|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Another question for Christians...
Posted on: April 4, 2012 - 10:48pm
   Offline
Another question for Christians...
Please answer this question for me....who or what created God? How come the only answer I have ever received on this question is "He's just always been there." Please tell me how this is possible?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Science says, "we see, we test, we learn". Religion says, "we don't see, we can't test, we don't know".
Well Ruby, there only one christian that I know of around right now that isn't a complete nutbag, so your answers to that one may come a little slow. But as simple and silly as that question is I like it because the answers never cease to amaze me.
The best most can do is quote you a verse or two about Alpha and Omega. What's always funny is the same one's that tell you that the big bang theory is completely irrational, even though expansion of the universe is proven, will also tell you that the concept that god has always been an had no creator is very rational, just because the bible tells them so.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
I like the whole, "god created every thing from nothing" but then needs dirt to "create man".
I saw an excellent documentary last night called Religulous. I know it's a few years old now, but I've never seen it until last night. I can't believe some of the things these people believe! It's at times amusing but mostly just frustrating! Can't they pick up a science book? Or at the very least, google a few things. Instead of being absolutely clueless about reality.
I remember seeing that movie in the theaters. The young earth creationists are by far the dumbest. But even Francis Collins, the leader of the human genome project, is a creationist from the neck up. He knows that evolution happened, but he doesn't realize that it's responsible for the human mind. He also doesn't realize that evolution explains moral instincts.
It was a good movie. Brad Pitt told Bill Maher that it was "An atheist's call to arms." It also got the Richard Dawkins Award in 2009; you can watch the ceremony and Maher's speech on YouTube. It was funny. Maher told a joke about the Pope and some politically correct atheists in the audience went "ooooh." Maher said, "I can't even tell a pope joke at an atheist's conference!" It made me realize how much less uptight Bill Maher is than a lot of atheists.
This forum is quite an easy question to answer. This question is answered with logic. I dont have to use the bible to answer this question. This is just a section of the whole logical argument but this would answer this forums question
From Possibility and Necessity
1. In nature we find that things are generated and destroyed (corrupted).
2. So, they are contingent (possible to be and not be)
3. That which is contingent at some point does not exist (is not).
4. So, it is impossible for contingent things to always exist.
5. Therefore, if everything were contingent, at some point there could have been nothing. (nothing could have existed.)
6. That which begins to exist is brought into existence by something which already exists (Ex nihilo nihil fit – Latin, "Nothing can be produced from nothing" and the 1st and 2nd ways.)
7. Therefore, if at one time nothing were in existence, there would not be anything now!
8. That is absurd. (So, If you assume that everything is contingent, you are led to the absurdity that nothing now exists but, of course things do exist). Reductio ad Absurdum. So, it can’t be true that everything is contingent)
9. ( or, we could get there by saying ‘Something does exist now!’ By Modus Tollens denial of the consequent of 7, leads to "So, there was no time in which nothing existed." )
10. ("so, there was no time when nothing existed" is a denial of the consequent of 5. So, we could conclude ‘Hence, it is not the case that everything is contingent’ – another Modus Tollens.)
11. Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
12. No infinite regress of necessary beings
13. Therefore, there must be a necessary being having its own necessity, and this i am referring to as God.
This forum is quite an easy question to answer. This question is answered with logic. I dont have to use the bible to answer this question. This is just a section of the whole logical argument but this would answer this forums question
From Possibility and Necessity
1. In nature we find that things are generated and destroyed (corrupted).
2. So, they are contingent (possible to be and not be)
3. That which is contingent at some point does not exist (is not).
4. So, it is impossible for contingent things to always exist.
5. Therefore, if everything were contingent, at some point there could have been nothing. (nothing could have existed.)
6. That which begins to exist is brought into existence by something which already exists (Ex nihilo nihil fit – Latin, "Nothing can be produced from nothing" and the 1st and 2nd ways.)
7. Therefore, if at one time nothing were in existence, there would not be anything now!
8. That is absurd. (So, If you assume that everything is contingent, you are led to the absurdity that nothing now exists but, of course things do exist). Reductio ad Absurdum. So, it can’t be true that everything is contingent)
9. ( or, we could get there by saying ‘Something does exist now!’ By Modus Tollens denial of the consequent of 7, leads to "So, there was no time in which nothing existed." )
10. ("so, there was no time when nothing existed" is a denial of the consequent of 5. So, we could conclude ‘Hence, it is not the case that everything is contingent’ – another Modus Tollens.)
11. Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
12. No infinite regress of necessary beings
13. Therefore, there must be a necessary being having its own necessity, and this i am referring to as God.
Why does your logic have to turn left at 11? If you replaced "being" with "a force of some kind", wouldn't your logic still stand as it does?
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
What would this force then be if not God? It would have to be more intelligent and complex then the universe it itself has formed. This necessary being would have to be able to create things to its will. What force would you the be implying if not God?
Just curious from reading your quote at the bottom of your posts. With this quote you have up, would you then believe that truth is relative? This quote says that truth is changeable so then you would stand by truth being relative. Just so i make sure, do you believe truth is relative?
What I mean is why does it have to be a god with will and intelligence beyond us? Take the old analogy of liking life to a storm or tornado. No intelligent will there because we can explain it with acquired knowledge. When we deduce back as far as we can, we come up short on the question of "a beginning". That does not require a god in the end of the deduction. Well, not for me anyway. Why can't it just be left at that, at least until further evidence presents itself. Man is so uncomfortable with not having the final answer, he reaches for the idea of a god because that's the best he can come up with. It's like taking a guess on a test when there is no penalty for unanswered questions.
And truth is relative to our acquired knowledge. If presented with further evidence my idea of what the truth is would change. That is why I like to use the term "a living truth".
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Roughly from Anselm (ontological argument, late 11th, early 12th century) combined with Aquinas (5 proofs of god, 13th century derived from Aristotle, not a christian, from the 4th century BCE).
Did you create this mish-mash yourself or did you copy and paste?
Aquinas had no inkling of modern physics, let alone quantum mechanics, so it is rather - ummmm - antique to use his arguments to prove god/s/dess, don't you think? Also, this particular argument was written for students, so it is less than comprehensive. And, Aquinas started with a belief in god, so his proof was no real proof, just a justification for his existing faith.
For detailed philosophical discussions of Aquinas, and Anselm's ontological arguments, and all the other tried, true, and tired god/s/dess discussions, see http://plato.stanford.edu
I'm not interested in them enough to even bother copying and pasting.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
TONY-
If we look at just merely the complexity of the simplest cell, it cannot be explained by evolution or by any other means but God. It seems to me that although you come up short, you refuse to believe it would be God that caused it. I am not uncomfortable with not having the final answer for i already have it. What does it matter if there wasn't a GOd? We would just go into the dirt and thats it for life, nothing. But there is A GOd and our own universe proclaims it. As an athiest, do you realize what your worldview leads to? If you break it down, then it leads to no purpose. I am assuming you then will respond is saying you have no need for God and that you dont need God to have a purpose. You still are lead to a life of no purpose. I believe you do have a purpose though x).
DO you realize that saying truth is relative is a Contradiction. The very statement you stand on contradicts itself just in the phrase. Your using an absoulute statement to prove a relative one. Saying that truth is relative is an absolute truth? RIght? Thats what your saying. No, truth is not relative. Truth doesn't change for anything. It doesn't just change based on how much someone doesn't agree with it. Truth is the same for everyone, at all times, in all places. Its a fun mind game to live life by but in the end it fails. Saying that truth is relative is saying that we literally know nothing at all. Truth is unknowable now. It blows my mind how people can say that truth is relative.
Yes you are correct. Its an outline made to explain what he claimed in a more easier way. Your definetely wrong saying its antique to use his arguments. The foundation of the arguments today come straght from Aquinas. In no way does it not work now. THis argument is based off of logic. Physics and quantum physics dont make this argument any less solid then it did then. If this argument (which actually is the same one used in the present) is so out of date, prove it wrong. Give me a refutation of this. Using quantum mechanics wont help you for in an athiests worldview, logic would have to break down in quantum physics. I really dont know why you decided to say it was written for students. Everything we learn is written for undergraduate or graduate students in some way. Pointless to have brought that up.
i don't like to pull out the wiki unless i need to but it has a pretty good look at "truth" and relativity with criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
And if you are comfortable because you believe you have the final answer then that's fine, until you present your beliefs as fact and tell others that they have no purpose unless they share your beliefs. That's where we all butt heads.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
From the article you gave, concerning what truth is in being absolute or relative, it said that various theories are debated. Lets look at the overall picture of this claim. They all cant be right, but if you take the side of relativity concerning truth, everyone can be right concerning truth. Ofcourse thats an absurd conclusion. We know that it cant be all of the theories that the article you gave me claimed. THe interesting aspect is that, if one was to argue that truth was relative, you would leave it open in saying that the person you are arguing in the first place is correct! Its the same as saying that your right about God not existing, and i am right about God existing. God exists and doesn't exist now according to truth being relative. But thats where relative truth leads to. You still havent' proved your point is saying truth is relative. The very meaning of truth being relative is a contradiction like i said before. Saying that truth is a point of view is just as good as saying that no truth exists. Thats literally saying that athiesm is a point of view, therefore it isn't necesarily true. This would also be saying that i am also correct in saying that God exists as well.
I am not saying you have no purpose because you dont share my belief. Your worldview as an athiest comes to that conclusion by itself. I am saying that you have no purpose based on your worldview that you follow. I am also saying that i dont believe in your worldview because i know you have a purpose. I can break down your own worldview so that you can see what you stand for. Most athiests cant even see what their worldview leads to. Now i would like you to present your beliefs as fact first
Since your worldview is the obstacle in seeing the truth, thats the first thing that must come down. Give me your facts on athiesm and evolution (macro, chemical, stellar, organic). Remember that facts can lead to a lie or lead to the truth. Then again you dont believe in absolute truth so then there is no way of telling if facts are true in the first place ;p.
LMAO. Jean could do a better job at posting a logical argument. What you posted is incoherent mumble jumble.
It is so filled with fallacies that I won't bother posting them individually. I don't have that much free time in a day.
I will suggest the following reading for you to improve your logic.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Fallacy-Detective-Thirty-Eight-Recognize/dp/0974531537
The real question is why does there need to be a god? and for that matter, which god? There are dozens of active religions in this world.
What makes your belief so special as to disregard all other religions and their gods?
Actually, as far as i have seen, no one has refuted this. I love how you can say this yet not prove a thing. Let me ask you to give one fallacy that this has. Let it be known that this specific argument works together with others as one. To say that this has fallacies yet to not even point out one is pointless. You can say things all day but until you prove the point that you made, its pointless. If you have one let me hear it and enlgihten me
. I am open to hear your point. The only aspect that i can see someone disagreeing with is the 11th and 13th point. There are many different variations of this argument, but for this specific topic i chose this. Let me ask you, what is your logic behind how the universe came to be or always was (keep in mind that saying the universe is eternal is an automatic fail).
In this, you are implying that there is no need for a god. This would then turn to your worldview and breaking it down to where it leads. Most athiests dont even know where their worldview leads to, whether they admit it or not. I can break your worldview down and in return, it will show you that you do need God.
For the next questions about which God, and knowing which one is true, we must establish a very important question first. Do you believe in absolute truth? This is essential before i would explain that.
My point of posting that wiki article was not to define my point of view, but to show where the very nature of your logic leads us , which is a game of tic-tac-toe.
That's the difference between us. I don't mind watching people play, but when they stand up and proclaim that they have the game figured out and they have the winning strategy, and if I don't see it I must be a blind man destined to lose, I have to put them in their place.
That is a fact.
That is a living truth.
That is what makes me an Atheist.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
When posting logic you build up to the conclusion by providing information which is generally accepted.
You imply at the first statement, intelligence. You use the words "generated" and "corrupted". As if in nature that "things" are generated and destroyed (corrupted) by intelligent design. As if they have purpose and cause to their existence.
You then say that things are contingent, which I take as being accidental or chance. Which is a contradiction as you already believe things are created by a god. If you believe in god there are no accidental - this goes in to "is there free will or no free will".
Then you say it is impossible for things that are contingent (accidental) to always exist. Things that are formed eventually cease to exist. A cloud of dust could eventually form an asteroid. Large number of asteroids could become a moon. Several moons can become a planet, etc etc. Sure every thing exists then does not exist. Form is always changing, even for our bodies.
Next you assume at any point, "nothing could have existed". This is not a statement that is supported with facts.
Next you assume that your god already exists by claiming that "that which begins to exist is brought into existence by something which already exists". Huh? Also, "nothing" is a very broad term. Even from a scientific viewpoint there was "always something" even a singularity. If you believe in string theory then the Universe is a result of an event which then formed the Universe. Each of these are supported by mathematics but there is a conflict between researchers. Thus the need to find a "equation of everything" or "theory of everything".
By now every thing you say falls apart.
"If at one time nothing were in existence" - Repetitive.
"#7" - Repetitive
"That's absurd" and "If you assume" - Do I need to explain the problem with this entire statement?
"#9" - See above
"#10" - You keep leading the reader.. see above
"#11" - Really? I know where you want to go with this, but you haven't produced factual evidence showing a "being" is even necessary.
"#12" - See above
"#13" - Same as above, and above.. etc etc etc
I really do understand where you are going with this but you would be better off saying:
1 - While science has theories showing that there was "something" before the formation of the Universe, I personally have faith that a intelligent being caused the Universe to be formed. It is faith and faith alone which leads me to believe in a "god" because "god' can not be measured in this time or space, nor can it be observed and tested by science.
This sums up every thing for you. One simple statement.
I want to see you break down my world view and show me why I need a god. I'm not being cynical, I truly do want to see it. I'm very curious.
Who created science? Why do we have science?