A Proof That God Exists

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#388 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Most atheists claim that the BB caused the universe; especially after 1922 when LeMaitre came up with that theory. Then, what's the
difference between causing itself into existence and never had a beginning? That's the same to me.
But, acceptance in the BB is not required for atheism.
At it's core, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. My 13 year old son is an atheist. He knows very little about the BB theory. That doesn't make him less of an atheist.

My point to you, is simply this. Your idea that there has to be a god, is built on assumptions. Also, it makes claims that contradict itself. If all things have to have a beginning, than your god has to have a beginning. If you claim that he doesn't, than it is just as easy to say the universe doesn't. If you say the universe must have been caused, I can just as easily insist that your god must have been caused. You offer no other evidence for this god other than "the universe must have had a beginning". It is a weak premise to begin with, and easily falls into a "god of the gaps" category.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#389 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And you are getting shallower and shallower. How could the Primal Cause be matter to create matter if matter had to be created for being unable to cause itself into existence?
Hey, this is YOUR theory. You are claiming non-matter created matter. Please explain how this can be.(If you invoke the supernatural, I will laugh)

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#390 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Here's again for the 35th time: If the Primal Mover was matter He would have to be created or caused to exist. Since He is no matter
He was not created or caused to exist. I am very patient with atheists. If you still need another 35 times let me know.
Than all you have to do is explain how non-matter can possibly create matter.

I can hardly wait for your reply!!

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#391 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Is the watchmaker inside or outside the watch? Outside. If he was inside he could not have created the watch. Outside the universe with reference to the Creator is just a symbol to mean that the universe has been caused by a "Force" not part of the universe. Your assertion that the Divine Creator could not have any impact on the universe if He was not inside is based on your anthropomorphistic idea of the Creator Who is rather a Spirit.
Is the watchmake non-matter who is creating something of matter out of non-matter? Does the watchmaker exist in a material world? Does the watchmaker make all the materials he needs for the watch from nothing?

You analogy is poor.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#392 Apr 9, 2013
The only other prime minister's burial attended by the Queen was Churchill's.

Thatcher was very abrasive, but also pragmatic. She didn't want an air force flypast and/or a state funeral but it looks like she'll get something very similar. Those that have always hated Thatcher will be unmoved.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw an amusing joke about that.
The poster was complaining of the approximately 3 million pounds spent on her funeral (I apologize if I got the amount wrong).
He noted that with that much cash, they could have purchased a shovel for everyone in Scotland, and dug a hole so deep that they could've handed off Thatcher to Satan, directly.
I was briefly amused.:)
Lincoln

United States

#393 Apr 9, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Say what you want about Thatcher, unlike priests, she knew which miners (sic) she could f**k without ending up on a register.
<quoted text>
her family did not like "the film"

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#394 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Most atheists claim that the BB caused the universe; especially after 1922 when LeMaitre came up with that theory. Then, what's the
difference between causing itself into existence and never had a beginning? That's the same to me.
There's a difference between making a claim and accepting it provisionally. Since few atheists are also physicists, most fall into the latter category.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#395 Apr 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a difference between making a claim and accepting it provisionally. Since few atheists are also physicists, most fall into the latter category.
Accepting, even provisionally, a logical impossibility makes no sense.

If A causes B, the pre-existence of A is required.

Therefore, A cannot cause A, since A cannot both exist and not exist.

Law of Identity.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#396 Apr 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw an amusing joke about that.
The poster was complaining of the approximately 3 million pounds spent on her funeral (I apologize if I got the amount wrong).
He noted that with that much cash, they could have purchased a shovel for everyone in Scotland, and dug a hole so deep that they could've handed off Thatcher to Satan, directly.
I was briefly amused.:)
That makes one of us.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#397 Apr 9, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
But, acceptance in the BB is not required for atheism.
At it's core, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. My 13 year old son is an atheist. He knows very little about the BB theory. That doesn't make him less of an atheist.
My point to you, is simply this. Your idea that there has to be a god, is built on assumptions. Also, it makes claims that contradict itself. If all things have to have a beginning, than your god has to have a beginning. If you claim that he doesn't, than it is just as easy to say the universe doesn't. If you say the universe must have been caused, I can just as easily insist that your god must have been caused. You offer no other evidence for this god other than "the universe must have had a beginning". It is a weak premise to begin with, and easily falls into a "god of the gaps" category.
Yes, indeedy!!! All logical arguments begin with premises, and one way to refute them is to show that at least one of them is false or at least questionable. Those assumptions are the Achilles heel of every argument.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#398 Apr 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That the universe cannot cause itself shows one of two possibilities: either the universe is uncaused OR it is caused by something (or somethings) other than the universe. You have not shown the first is impossible. Also, even in the case of the second, you have not shown the cause of the universe is, itself, uncaused. So you have not shown the existence of a 'Primal Cause'.
<quoted text>
Which you have not shown exists.
<quoted text>
Why does this follow? Only matter is caused? What about energy? time?
<quoted text>
Once again, I completely agree that a thing cannot cause itself. That means any thing is either uncaused or is caused by something else.
Jesus himself said that God is a
<quoted text>
So you do not have a proof.
<quoted text>
That does not follow. It only shows that everything *in* the universe is either uncaused or is caused by something else. In fact, all causes we know about are in the universe, so it is illogical to deduce a cause outside of the universe.
<quoted text>
There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. We understand your argument quite well. But we also know that the argument doesn't manage to prove what it sets out to prove. In fact, it fails at every stage.
You have made many assumptions about causality here: that matter requires a cause, that non-matter does not require a cause, that not being self-caused means there is a cause, etc. the problem is that your whole argument fails because causality requires *time* and time is part of our universe. So causality of the universe is non-nonsensical.
You don't understand the logic.

Nothing that begins to exist is uncaused. If it begins to exist, it has a cause.

You are wrong about time. Time, as we know it, is a product of the known universe. A cause of the universe would not necessarily be contingent on universe time, because it is not the universe.

This is why the infinite regression argument cannot be applied to a cause of the universe, as in "what caused the cause?", because without time we cannot conclude that the cause began to exist in time, therefore, it does not require a cause.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#399 Apr 9, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
But, acceptance in the BB is not required for atheism.
At it's core, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. My 13 year old son is an atheist. He knows very little about the BB theory. That doesn't make him less of an atheist.
----------

Wrong, Serp.

Atheism is the belief that their is no god.

The "lack of belief" you allude to would be an agnostic, or a dog, or a rock.

My dog is not an atheist. Yes, he eats his own shit, which is only anecdotal evidence of atheism.
Lincoln

United States

#400 Apr 9, 2013
"In your view, are the Republicans in Congress doing enough to cooperate with Barack Obama, or not?"

Not doing enough 70%

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#401 Apr 9, 2013
One of the qualities of a first rate intelligence is the ability to adapt to new information or persuasive logic by changing one's views. As far as I know, Buck has never done this even once. One pr the most persistent qualities of a second or third rate mind is a tendency to stubbornly cling to beliefs even in the face of changing data or better logic. that fits Buck to a tee.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#402 Apr 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
One of the qualities of a first rate intelligence is the ability to adapt to new information or persuasive logic by changing one's views. As far as I know, Buck has never done this even once. One pr the most persistent qualities of a second or third rate mind is a tendency to stubbornly cling to beliefs even in the face of changing data or better logic. that fits Buck to a tee.
Spare me your pseudo-intellectualism, Serfer.

Universal logic is not a "belief".

The beliefs I do hold required rejection and turning anew from a quantity of training and instruction in belief to an extent I would compare gladly with any Topix poster.

My about-face and the resulting growth is documented widely. That doesn't mean I need to fall for the bull shit atheists spout on these pages which amount to recycled website confetti.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#403 Apr 9, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
One of the qualities of a first rate intelligence is the ability to adapt to new information or persuasive logic by changing one's views. As far as I know, Buck has never done this even once. One pr the most persistent qualities of a second or third rate mind is a tendency to stubbornly cling to beliefs even in the face of changing data or better logic. that fits Buck to a tee.
PS - show me some of this alleged "persuasive logic".

I haven't seen any here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#404 Apr 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
"In your view, are the Republicans in Congress doing enough to cooperate with Barack Obama, or not?"
Not doing enough 70%
Excuse me if I don't cooperate with people who break in my house to take my property.

I mean when I had some.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#405 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
PS - show me some of this alleged "persuasive logic".
I haven't seen any here.
Of course you haven't. You are too stubborn and egomaniacal to see it. Anyone reading your posts can see that your need to feel superior to everyone overrides what little intellect you have.

Which isn't much.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#406 Apr 10, 2013
For balance, I wouldn't have gone to see a film about a confused Ronald Reagan taking a piss in his wardrobe, either.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
her family did not like "the film"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#407 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepting, even provisionally, a logical impossibility makes no sense.
If A causes B, the pre-existence of A is required.
Which means that time is active, so causes only exist inside the universe.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr replaytime 711
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 76,871
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 8 hr The FACTory 4,299
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 hr Aerobatty 258,475
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 17 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jul 18 John 32,164
More from around the web