To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 26 of 39
  1. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    it will take long time to become familiar with me.
    nothing exists, it is fact. your concerns are your belifes.
     
    madethesame, Dec 20, 2014
    #501

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    On your current performance I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
    You tend to be incoherent, apparently incapable of making a point and can't answer questions in any manner that seems rational.

    That happens to NOT be a fact.

    And another non sequitur...
     
    Dywyddyr, Dec 20, 2014
    #502

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    you know i am wrong as fact.
    but still respond to me, cause you are concerned, your belief pushes you.
     
    madethesame, Dec 20, 2014
    #503

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus

    Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,406
    Who says love is illogical? How is it illogical? What is the logic that it should follow, such that what it does is actually illogical?
    And before you can say it exists, do you even know what love is... in terms of what it is that actually exists?
    Nonsense.
    Whether something is illogical or not depends on the propositions one starts with.
    When it comes to something that actually exists, if we deem the existence to be illogical then it must be our propositions that are in error (assuming that the logic from those to the conclusion of "it can not exist" is valid).
    So if you deem love to exist and its existence to defy illogical, it is your propositions, your understanding of love that is in error and needs correcting.
    Don't apologise for butting in, just for what you butt in with!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Sarkus, Dec 20, 2014
    #504
  8. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    it is nice to have some beliefs, it is nice to have no beliefs,
    life is the combination of both
    to be at one extreme is unhealthy, life cannot be fully experienced at one
    theismism, atheism are all same
     
    madethesame, Dec 20, 2014
    #505
  9. Seattle

    Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Many atheists (including me) would define atheism as "insufficient evidence for a belief in God". That's not to say that we "know" there is no God but that the lack of belief is based on insufficient evidence.

    It's the same standard that is applied to Bigfoot.

    Regarding what is and is not in the material world...at this point everything that we know is in the material world including thoughts, emotions, electro-magnetic waves.

    There is no evidence for anything other than a material world.

    As I pointed out previously, "God did it" is not the best explanation for anything just using the same methods that you would use to find the best explanation for any other subject (evidence, fits the laws of nature, simplest explanation that gets the job done).

    The idea that (your) God is the best explanation makes no sense if for no other reason than you don't believe in all of the other Gods for the same reasons that I don't believe in all of the other Gods.

    The fact that there are many other Gods strongly suggests that Gods are man-made concepts in the first place.
     
    Seattle, Dec 20, 2014
    #506
    James R likes this.
  10. Seattle

    Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    So do I, so what? You only agree with scientists up to this point. Science doesn't address what came before the Big Bang because it's not currently known.

    Now you want to switch to formal logic but formal logic can't address truth where facts haven't been established. All it can do is show internal logic of a set of statements. If the statements aren't factually correct then you are accomplishing nothing.

    Without knowing what came before the Big Bang you can't derive that with formal logic (which is your whole game).
     
    Seattle, Dec 20, 2014
    #507
  11. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 21, 2014
    #508
  12. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Pachomius:

    As I have already pointed out, the universe as a whole may well be a special case. Physically, we have established causation in terms of matter and energy in the universe. Outside the universe notions such as time become hazy and so the concept of causation is problematic (unless, as Yazata suggests, we take the idea of a "cause" being the existence of some kind of explanation rather than as something that precedes the effect in time).

    On the other hand, you have already been given the example of virtual particles, which pop in and out of existence for no apparent reason (other than the inherent uncertainty in certain quantum fields). What do you suppose the cause of virtual particles is?

    Did you have any comments on the rest of my argument, or just step 1?
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #509
  13. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Jan Ardena:

    I don't see why. If the multiverse exists, then there's no reason it can't be entirely natural, as far as I can see. So if the multiverse explains our universe, then we have a natural explanation there, not a supernatural one.

    It is useful to bear in mind what Yazata said, though. Are we talking about our universe of matter and energy, or are we talking about everything that exists (including, potentially, the multiverse)?

    If we're talking about everything, then we need to include God in the everything. The argument presented then demands that God has a cause/explanation.

    We can we assume that effects inherit anything from causes? That strikes me as an Aristotlean way of thinking. For example, if I throw a ball, then after it leaves my hand that ball has no "memory" that it was projected by my hand, rather than, say, a tennis racquet or a cannon. All we can know about it is that it has a certain speed and direction of travel (etc.). Nothing about the ball in flight contains information about the agency (in this case, me) who caused that flight in the first place.

    I disagree. You're jumping away from natural explanations for no compelling reason.

    I don't agree with your default assumption, since the multiverse (if it exists) would be natural, not supernatural. So, for that matter, would the spontaneous generation of our universe as a result of some kind of quantum fluctuation.

    If you're talking ultimate first cause - i.e. first cause of all that exists, multiverses included - then an eternal God seems to be no better an explanation than an eternal multiverse (or an eternal nothingness that occasionally fluctuates, perhaps). I don't see why a supernatural cause is needed, if indeed a cause is needed. And I don't see why a God who created the universe would have to be all knowing in any sense. Admittedly, I don't know what "with regards its effect" means. And I have addressed the issue of necessary characteristics, I think.
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #510
  14. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    If you take the whole out of the whole, the whole remains behind. Nothing is taken out, because you cannot take anything from the whole. Even if you take the whole, the whole remains behind. And you cannot add anything to the whole. If you add something to the whole, it will remain the same ~ Upanishads
     
    madethesame, Dec 21, 2014
    #511
  15. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    And that is relevant because...?
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #512
  16. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    this concept is god.
     
    madethesame, Dec 21, 2014
    #513
  17. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Is it? It reads more like a kind of vague definition of infinity to me. Look:

    \(\infty - \infty = \infty\). If you take the whole out of the whole, the whole remains behind.
    \(\infty - x = \infty\). Nothing is taken out, because you cannot take anything from the whole.
    \(\infty - \infty = \infty\). Even if you take the whole, the whole remains behind.
    \(\infty + x = \infty\). And you cannot add anything to the whole. If you add something to the whole, it will remain the same.
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #514
  18. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    yes this is already written in vedas, thousands of years ago.
    they have realized, that gods definition can not be found.
    Also, we cannot define ourselves,
    if we could define ourselves we will become limited, hence no evolution, no propagation. then their would be no purpose.
     
    madethesame, Dec 21, 2014
    #515
  19. Pachomius

    Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Okay, addressing all atheists, tell me, Do you maintain that the universe came forth from nothing?
     
    Pachomius, Dec 21, 2014
    #516
  20. Seattle

    Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Again, no one knows what came before the Big Bang.
     
    Seattle, Dec 21, 2014
    #517
  21. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    All that atheists maintain is that there appears to be no need for a God to create the universe, and there's no evidence that God did create the universe.
     
    James R, Dec 21, 2014
    #518
  22. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    their is no definition of god
     
    madethesame, Dec 21, 2014
    #519
  23. madethesame

    madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    madethesame, Dec 21, 2014
    #520
Page 26 of 39
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page