Your Internal Moral Compass

[therajraj]

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.

[therajraj]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

1. Nobody has to demonstrate God exists. He already demonstrated it. Open your eyes. Just because the proof isn’t good enough for you doesn’t mean there is no proof.[/quote]

No you open YOUR eyes.

The only evidence for Christ are 2nd hand textual accounts of miracles. You must have an extremely low standard of evidence to accept that as ‘proof’

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

2. His morals were handed to us through Christ. It is called the scriptures.[/quote]

You have to prove the Bible is the word of god first. People have been trying to do this for centuries to no avail.

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

nobody can show you God exists with a lab experiment. Lab experiments are only a means of verification of something that was already thought to be true. You cannot demonstrate God in a lab because if you could that being you demonstrated would not be God. I can prove to you the idea of God exists and that the idea of God not existing would be illogical. You seem to think that in order for someone to prove you something, we have to use proof like we would in a courtroom. God already proved his existence but you won’t accept it.
[/quote]

God not existing is only illogical to YOU.

Please tell me, how has god “already proved his existence?”
[/quote]

So when you say “You guys” you’re lumping me in with the likes of this ^^ or tirib… Do not make those assumptions, WE are nothing alike. [/quote]

Do you both get your morals from the same book?

Do you hold the same position on several issues like abortion and gay marriage?

Do you both accept Jesus as your personal lord and saviour?

But no you guys are nothing alike…

I’m not sure what he did piss everyone off, I’ve only been here a short time but he hasn’t said anything that would warrant putting him on ignore.

[fibroblaster]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote: Ask yourselves what could make someone so insane that he would believe what Christians believe >>>[/quote]Clearly you have not studied Mormonism. They could much more effectively use an argument like this. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< What do you fools think Jesus meant >>>[/quote] when He said "but whosoever shall say [to his brother], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< “not of this world” and “born from above”? We don’t belong to this world because we have been adopted as sons of God >>>[/quote]this is true. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< But instead of joining this happiness, YOUR JEALOUS BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS DIDN’T DO THE SAME FOR YOU. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< So you become extremely bitter about the world, arguing for no reason then to be right. >>>[/quote]They argue to convince themselves that they are not accountable to the God they cannot avoid everywhere.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Whereas I argue because I also want you who are my brothers to have the same happiness. >>>[/quote]The gospel ain’t about “happiness”. It’s about resurrection and obediance in that order. The apostles weren’t too happy bein stoned and whipped and imprisoned. They DID have joy though. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I am not controlled or brainwashed because if I were, then I would succumb to this world’s ideas. I am not afraid of humiliation, because I always know God is watching me try to herd in his lost sheep. [/quote]I could be wrong, but I sense that you mean this despite being totally screwed up in most of your goofball theology.
[/quote]

Listen, most atheists didn’t choose it. And what is there left to do after atheism? How does an atheist choose the right religion if all of them point different paths? There are more atheists who don’t wan’t to identify with Christianity, because it is the largest religion in america, and they are upset that their parents who loved them didn’t give the this important memo growing up. Imagine being or an atheist, being ridiculed by your peers that you are going to hell because you don’t believe in God? It is traumatic. So they get turned off.[/quote]

Very true but not sure what you meant about this part… “they are upset that their parents who loved them didn’t give the this important memo growing up”[/quote]

They see their “christian” peers persecute them because they are atheists although atheism is all they knew because their parents told them this. They play the part their peers forced upon them. Everyone knows atheists can be good people of God and through their actions demonstrating christ’s message. The problem is, people tell atheists their whole life they are going to hell. If you were told you were going to hell your whole life, the only choice you have is to not believe in God. If someone tells you that you are ugly your whole life, then you may eventually be convinced of it, even if it is not true. So atheists have a hard time reconciling that a loving God would allow them to be persecuted and go to hell just because they were born this way. So they see hypocritical Christians leaping for joy that they are “saved” because they utter the words “I believe”, but these atheists were told by their own parents that God does not exist.

[ranengin]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]

Correct, the cosmological argument has been ripped to shreds by very informed and highly intelligent philosophers.

Pat chooses to ignore this.

[sufiandy]

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote: Ask yourselves what could make someone so insane that he would believe what Christians believe >>>[/quote]Clearly you have not studied Mormonism. They could much more effectively use an argument like this. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< What do you fools think Jesus meant >>>[/quote] when He said "but whosoever shall say [to his brother], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< “not of this world” and “born from above”? We don’t belong to this world because we have been adopted as sons of God >>>[/quote]this is true. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< But instead of joining this happiness, YOUR JEALOUS BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS DIDN’T DO THE SAME FOR YOU. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< So you become extremely bitter about the world, arguing for no reason then to be right. >>>[/quote]They argue to convince themselves that they are not accountable to the God they cannot avoid everywhere.[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Whereas I argue because I also want you who are my brothers to have the same happiness. >>>[/quote]The gospel ain’t about “happiness”. It’s about resurrection and obediance in that order. The apostles weren’t too happy bein stoned and whipped and imprisoned. They DID have joy though. [quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I am not controlled or brainwashed because if I were, then I would succumb to this world’s ideas. I am not afraid of humiliation, because I always know God is watching me try to herd in his lost sheep. [/quote]I could be wrong, but I sense that you mean this despite being totally screwed up in most of your goofball theology.
[/quote]

Listen, most atheists didn’t choose it. And what is there left to do after atheism? How does an atheist choose the right religion if all of them point different paths? There are more atheists who don’t wan’t to identify with Christianity, because it is the largest religion in america, and they are upset that their parents who loved them didn’t give the this important memo growing up. Imagine being or an atheist, being ridiculed by your peers that you are going to hell because you don’t believe in God? It is traumatic. So they get turned off.[/quote]

Very true but not sure what you meant about this part… “they are upset that their parents who loved them didn’t give the this important memo growing up”[/quote]

They see their “christian” peers persecute them because they are atheists although atheism is all they knew because their parents told them this. They play the part their peers forced upon them. Everyone knows atheists can be good people of God and through their actions demonstrating christ’s message. The problem is, people tell atheists their whole life they are going to hell. If you were told you were going to hell your whole life, the only choice you have is to not believe in God. If someone tells you that you are ugly your whole life, then you may eventually be convinced of it, even if it is not true. So atheists have a hard time reconciling that a loving God would allow them to be persecuted and go to hell just because they were born this way. So they see hypocritical Christians leaping for joy that they are “saved” because they utter the words “I believe”, but these atheists were told by their own parents that God does not exist. [/quote]

I thought what you meant was something along those lines but wanted to be sure before I said you were incorrect, which you are. By the same logic I could say this.

Christians are told their entire life they will go to hell if they stop believing in god, so they have no choice but to believe in god. This is only because their parents told them god exists and they know nothing else.

[Sloth]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< Also Mr. Tri, look up the greek rendition for “fool” and see if it is the same word used in the original Greek text Jesus said. [/quote]That’s what I was waitin for. I jist knew you wouldn’t let me down. Go ahead n tell us. And then tell us what you meant by “fool”. Oh yeah. Jesus spoke Aramaic, though the gospels were written in koine Greek. One more thing. Like I told the rest of the Catholics around here. There will be no idolators in heaven. People with the wrong God are idolators. If you were actually doing His work you would be calling them out of their temples of baal. Not lying to them by telling them they’re OK just how they are.

That doctrine of invincible ignorance is one of the most damnable beguiling deceptions ever perpetrated upon the human race. You people are really gonna pay.

[therajraj]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

[/quote]

The same source that has the ability to differentiate between murder and killing in self-defense.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

All I have to do is demostrate he exists, the rest of it is implied. [/quote]

No it’s not
[/quote]
If something exists that is responsible for all else, then yes it is.

[quote]

[quote]pat wrote:

For the existence part, I rely on the cosmological argument from the point of contingency. The point of contingency is the most important part or that as it essentially replaces causal relations with dependency, which is actually a causal relationship, but for the layman causation implies time, which is removed from contingency. It’s an argument form as a well as an argument in it self.
Now the argument ends in a Necessary Being…God is then inferred, from their. But for a Necessary Being to be what it must be, definitionally, then it must have at least one God-like property which makes the inference quite strong.

From that point, ‘morals’ is just a part of the causal chain, so it’s no big whoop.

But God doesn’t hand down morals, morals exist and we tap into them.[/quote]

The cosmological argument is flawed and has several criticisms. You really need to stop peddling it.[/quote]

It has criticisms, but it’s not flawed.
This should be simple enough then, prove it wrong.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]

It will not suffice to say it’s flaw and expect me to take your word for it. Put your money where your mouth is. Prove it wrong.

[pat]

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]

Correct, the cosmological argument has been ripped to shreds by very informed and highly intelligent philosophers.

Pat chooses to ignore this.[/quote]

Like I said, it should be no problem to prove it, or me wrong…Go nuts.

Oh wait! I should just take your word for it??? Nah, back your shit up.

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?
[/quote]

It’s relative… You wouldn’t understand, believer.

[pat]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

What is the ULTIMATE source of that???

[/quote]

The same source that has the ability to differentiate between murder and killing in self-defense.

[/quote]

[Sloth]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

[/quote]

The same source that has the ability to differentiate between murder and killing in self-defense.

[/quote]

Secular, atheistic reasoning…The same source relied on by Stalin.

[ranengin]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]

Correct, the cosmological argument has been ripped to shreds by very informed and highly intelligent philosophers.

Pat chooses to ignore this.[/quote]

Like I said, it should be no problem to prove it, or me wrong…Go nuts.

Oh wait! I should just take your word for it??? Nah, back your shit up.
[/quote]

I’m not claiming to be a “very informed and highly intelligent philosopher”, you would be smashed in a debate with one by the way. Don’t let your ego get too big.

Anyhoo…

In a nutshell, the argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes (multiple gods) or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” you raise the further question “Why is there a God rather than nothing?” The fundamental question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?

[therajraj]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

[/quote]

The same source that has the ability to differentiate between murder and killing in self-defense.

[/quote]

Secular, atheistic reasoning…The same source relied on by Stalin.
[/quote]

He wasn’t a secular humanist and he didn’t act reasonable.

[therajraj]

[quote]pat wrote:

It will not suffice to say it’s flaw and expect me to take your word for it. Put your money where your mouth is. Prove it wrong.
[/quote]

I’ve seen you argue with Bodyguard over it and I have little interest in it to be honest. Declare that a win for team Theist!!!

Here you go: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument

There are all the counter arguments. Go nuts.

[pat]

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

Tell me, If the cosmological argument can serve as an indirect proof of existence of God [meaning if God does not exist we run into a contradiction] will you except it? Others mentioned arguments as well. not surprisingly, they aren’t good enough for you. no argument can convince an atheist due to him acting as the supreme judge of the soundness of the argument itself.[/quote]

If the cosmological argument were indeed valid I would change my position. It’s not, read the criticisms of it. I make my decision based on reason and evidence. Pat is doing himself no favours by peddling this bad argument.
[/quote]

Correct, the cosmological argument has been ripped to shreds by very informed and highly intelligent philosophers.

Pat chooses to ignore this.[/quote]

Like I said, it should be no problem to prove it, or me wrong…Go nuts.

Oh wait! I should just take your word for it??? Nah, back your shit up.
[/quote]

I’m not claiming to be a “very informed and highly intelligent philosopher”, you would be smashed in a debate with one by the way. Don’t let your ego get too big.

Anyhoo…

In a nutshell, the argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes (multiple gods) or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” you raise the further question “Why is there a God rather than nothing?” The fundamental question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?[/quote]

So you missed the part where I spoke of the argument from the point of contingency? You must of missed the whole post as I was very specific about the contingency part.
Kalam, which is the version you pasted, is indeed flawed and a bad rip-off from Aristotle.
The argument from contingency, removes time from the equation, that’s the reason I chose that form.

Now, above you massacred the argument. Seriously, “Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.” ← Uh, fuck no. That’s garbage. I am not going to let you massacre the argument like that. It’s calls the principle of sufficient reason, which basically says, for that which exists, there is a sufficient (or necessary) reason that ‘it’ exists.
The second premise is even funnier…“Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.” ← LOL…what? whether that’s a premise or a conclusion I am not sure, but that doesn’t even belong in the cosmological form.
Do I need to go over the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequiter? How the hell do you get “…at least one thing is itself uncaused.” from those premises?

So here is an overview of the forms of the arguments and counter arguments:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Dig all you want, it has never been refuted.

[Sloth]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Do you both get your morals from the same book?[/quote]

And where do you get your morals, friend?

Secular human reasoning? The same source that brought us Communistic state atheism?

[/quote]

The same source that has the ability to differentiate between murder and killing in self-defense.

[/quote]

Secular, atheistic reasoning…The same source relied on by Stalin.
[/quote]

He wasn’t a secular humanist and he didn’t act reasonable.[/quote]

…

Where do your morals come from? Your atheistic reasoning. Well so did his! Westboro is crude. Stalin was a mass murderer. Please explain how you and Stalin use the same source, atheistic reasoning, and we’re all supposed to believe it’s just soooo much more reliable. Is this fun now Therajraj? You digging it?

[therajraj]

I’m off to the gym now, but I want to ask: Sloth do you consider the Cosmological argument valid?