[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]
So you are saying people who are hell bent on killing other people think God is on their side?
Interesting.
I think I heard a song about that before.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[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 religion 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.
[/quote]
The laziest person on any thread is the one who is least informed yet drones on and on anyway. Now let’s see who would that person be in a thread about God?
I got it!
It would be the person who makes a claim about there not being a God but who has never looked for a God in the very places where God is traditionally found.
A doctorate in religion is not needed, but a good effort would be appreciated. I have not seen any sort of effort from the many atheists here on T nation (but I have not talked to them all)
Barring that, I do agree you can walk around and claim that you don’t believe in God. Just as I can walk around claiming that I don’t like 18th century English poetry even though I’ve never read any of it, or heard anyone else read it. That is my right!
But, it takes a real unsophisticated intellect to stand on a street corner and preach that there is no God when in fact that man has never one time looked for God. But he has philosophized that there just can’t be one…Ho hum…
First acquire knowledge then make a determination.
Not so original but certainly resisted by many of your ilk.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]
Any other insights regarding the genesis of psycho-pathologies?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
soundest historical interpretation[/quote]
lol
Pat,
I’ve been reading your posts and I’ve got a simple question. Both of these are paraphrases directly from you.
“The uncaused-cause must be”.
“Something can not come from nothing”.
Juxtapose both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. Do not both statements hold true for both arguments?
Evolution is an uncaused-cause that must be, and in this case, something indeed came from something. Substitute “God” and the sentences may be equally true.
The question is not where did we come from. The question must be where did God come from? If his existence is defined by the uncaused-cause, then why can mankind’s existence not be defined so? If something cannot come from nothing, then how did God materialize? As Dr Matt said, if your summary argument is “he just is” then you’ve regressed to the Red Herring technique you’ve so aptly described. You cannot prove God exists but merely state that factoids that discourage the opposing view. And yes, I am well aware that I have done the very thing to you which I have just described. Maybe we both suck.
PS - I respect your arguments/beliefs and I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. But I just don’t get it.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Evolution is an uncaused-cause…[/quote]
No, evolution has causes. As soon as autocatalytic RNA arrived on the scene (ultimately from abiotic processes producing organic molecules), so did mutations. Edit: And, natural selection takes over from there.
OK, then I rephrase my statement to encompass this earlier event. Abiotic processes producing organic molecules is the uncaused-cause. You get my point. Some event in the biology chain is the uncaused-cause. The argument still holds.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
OK, then I rephrase my statement to encompass this earlier event. Abiotic processes producing organic molecules is the uncaused-cause. You get my point. Some event in the biology chain is the uncaused-cause. The argument still holds.[/quote]
But those abiotic process are then explained by geology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, and so on. In short, the matter and energy shaping the earth and it’s environment (including the above abiotic processes) have explanations/causes.
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
And energy, and it’s laws. Especially the laws. I mean, who cares if something comes into physical existence, without orderly and logical laws to perpetuate physical existence, until a point where beings capable of consciously considering physical existence arose. Imagine if there was nothing but chaos! Well, the uncaused cause has been/is certainly debated here. At least formal attempts are made. Not my cup of tea. Debating the national debt is difficult enough.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]
In before pat 
Being “above time” does not make them “above causality”. It only makes them “outside the chronology”, so to speak.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]
In before pat
Being “above time” does not make them “above causality”. It only makes them “outside the chronology”, so to speak. [/quote]
Being above time exempts them from requiring a beginning.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]
In before pat
Being “above time” does not make them “above causality”. It only makes them “outside the chronology”, so to speak. [/quote]
Being above time exempts them from requiring a beginning. [/quote]
But not a cause. That’s what kamui said.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]
M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]
In before pat
Being “above time” does not make them “above causality”. It only makes them “outside the chronology”, so to speak. [/quote]
Being above time exempts them from requiring a beginning. [/quote]
But not a cause. That’s what kamui said.
[/quote]
… what?
Cause. As in something that necessitates an effect. Time doesn’t effect the argument because it is based upon contingency. So go ahead and add a quadrillion more dimensions. It won’t effect the base argument one iota.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:soundest historical interpretation[/quote]lol[/quote]Yes, soundest historical indeed dearest Christopher. I have some news for you btw as soon as I get a flippin chance. =[
[quote]pat wrote:
[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]
This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I already told you, I am uninterested in becoming a bible scholar. My interest is identifying evidence for a god. Before I can consider the Bible as evidence, it must meet certain criteria. It fails on that front.
[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Before I can consider the Bible as evidence, it must meet certain criteria. It fails on that front.
[/quote]
Therefore you won’t actually read the bible. Yet you persistently quote the bible and spend time critiquing the bible. And you cannot see how fatuous that is? There are plenty of atheists who have read the bible and know it well - why don’t you leave it to them and stop making yourself look silly.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cause. As in something that necessitates an effect. Time doesn’t effect the argument because it is based upon contingency. So go ahead and add a quadrillion more dimensions. It won’t effect the base argument one iota. [/quote]
If you’re looking for the uncaused cause, here it is. Yes, our universe obviously had a beginning, but the “stuff” that makes up our universe has always existed, assuming our modern physicists are worth their salt.
M-theory removes the need for God as an explanation for how our universe came into existence.