thus:

Your solution actually invalidates the problem. The paradox that you brought up is that since causality exists, and we think that there has to have been a beginning (that is an assumption since we don’t actually know this for sure. It is possible that there is no real beginning). If there was a beginning then where did everything come from, since you posit that something cannot come from nothing? Your solution really doesn’t make sense when you think about it. If god does exist, the basic premise of religion, then you have something (god) which does exist and has no cause. This is where your “house of cards” falls apart, since you now have something that came from nothing, which is the very problem that you brought up. Your answer to this paradox was something along the lines of “he exists and doesn’t, or he is something and nothing,” but all it amounts to is just a bunch of words that amount to “he just is.” That is all well and good if you want to believe that, but it is not a valid and logical argument by any stretch of the imagination and doesn’t solve your paradox at all. If god can exist just because it is a convenient way to explain this paradox, then so can the idea of “everything just is and always has,” or any one of a number of explanations.
[/quote]
Not to put words in his mouth, but you are using caused in a bit different sense than what I think Pat is in his argument. I think he is at least putting his god as eternal instead of everlasting which would make a cause and effect timeline meaningless.

You unless I am mistaking you are using cause in a bit of a temporal way? Whereas he is likely not.

Why not like philosophy though. It certainly has the same amount of relevance to things outside the universe that physics does.

[/quote]

I mean it in every way. There is causal succession that is temporal as well as causal succession that is not. Actually, there are many types of causality, depending on the topic you refer to different kinds. I am merely dealing with the core of it in which causes necessitate their effects. Whether it happens in temporal order, simultaneously, or backwards doesn’t much matter to me…

And everything is a philosophy at it’s core. Science is just empirical philosophy and it is absolutely dependent on causation.

Maybe.
But that was not my point.

I was just saying that we all disbelieve in the existence of at least some Gods, with or without an expert knowledge of the related scriptures.

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Zeb :

Have you read the Dao De Jing ?
If not, how do you know that Daoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Edda(s) and the Havamal ?
If not, how do you know that Norse paganism is wrong ?

Have you read the Tripitaka ?
If not, how do you know that Buddhism is wrong ?

Have you read the book of the dead ?
If not, how do you know that Egyptian polytheism was wrong ?

Have you read the Adi Granth ?
If not, how do you know that the sikhs are wrong ?

Have you read the Agamas ?
If not, how do you know that jainism is wrong ?

have you read the Kojiki ?
If not, how do you know that Shintoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Vedas ?
If not, how do you that Hinduism is wrong ?

Fact is that we are ALL atheists.

At least when it comes to the god(s) of old and/or foreign religions.

Believers just make a strange exception when it comes to their religion of choice.
An exception that they are usually unable to justify.

Btw, your “you didn’t read the bible” rebuttal may work in America (because the protestant majority do read the bible, and atheists are often young punks) but it doesn’t work where i live.
As a matter of fact, i know the bible way better than most christians i have met (“cultural catholics”, for the most part).

[/quote]

You popped that question on the wrong guy. I have actually studied the religions of the world over a period of many years. I didn’t come to find Jesus Christ as my savior by chance it was an informed and very deeply moving decision. Didn’t expact that answer did you? You want your stereotype to be fulfilled “duh I’m a dumb Christian who was raaaaazed that a waaaaaay…”

That makes you a bit of a bigot doesn’t it?

Whereas Therajraj is merely ignorant for claiming that there is no God without even searching for where he may find God. “I just no that he doesn’t exist…bla crap bla crap bla…”

As others have said on religious threads, believe what you want. It is your life and you are ultimately responsible for your choices. But when you open your mouth (and it seems that so many atheists do here on T Nation) actually know what you’re talking about or just shut up. Sit there and believe what you want but don’t preach atheism as if it’s a religion because that makes you far worse than the Baptist who stands on a street corner preaching God to strangers.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
To Zeb :

Have you read the Dao De Jing ?
If not, how do you know that Daoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Edda(s) and the Havamal ?
If not, how do you know that Norse paganism is wrong ?

Have you read the Tripitaka ?
If not, how do you know that Buddhism is wrong ?

Have you read the book of the dead ?
If not, how do you know that Egyptian polytheism was wrong ?

Have you read the Adi Granth ?
If not, how do you know that the sikhs are wrong ?

Have you read the Agamas ?
If not, how do you know that jainism is wrong ?

have you read the Kojiki ?
If not, how do you know that Shintoism is wrong ?

Have you read the Vedas ?
If not, how do you that Hinduism is wrong ?

Fact is that we are ALL atheists.

At least when it comes to the god(s) of old and/or foreign religions.

Believers just make a strange exception when it comes to their religion of choice.
An exception that they are usually unable to justify.

Btw, your “you didn’t read the bible” rebuttal may work in America (because the protestant majority do read the bible, and atheists are often young punks) but it doesn’t work where i live.
As a matter of fact, i know the bible way better than most christians i have met (“cultural catholics”, for the most part).

[/quote]

You popped that question on the wrong guy. I have actually studied the religions of the world over a period of many years. I didn’t come to find Jesus Christ as my savior by chance it was an informed and very deeply moving decision. Didn’t expact that answer did you? You want your stereotype to be fulfilled “duh I’m a dumb Christian who was raaaaazed that a waaaaaay…”

That makes you a bit of a bigot doesn’t it?

Whereas Therajraj is merely ignorant for claiming that there is no God without even searching for where he may find God. “I just no that he doesn’t exist…bla crap bla crap bla…”

As others have said on religious threads, believe what you want. It is your life and you are ultimately responsible for your choices. But when you open your mouth (and it seems that so many atheists do here on T Nation) actually know what you’re talking about or just shut up. Sit there and believe what you want but don’t preach atheism as if it’s a religion because that makes you far worse than the Baptist who stands on a street corner preaching God to strangers.

[/quote]

So, i suppose that’s a “yes” to every questions i asked.
Because a single “no” would be more than enough to make my point.

And no, my point is not that you are a “dumb christian was who raised that way”.
I know you have studied the religions of the world. And you should know that i don’t resort to strawman.

There was no sarcasm in my remark.

My point is that, actually, one can legitimately disbelieve in the existence of (at least some) God without an degree in history of the religions or an expertise in exegesis.
There is various very good philosophical reasons to do that.
And the burden of a believer is to show why these very good philosophical reasons doesn’t apply to his own religion.

I’m pretty sure you can do that. Other PWI christians do it on a regular basis.

Maybe you’re so used to debate against mediocre and unworthy atheists that you came to resort to these lazy tactics.