Against Religious Tolerance

You say that I am illogical. Nevertheless you yourself hold that religion is unnecessary for Man.
As an atheist you cannot explain
first-cause, prime-mover, necessary being, degrees of perfection,
nor order in the universe....and you call me illogical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*You say that I am illogical. Nevertheless you yourself hold that religion is unnecessary for Man.
As an atheist you cannot explain
first-cause, prime-mover, necessary being, degrees of perfection,
or order in the universe....and you call me illogical.*

One can explain it to you, however you don't accept reality as is, u want to accept reality as you wish it to be. Totally delusional!.

First-Cause

No first cause ever happened, this is false premise, since no first cause exists.

Prime-mover

No prime mover exists, this is a false premise since there's no evidence of an entity that can be considered to be the "prime-mover"


degrees of perfection

Perfection is a subjective interpretation, what may be perfect to you, may not be to countless others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

order in the universe

There's no order in the universe, it's quite the opposite. The universe is a chaotic place. However it's your perception to seek order, thus you interpret order in things. When in reality it's chaotic!

But we know lawpuppy, that you are "delusional" in your believes so this will be a futile attempt at trying to show a mere schizo like yourself a bit of "reason"

Godless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We don't. It's entirely up to him, i.e. he has to want it. How do you get somebody to want something geninely? Maybe make an alternative attractive and satisfying. Maybe figure out all the human psychological needs that the best religions / philosophies fulfill and then custom build an adaptable psudo-religion to meet those needs without sacraficing the line between reality and fantasy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You misunderstand first cause. A first cause might be likened imperfectly to the scientific "big bang.' However the big bang theory does not explain very much, only that matter came into existance and is moving. It cannot explain however the immaterial laws of the universe which are found in mathematics, geometry, and physics. Immaterial reality of the universe must have a first cause that causes all other phenomenon.

That things are in motion is evidence for a Prime Mover.

perfection is not a subjective notion, if it were, then the category would not exist!

most scientists agree that there is an amazing amount of order in the universe.

I have been tested and found mentally sane by different competant and licensed psychologists.

 

ice

 

the big bang never happened.

how so enlighten us.

now try and use that reasoning for your god, as god can be nothing else but subjective, so therefore the category does not exist!

a link to these "most scientist" you refer too please.

the fact that you needed to go to a psychologist, says it all does'nt it, and more than one I might add.
a deeply foolish thing to admit.

 

cube

 

Lawdog,

What do you mean by immaterial laws? This seems to be a confused concept.

No that doesn’t follow. If the universe is infinite then no first cause is required. If your argument is that since the universe exists then it must have a cause then that invalidates the proposition for a first cause since you must then explain the cause of the first cause, i.e. what created the creator. If you say the creator has always existed then what would be wrong with saying the universe has always existed? Your argument is logically inconsistent.

Note that neither order nor chaos indicates the need for a creator. All the order we observe in nature arises through natural processes.

Logical fallacy, since you must apply the same principle to the prime mover and that leads to a paradoxical infinite series. Also, why assume a beginning is needed?

Nonsense. Perfection is relative to a specific frame of reference. You are trying to make a claim for absolute perfection and you will not achieve agreement on that.

But that doesn’t imply a creator. Order occurs naturally.

 

For example: A triangle requires three sides, or, the laws of motion.

There is no such reality as an infinite regression/series. First cause must be its own cause as well. it is necessary being.

Here you are using the correct reasoning, but your conclusion is wrong: Prime Mover prevents infinite series. without Prime Mover there would be infinite series, which is impossible, ergo there must be Prime Mover.

 

Holy crap,

That interpretation of the Big Bang is incorrect; however, it is moot as Bing Bang Theory has been superceeded by a host of Inflationary Theories.

The whole statement is a product of flawed thinking. Those 'immaterial' laws being referenced might be an affect of the relationships of information. They might be something else. The point is you don't know enough about them to claim what they are or are not. Also, no evidence exists to even suggest that the behaviors of reality require a first cause.

Incorrect. It is evidence that things exist, that motion exists, that work exists, and *maybe* that energy exists.

If subjective categories didn't exist then dark, smelly, empty, etc. wouldn't be a part of our daily speech... yet apparently they are; therefore, the latter part of your assertion is simply incorrect.

The word perfection also seems quite subjective... ex... "His hair is perfect". The word perfection is often defined as flawless, non-contradictory, and maximally optimized. I am not aware of anything in reality (nor reality itself) that meets all 3 criteria.

The notion of Order/Chaos seems to be a subjective concept as well... often linked to a person's ability (or lack of) to easily perceive / predict something.

Congratulations. It doesn't change the fact that I can list out any number of fantasy concepts and you probably accept most of them as existing:

* 'God'
* 'Soul'
* 'Spirit'
* 'Angel'
* 'Demon'
* 'Devil'
* 'Heaven'
* 'Hell'
* 'Magic'
* 'Were-wolves'
* 'Vampires'
* 'Ghouls'
* 'Ghosts'
* 'Anal-Probing Aliens'
* 'Succubus'
* 'Sirens'
* 'Telepathy'
* 'Clairvoiance'
* 'Telekensis'
* 'Pyrokensis'

 

The vast majority of people in the West are Secular Atheists... even the great majority of those still going to Church on Sunday.

If one walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Most people live their entire lives with no reference at all to God, Heaven, Spirituality... any of that Religious stuff.

And Protestants... those who destroyed Christian Civilization, certainly don't count as anything other than Atheists. Indeed, they are worse. An Atheist might still hold some residual morality from the inertia of traditions and customs from that Past Civilization. But a Protestant repeats over and over and over to himself that he is Forgiven of his Sins. Protestants, then, are intentional Sinners. They condone Evil. Few atheists actually condone evil as evil -- they come up with various materialistic and selfish excuses for the evil they commit -- but a Protestant actually condones such behavior, claiming that by Murdering Jesus, they are somehow entitled to indulge in any sordid thing, to commit any crime... it all just proving their Faith.

No, there is a great deal of Atheism. Why is it that, do you think, that the Muslims so object to Western Culture and its Influences. They rightly see that it is entirely Godless. Just look. The Republican Party in America boasts that they are solidly Religious -- a Pillar of Protestantism. But look at their lives and behavior. War. Capitalism which is nothing but the Usury dissallowed by the Laws of the Bible, which is the expression of greed. Then the constant attention to Freedom and Individual Rights. What is that but the renunciation of Community, Duty, Obligation -- everything that Religion wants to instill in a Civilization, the West, and especially the Conservative Religion Protestant Republicans, all that is Good and Moral, they wish to sweep away. For the sake of Unrestricted Exploitation of their Fellow Man and their Planet Earth. No. They can say God God God all they like. But we know Atheists when we see them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

 

All you are doing is grading people based on how closely they match your own stupid beliefs. They are doing the same to you. Protestants are most certainly not atheists if they believe in a God. They are not atheist by default because their idea of God is different than yours. They are just as stupid as you for accepting irrational religious ideas without evidence.

 

I realize what Protestants are, but do not blame them for remaining Protestants. they look at the corruption of the Church and its feminized character and are repelled. No doubt many protestants shall be higher in heaven than some cardinals.

 

Lawdog,

Ok but these are not immaterial things. These are termed as abstractions. I.e. they are labels given to natural phenomena.

That is my point it is gibberish.

This is a contradiction in terms. The statement doesn’t make sense. The concept you are trying to portray is of something that has no cause, i.e. an infinite being.

That’s a different concept. Something that is infinite does not have to be necessary.

By necessary you are implying that the universe could not have occurred without a creator therefore he is necessary. The major flaw here is that you haven’t demonstrated that the universe was created or needed to be created and hence required a necessary being.

The second major flaw is the assumption you are making that everything must have a cause including the universe so that you can justify a creator. But that is simply a disingenuous selective argument. If the statement “everything must have a cause” is true then a creator must also have a cause and that leads to the impossible infinite regression scenario. If you argue for an exception, i.e. except for a god, then the basis of your original proposition that everything must have a cause becomes invalid, and we may as well take Occams razor and go for the vastly more simpler argument that the universe was uncaused. Essentially your argument is logically inconsistent and hence invalid.

Your error is largely explained above. The error in your logic here is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I.e. the fact that an infinite series is impossible does not imply that an uncaused creator must exist.

 

But is not an abstract idea immaterial?

The uncaused cause is a ground cause beyond which no cause can be found. How is this a contradiction?

That’s a different concept. Something that is infinite does not have to be necessary.

Necessary being doesnt imply creation. Creation of the space-time continuum was a miraculous event. All created things of Creation are unnecessary being, contingent. They need not to have existed. Only Necessary Being IS, and is its own explanation. Necessary Being makes IS a actual reality, it is pure act. Without it nothing can be said to be. Necessary Being cannot be put into a genera, in fact, the essence of this necessary Being is its existance.

But regardless of their creator, each thing is caused by something, right?

In the word everything is commonly understood every created thing. Yet deity is already understood as Uncreated.

But how is that more simple? After all, everything we experience can be traced to a cause. reality as a whole must have a cause. If the universe is infinite of time-space that does not change how one discerns the stasis of the immaterial reality, does it?

[/QUOTE]

 

Law puppy's non sequirtus is quite amusing..

 

Please stay out Godless. I am trying to have a serious discussion with Cris. You make fun of me after its over.

 

If you look back dipshit! I'm the one who answered most of your so called questions about first cause, etc...

But like I been witnesing as everyone else, you don't have a logical argument, it's non-sequirtus, you make your fantasy up as you go along, in defence of what is obvious!.

 

I am sorry I upset you. I would also like to have this discussion with Cris as well.

(non sequitur)

 

Lawdog,

What do you mean by immaterial? I’m taking that to imply supernatural. Are we simply confusing terms here?

That’s different. Your statement was “First cause must be its own cause”, which makes no sense.

But yes it does in your context. You are trying to say God is necessary because creation needs a cause. If this new statement is true then that would imply creation doesn’t need a cause, in which case God is unnecessary.

Unsupported assertion.

Confused statements. Please explain more clearly.

Cannot fathom what you are saying.

Please re-phrase using understandable English.

Unsupported assertion. An uncaused universe would render your assertion false.

Mystical gibberish.

We have no evidence that anything has been created. Everything we know is the result of exchanges between matter and energy. The laws pf physics show that nothing is either created or destroyed. The relationship is E=MC^2.

Only if you are a creationist. I make no such assumption about “everything”.

Doesn’t require an unsupported supernatural realm and the fantastic claim of a being capable of creating universes.

Everything can be traced to an exchange of matter/energy, nothing points to anything having been created.

Unsupported. And a non-sequitur. All evidence supports to no starting point.

What is an immaterial reality?