Popular question atheist ask theist
Offline when many theist use the cosmological argument for the existence of god, quite often, well actually 99% of the time the theist is asked the question:
what/who created god?
well first off let me start off by saying what i define as my god:
the uncreated creator of everything.
the unmovable mover.
the uncaused cause of everything.
now, since the burden of proof is on us theist, i would like to say, can we atleast define what we believe is our god? ok so hopefully we think that def is fair enough to go by for now.
ok now, to ask the question what/who created god, is an unfair question, BASED on the def i classify my god under. to ask what created the uncreated creator of everything is unfair.
now im just gonna talk a little bit more abt, kalams cosmological argument.
? - Does the universe exist now?
Reasonable answer, yes.
this means the universe either had a beginning, or no beginning correct?
lets say that the universe had no beginning for now. im going to look at this from a philosophical standpoint. quite simply put, it is impossible to cross an ACTUAL infinte series of events. therefore the universe had to have had a beginning. im not here to tell that it was god, just here to point that it is possible to say that the universe has always existed, and that it did have a beginning, i will make another post sometime on how if it had a beginning the logical explanation would be a creator.
now i just kno soooooo many people are going to respond to that but not actually kno what they are talking abt. if you dont kno what i mean it is impossible to cross an actual infinte series of events PLEASE do not respond to that.
- Login to post comments
so sry
just here to point that it is possible to say
when i said that i meant, that it is impossible!
couldnt figure out how to edit, hah im a nub
Now you need to tell us what an "unmovable mover" and an "uncaused cause" are. Also, you are merely telling us what this god did, not what it is.
What evidence do you have that this thing you call god even exists?
The question is justified to make a point which is in response to the statement, "god created everything". It literally means that god created itself along with everything.
Anyone can respone to this if they want.
First off, what definition are you using for the word 'universe'?
Secondly,
Not sure what you mean by "cross".
What proof do you have to justify this statement?
By the way something cannot come from nothing and it is impossible for time to have a beginning.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Now you need to tell us what an "unmovable mover" and an "uncaused cause" are. Also, you are merely telling us what this god did, not what it is.
What evidence do you have that this thing you call god even exists?
An unmovable mover is something that cannot move things, but cannot BE moved.
uncaused cause of everything would be something that is uncaused that caused everything. how can you even ask this question? the statements explain themselves.
The question is justified to make a point which is in response to the statement, "god created everything". It literally means that god created itself along with everything.
incorrect, the question is the response to the argument saying, if you see a painting, you know there is a painter, if you see a building you kno there is a builder. not what you said.
Not sure what you mean by "cross".
What proof do you have to justify this statement?
if you have taken any high level maths(calculus or higher you should prolly know.)but basically it goes like this, say you have a ladder with an infinite number of rungs on it. (the ladder respesents the earth, and it has always been here) if the ladder has an infinite number of rungs, and we start off on the top rung, representing today, and start going back one rung at a time represeting days. it is impossible to ever have gotten to today, bc we could have never possibly reached the bottom of the ladder, so therefore it is evident that the earth had a beginning. bc to make progress you must have a starting point. so if the earth has always existed, you could have never reached today.
First off, what definition are you using for the word 'universe'?
all matter and energy that exists today, but good question, im going to look at that a little deeper.
Okay.
let me just point out to you my definition of the universe.
The universe is: "That which is"
So, based on that it is unfair for you to tell me the universe was at some point not and then, was created. The universe according to my definition is "that which is", as opposed to "that which isn't", an example of that being "that which is made up (like God)".
So...
What are you gonna do about that?
And before you say my universe had a beginning in the form of the big bang, I'd just like to point out that, as far as I'm concerned, the big bang was just an occurance, not a "beginning". It was the change of one state of affairs into another state of affairs.
And you know perfectly well that your statement:
The argument goes like this: If your God is infinite, and he created the universe, then he hasn't created the universe yet, because since he did not "begin" at one point he still has an infinity to go before he gets to the point were he creates the universe.
He has created the universe, since it is here, ergo, he most have had a beginning.
So let me ask you: What created God?
No need to answer that, just pointing out that your argument is invalid as an attack on my position, because it attacks yours equally.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
And this is your muddled attempt at explaining your argument? It would appear you have less of a grasp on the concept than I, and for the record, my level of math goes to high school level, basic.
Linguistics, litterature and history is my game, but I still have a functioning brain, so you are not gonna run circles around me just cause "you know numbers n'stuff"
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
The argument goes like this: If your God is infinite, and he created the universe, then he hasn't created the universe yet, because since he did not "begin" at one point he still has an infinity to go before he gets to the point were he creates the universe.
lemme just say that i have been waiting for this response and most atheist dont catch it, nice job=] . however, lets revert back to my definition of god, if you look at it, then this is an invalid argument.
The universe is: "That which is"
does that mean that past events are not part of the universe?
And before you say my universe had a beginning in the form of the big bang, I'd just like to point out that, as far as I'm concerned, the big bang was just an occurance, not a "beginning". It was the change of one state of affairs into another state of affairs.
just an occurence? an occurence from what? just as another atheist stated, something cannot come from nothing. so what was it that this occurence, occurred from?
And this is your muddled attempt at explaining your argument? It would appear you have less of a grasp on the concept than I, and for the record, my level of math goes to high school level, basic.
i think not. and it was attempt to explain my argument, to show the guy b4 you that asked abt it, and for the record, that was a pretty good illustration of what it means. but okay.. bc im pretty sure if a college professor,a math professor, will tell me that is a good illustration who is an atheist then im pretty sure its good enough to explain here.
Past events that pass beyond the big bang is not part of the universe we percieve, but they are part of "that which is"
I d'no.
...Do you?
...and if you do, please provide evidence, not Bronze age myths. As I have said before, I will now say again: My gripe with religion is not what it asks, but what it answers
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I d'no.
...Do you?
obviously you dont think my argument makes logical sense, when it makes perfect sense. what your saying is impossible. you are saying that you would rather believe just the i d'no than follow the logical explanation that the universe,"that which is" had a beginning, not saying it was cause of god just saying it had one.
o and i dont kno what or where it was but someone asked me to give an example of limitations of science, heres one: science presupposes order, meaning that we must base all science comes from order, thus science cannot study that which is pure disorder.
That sounds pretty good. I think it implies anything that exists has to have a beginning. But God does not exist inside the universe in anyones opinion. The bigger problem is that if God is unchanging and constant, timeless, how does he create anything without changing himself. So now we're all screwed. With or without the kalam argument, how did we even get here anyway??? Ex nihilo doesnt look good... Something always existing doesnt look good....whats left??
I'm not saying I don't know that the universe is. I know that the universe is. I'm just saying I don't know what the state of affairs was before the big bang, but I know there was a state of affairs, because it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.
Imagine that the universe is a room, and you and I are in it. We have never been outside the room, either of us. All I'm doing is saying I don't know what's outside the room. How is that illogical?
You are saying God is outside the room. To be honest I think you are the one being illogical because you are concluding something about something that you cannot know, since you've never been outside the room.
Again: ...not what it asks but what it answers
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Personally, I love a good paradox, so I'm just glad to have another unsolvable to push around in my head, when I'm not playing guitar, having sex, or cooking (or writing blog-entries for no particularly good reason other than to spend time).
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Please use the "quote" functions.
Click the word "quote" or "reply" at the bottom of the post to which you want to reply.
An edit window will open.
At the beginning of the text you will see:
[ quote={person's name} ] (without the spaces)
At the end of the post you will see [ /quote ] (again, without the spaces)
If you want to reply to multiple parts of the post, be sure you have matching beginning and ending quotes.
I.e. [ quote ] and [ /quote ]
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
once again. back to what it means to cross an infinite series of actual events. the universe, earth, anything could not have reached today without a beginning. for instance. the earth. today would have never come if there is an infinite number of days. i dont kno how you cannot see this. its pretty simple to see that it must have had a beginning. now dont talk about the whole god thing. i already shot that argument down with my definition of god. and it doesnt matter what was b4 your big bang theory, bc even for that to exist, it had to have a beginning. just as you stated it is illogical for something to come from nothing, it is illogical for something that exist to not have beginning.
ok ill try, thnx=p
- But if your God is an unmoved mover then he didn't come from something (he wasn't moved), ergo he came from nothing.
- In your own words, illogical, and, hence, impossible
- But he didn't "come into existence" at all. He is infinite
- Then he hasn't crossed the infinite series of events. and the universe doesn't exist.
- The universe does exist, ergo God had a beginning.
You see how your own argument invalidates itself?
Your definition of God requires for him to have come from nothing, or to not have created the universe yet. The second is demonstrably wrong (the universe is here)
So the unmoved mover must have come from nothing.
You must retract your statement: "it is illogical for something to come from nothing", or accept that an unmoved mover is illogical.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Hello. I was waiting for someone more informed than me to answer this, but since I have an advanced comprehension of math for my age (HS senior and in Calc 3 next semester), I think I will try to answer this.
Early in Calculus 2, our teacher told us about Zeno's "Dichtonomy" paradox. It goes like this: In order for you to cross a bridge, you must first get halway across the bridge. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a fourth of the way there, and so on-- infinitely. Does this mean that you will never cross the bridge? Of course not. This paradox was solved by the development of a thing called "limits," which is the most basic of all Calculus concepts.
Now that I've said that, I must point out that my explanation isn't even necessary because of one thing: time does not move in a linear fashion. It moves through four dimensions. I don't know a lot about the movement of time, but I do know that the way it moves is called "Time's Arrow." If someone could elaborate here (or even tell me if I'm right), please do so. The only think I know about Time's Arrow is what I can find on wikipedia, because it's also the name of a book and a song, so google searches are swamped with that.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
you either are not understand my argument or something.. if you look at my definition of what god is, then you would stop trying to bring up this point and the others about the universe existing so god began. blah blah ect...
Zymotic:
good read. and i, btw, agree with everything you said.
No, it is you who doesn't understant my argument. The universe is. End of story.
How do you refute that without using an argument that refutes your own God just the same?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
If you're playing word games, you can define it any way you like. Every concept doesn't refer to something actual.
Let's break it up a bit more:
This is still a problem even if you say he's the uncreated creator of the universe. You have to exist to create something, and you've asserted several times that to exist, you need a beginning.
If you want to insist that god always was, then why can't the universe also always have been? (And don't give me the silly about Zeno's Paradox - that ignores resolution. "Limits" as Zymotic properly put it.)
If you insist the universe had a beginning, why can't time also have had a beginning? And if time began with the universe, then we can't have anything "before" the universe, making "god" impossible.
Imagine a universe with only two objects in it. The distance between the objects is increasing. Which one is moving? You'll never prove that it's one or the other or both, because motion is relative. It's not possible for a thing to be "unmoved" because there will be many perspectives from which it is moving.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
you seriously just made me Lough out Loud. im not the one misunderstanding, bc your argument makes no valid point with my given definition of god, end of story.
and im not playing word games, he is not looking at my definition of god good enough because if he did he would stop trying to use the cosmological argument against me as most atheist do. however, most atheist i talk to actually understand this and accept it. i believe 9 of the last 10 that me and a friend talked to/exchanged thoughts agreed with this argument that the universe had a beginning. also, if god is the uncaused cause and the unmovable mover, how can you keep bringing him into this argument? it totally contradicts the above statements if you bring him into this argument. seriously please its getting repetitive, bc you present the same illogical argument the entire time so far, and i mean illogical bc of who god is to me as a theist. if you would like to give me a different definition of god then i guess we could try and use that but i dont really know how you could give a definition of something you have a lack of believe in.
Once again, not every concept refers to an actuality. You're sneaking the ontological argument in under the auspices of the cosmological one; neither of which is anything but a word game.
Haha. And you just made me laugh out loud, as you reminded me of a wonderful joke from the British comedy "Coupling".
Allow me to quote:
(Jane has convinced a gay man to come with her to meet her friends, and she, being incredably selfabsorbed, is oblivious to the fact that any man, gay or straight, might not be romantically interested in her. As she introduces him to her friends as her new boyfriend, he pulls her aside to explain a little something)
Guy: "Jane, I'm sorry, I don't know quite how to put this... I'm afraid there's been a misunderstanding here. I've told you I'm gay... This is not a date, you know that right?"
Jane (With a huge ditzy, oblivious smile): "Oh dear! You poor thing! There has been a misunderstanding. This is a date!"
I adress the subject matter of the uncaused-cause-God, precisely because that is where your argument breakes down.
I completely agree that the following is a logical construct: "The universe began at some point. God caused it" This is logically consistent, and I have no quarel with that.
However, that just proves you can construct a sentence, because you yourself recognize that you still need to explain God in order for the above statement to not beg the question.
So you explain God by saying: "He is the uncaused cause". And this is not a logical proposition if you follow your own above arguments.
- Something cannot come from nothing, (so the uncaused cause must always have been there)
- If God has existed for infinity before he created the universe then he has not created the universe yet.
If you however say that he can still create the universe sometime in the past, your above arguments are no longer valid to argue against my position (that the universe exists), without also arguing against your own (That God exists).
All you are saying is:
"Because of God the universe exists"
And all I'm doing in response is applying Occam's Razor and saying:
"Because of God..." This is superflous...
So we are left with:
"...the universe exists"
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
trubeliever,
FUCK YOU SATAN .... you separatist. Me Jesus is not happy with you. You are a divider, opposing all is ONE, as I've so tried to tell you .... WE are GOD, as all is ONE.
Atheism Books.
We call that special pleading.
Let me check... nope, still an atheist.
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
The universe is not a "thing" and its existence is not an "event".
The universe is a set, one of whose elements is time. The universe is the the "uncaused cause" and the "prime mover" Aquinas supposes to be God. The universe cannot have a "beginning", because the universe is time. It also cannot have "existed forever", because there is no time outside of the existence of the universe. The universe simply is, and nothing can be outside of it, or before it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem... your definition is incoherent, trubeliever and you've been told this many times now, even in other threads. Asserting that we're the ones unable to understand your argument, and repeating it ad nauseam, is getting you nowhere. Would you care to try again?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Look, I understand, and accept your argument too friend. The thing is, it's just not logically consistent, but I get what you are saying:
"By your definition of God, the world makes sense"
Sure it does, but your definition of God doesn't.
When atheists accept that this is your argument, then what that simply means is that they are accepting that you are needing to be illogical in order to construct your argument. This is quite reasonable. We all accept people's illogical behavior all the time, because we all do it at times.
Let me give you an example:
A while back I was in a rut with my emotions towards my ex-girlfriend.
We could just not make it work, and we kept breaking up, because we kept fucking up our relationship.
But I loved her so much that I kept telling myself that we must get back together some day, because I really really wanted to.
Which is also why we did keep getting back together, because we both felt this way, but we also kept screwing things up and breaking up again.
So I kept insisting that it was right for us to get back together, and when we did we would eventually make it work (despite consistent evidence to the contrary), because I just loved her that much.
At times I could even spot the illogicalities of my own insistance that we could one day make it work, but I quickly pushed those thoughts to the back of my mind, because I liked the feeling of having that hope to cling to.
My friends would sometimes talk to me about moving on, and with true concern, would try and help me realize the truth, and at times I would argue it with them, and at times I'd admit that they were right, but I'd still cling to my illogical assumptions of happy-ever-after-some-day.
And sometimes (and this is the important part) they would just conseede to themselves that I was being illogical, and accept the validity* of my argument: "We love eachother so much that we will make it work"
*: And that is to say, they could see the logic in my argument from my point of view, that love = making it work, but they were still well aware that I was making a presupposition: Love = making it work = universal truth.
- if Love equals making it work
- Then Nikolaj and Kath will make it work.
They could see that logic
But I didn't see the if because I was blinded by delusion, so therefore the argument led to a logical conclution for me, while my friends new it was contigent on a presupposition that was not proved to be true.
So it's not that I don't see the logic of your argument, I just see that it starts with a presupposition: The uncaused cause, which is unexplained and therefore not readily acceptable.
For the record, Kath and I still love eachother, and it's not always fun and games, but I have by now accepted that there is no logical reason to assume that love = making it work, because no evidence is forthcoming, and indeed, there is more and more evidence to the contrary coming in all the time.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
trubeliever, may I request less txtspk, please, it is really quite disconcerting to read a block of it in a forum setting.
Basically, Zymotic, the paradox is moot simply on the basis that one can, apparently, cross a bridge, since one cannot not cross a bridge by virtue of Zeno's infinite divisions it would seem there does exist a finite minimum length to which you can divide space.
Now, as to limits, Zeno's paradox has a zero limit upon which it converges as the divisions go to infinity, it follows the course of the function 1/x where as x gets infinitely large the tail of the function gets arbitrarily close to the x axis without ever touching it, the limit, therefore, is where the function would come to an halt; in the case that the function meets the x axis the function has ended thus the limit of the function is 0, it cannot cross that barrier.
Applying calculus to the universe basically gives us the big bang theory that we all know and love. Let x be the succession of causality in the reverse direction of time's arrow and y the causal protagonists as numerical identities in the universe, then as the number x grows very large y goes to zero, you can consider this as the unifiaction of the fundamental forces if you like but the important point to note is that the function stops existing at the limit, the preuniverse universe is governed by another equation, causality breaks down at the limit.
But, this breakdown of the function indicates nothing much in particular, to infer an unmoved mover simply on the basis that the function of causality breaks down at the limit is to paint a god of the gaps with the usual god of gaps problems, the gap doesn't lend, of itself, any weight to the god. It's not impossible, sure, but it's not particularly credible either.
There are a lot of time arrows. Generally the causal arrow of time aligns with the thermodynamic arrow, on the macro scale a quantity of thermodynamic arrows act as a field, this field represents a causal vector which is directed by the thermodynamic arrows; on the whole the causal arrow is more intuitively reversible than the thermodynamic arrow. The cosmological arrow is different again but you can think of it as basically a combination of these two.
Some other time arrows are the quantum arrow which follows the evolution of the schrodinger equation, this one doesn't look anything like time as we are familiar with it, and the psychological arrow which is the order in which the human brain appears to catalogue it's experiences of these others.
Time is a strange an elusive thing, however as you noted already time and space form a single manifold and as we can, apparently, change space time coordinates, it is most sensical to consider that a finitely smallest possible interval of time and space exists.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
The argument of whether an infinite regression is illogical has been going on for thousands of years.
The it's illogical people say: look if it takes an infinite number of steps to get to now we'd never arrive at now so now can't exist.
The other side says: no, each step along the infinite chain is a discrete step so whichever step we are currently on in the infinite chain is now.
This is why I rarely use the infinite regression argument. It’s an unsettled question.
It's an unsettled question as to what was before the universe we know, if such a linear concept applies. The god question is in there for psychological reasons, not factual ones.
Arguing god is make believe of religion. The scientific definition of god is thermodynamics. I've found none better, than science. All is one, natural, and so all is 100% god. To say otherwise is religion. Fuck all religion of idol worship separatism.
Atheism Books.
The most common question direct to me is "Do you believe in God?" ... my answer usually is meant to be funny, and it generally is funny to me. "Which one?".
I finally bought the Greydon Square album and there is a song that has a very similar lyrics as to what I usually respond to believers so I play that track as often as I can.
All is fair in love and war
Knowledge is power
Power leads to corruption
Corrution leads to crime
Crime doesn't pay
So if you study you'll go broke.
tb, you are an idiot, and your friends that you talk to are probably idiots. I willl give you a defintion of God you can use as a Believer: "God=an imaginary Being that people use as an answer for everything they can't explain." Even I believe in this God.
Did your god create everything or not? If God exists, he is part of everything. You just conveniently try to remove God from your "logic". It's called Special Pleading: "Everything was Created! -errmmm, except God."
What you just refuse to get is that nothing was created: it always existed, but just changed State.
You have no experience of things being created ex nihilio, so stop trying to play that game.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
I'll stop you there. Nothing else is necessary. Your god is physically impossible. It cannot exist. It does not exist. It will not exist. Except in your mind.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
'God' is ...."the uncreated creator of everything, the unmovable mover, the uncaused cause of everything." ~ trubeliever
I don't have an apparent immediate problem with that nearly meaningless oxymoron, BUT all "god of abe" kinds of religion of separatism idol world is illogical and destructive.
The fact that people can pull bits of simple wisdom out the bible jesus. and then call themselves Xains, is an antichrist idol worshiping error concept of separatism and wishful make believe, really sickens me, because it's damaging to even create a need to be "saved".
I consider buddha and then jesus etc to be ancient science philosophers, as yes all is one, and heal the enemy of traditional separatism religion, because everything is G-O-D, as now is defined best in Science, such as thermodynamics.
To all you xains ... take your bloody cross and shove it up your ass, and keep your terrorism fear shit away from the innocent kids .... you fucking satans of wrong thinking, as scientist jesus called idiot religious peter, "satan".
( I'm listening the VP debate as I type, Palin is extra scary, an xain 'war pig' with lipstick .... )
Atheism Books.
I'm listening in too IAGAY, and she's throwing out platitudes and emotional arguments left and right, BUT... She's dying it clearly and consisely. So... I'm sorry to say that as a purely political observer, I have to say she's doing good... Of course any well educated person will have noticed by now how's she's not answered a single question directly yet, and Biden has been very specific in his answers, but unfortunately, we both know that it is not the well educated observers we need to worry about...
She's calm and consise, and, as all the pundits have said, all she needs to do is not have a repeat of the Katie Curic interview to "win" this one, and so far, I think she's managed that...
That was a derail by the way... sorry, for that... Carry on
*EDIT* : I've started a new thread on the VP debate, so as not to derail.
It's here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15529
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
A)I 'kno' how to spell 'know', 'infinite', and 'about'. Should I then ask that if you cannot spell 'know', that you do not use these words?
B)I 'kno' how to use contractions. By your reasoning, I'm required to ask you not to use 'I'm', 'don't', etc.
Or should I instead assume that you are being lazy, and thus be less inclined to give your proposal any consideration of merit, due to your obvious lack of intellectual rigor?
I think, though, that it's better to point out that while philosophy is a wonderful thing, and a useful tool, cosmology it ain't.
First, you insert the idea of infinite Time. If we accept the Big Bang model, then the Time between our current position and that specific point are not, in fact, infinite. Moreover, we can only speculate as to the set of conditions that gave rise to the Big Bang; we have no hard data that allows us to create testable theories of the state of the Universe, and so cannot even say with any certainty that Time was one of the dominant dimensions of that state. So, 'infinite Time' is by no means demonstrated, and yet at the same time (sorry about the pun), no specific set of conditions requiring a creator is needed.
Now, as far as the inability to cross an infinite series of events... I submit to you the number 1,932,456,201,002.
I have just crossed the infinite series 'the set of all positive integers'. And I did it just shy of two trillion entries in.
Good day.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid