Why God Certainly Exists...
Offline ...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...
First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".
God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.
God is NOT the Bible (or any "holy book"
- the Bible is simply a book. Look, I understand that when confronting a Christian it is perhaps best to do so on their 'home-turf' – however, not even deep in the recesses of the archives of the volumes of Christian Doctrine does it say anywhere that the Bible is God. Please, let both sides stop using this book to make claims about God (but by all means feel free to do so when constructing claims about Christianity).
God is NOT Christianity – despite the strong wishes on both sides, God is not Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that while fully aware of the distinction, Atheists refuse to make it. Maybe this is because 98% of you so-called Atheists are in actuality only really anti-Christianity. Maybe you get a kick out of pointing out obvious contradiction, and refuse to step out of your Christianity/God comfort zone where truth is less ‘obvious’, and the logic a little more complex. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience with a supposedly Christian person or a non-denominational church…shit – we’ve all been there. Whatever your reason for doing so, enough is enough. And if your one of those who was just plain ignorant (most likely a Christian) – well now you know. Regardless of what you heard or think you know, God is not owned by, was not created/invented by, God is NOT Christianity.
Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?
God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.
Ok? Good…
So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.
There is a certain argument that when Atheists encounter, they either ignore it (a la Dawkins), or unknowingly conclude that a known and verified scientific principle (which they themselves use to defend evolution and attack creationism) is wrong. I am of course talking about the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms but the gist is, 1. There is a cause for every effect. 2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely. 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain. 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.
The standard Atheistic replies are directed at 3 and 5. They’ll say, “An infinite chain is possible and perhaps actual, and besides even if its not, all you have is a first cause…not the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.
Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact. We now know that the universe is expanding. Confirmation of this happens daily with the observation of redshifts of stars increasing over time and in proportion to distance. To quote Stephen Hawking, “The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time.” Further, you Atheists use this claim to bolster arguments against literal Creationism and the view that the earth was formed in seven days! You can’t have it both ways – remember either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t, there is no third choice.
What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator… what we do not have the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”
Were you paying attention? God is not Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc. So why does the truth about God have to reflect Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc.? The answer is - it doesn’t.
God stands alone, without need for “holy books”, churches, ceremony, war, violence, hate, praise, worship, religion, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, patriotism, and yes even your belief…or mine for that matter.
Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.
Just be sure to toe your own lines.
- Login to post comments
To tell the truth, I myself don't fully understand actual vs. potential infinities, so I went and found this article, that might be of some interest:
http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/thereals/potential.html
Would the theistic claims in regards to no actual infinities apply to their God?
www.caseagainstfaith.com
Nice.
And here is the killer point:
Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end
To say that there is an infinite regress is to say that there is no starting point, AND that time is not an actual infinite.
From the site:
it never gets to infinity. Infinity is just an indication of a direction -- it's "somewhere off in the distance." Chasing this kind of infinity is like chasing a rainbow or trying to sail to the edge of the world -- you may think you see it in the distance, but when you get to where you thought it was, you see it is still further away. Geometrically, imagine an infinitely long straight line; then "infinity" is off at the "end" of the line. Analogous procedures are given by limits In calculus, whether they use infinity or not. For example,
So the attempt at a 'tautology' our friend gave us is not a tautology at all, because his options include:
A finite time period, with a beginning
And an actual infinite, which requires a beginning that occurs an infinite amount of time ago....
This is a completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done. Complete, reached, ergo starting point.
So there exists a third option.
a finite, but potentially infinite time period, with no beginning point.
To sum it up quickly, he keeps saying "either time goes back infinitely, or it doesn't' is a tautology, and it would be, IF by this he meant either there is a starting point or there isn't.
His problem is that there is more than one type of infinity!
The way he says it, it actually reads "either time goes back in an actual infinity, or goes back to starting point"
And this is wrong because there is also potential infinity.
He should say "Time either goes back potentially infinitely, actually infinitely, or to a starting point." Then he'd see the problem.
Because the way he words it, he leaves out that time can be finite without a starting point, but existing as a potential infinity.
The fact that he keeps saying that potential infinity is irrelevant just shows how lost he is, because the very reason his tautology fails to be a tautology is becuase 'infinity' has more that one meaning.
The Kalam argument makes the error of violating what an infinite regress actually is... it assumes that an infinite regress involves an actual infinity.
An actual infinity prior to our current moment is impossible, because this would mean a completed infinity has passed - ergo according to the argument, time must be finite.
The error is that an infinite regress is not an actual infinity.
I don't see how there can be a 'god' with an infinite regress (i.e. potential infinity)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Near infinite?! No wonder you're having trouble understanding togdant's points. And opportunity has good connotations. Being enslaved is not an opportunity! Being raped, beaten, and possible murdered is not an opportunity! Do you know what it means to be enslaved?
How many of the kids escape? How many can even live normal lives? If it happens, it's very rare. You honestly think that we should still praise god, who directly caused all these terrible children's conditions because a fraction of them might escape?
The possibility? That one in million possibility that your life isn't a shitty hell hole is worth praising god for? Especially when god is responsible for it?
This is not trivial! He gave those children hell on earth.
Look, I have a nice life. I've never been abused, I've always had a meal every day, cloths to wear, a sheltered place to sleep. I have great friends and family. I've gotten a post graduate degree. I make a decent living. I have nothing to complain about. I imagine its the same with you. We don't understand their suffering.
So maybe, despite how disgusting it is, you just need to think about how horrible other people's lives can be. Sex slave children. Think about it. It's not trivial.
I can't believe that after saying "this is trivial and you know it" you give me these bullshit examples. This has nothing to do with sex slave children. Are you dodging the subject because it makes you uncomfortable?
These children aren't sex slaves because of failure. They have no say in the matter. All but a tiny percentage would ever have a normal life. God fucked up their lives, and they should be grateful to god for their existence?
Your god is directly responsible for great evil. Why should I give a damn about god?
The reason atheists dismiss this argument is because it is NOT logically plausable. Do you not notice the immense leap and complete disconnect from the preceeding statment from 4 to 5?
Whether or not time is indefinite is irrelevant at this point - however - for the sake of argument - let us go with what i also consider the most plausable - that time, at one point, did begin - and that time is NOT definite.
The common logical fallacy you make from step 4 to 5 is called a "plead to ignorance". Instead of naively and ignorantly proclaiming the "first cause" is most certainly God - the very next logical step is to ask, "What is the 'first cause'?"
Of course neither of us know what it would be, assuming this "first cause" is integrally contigent with reality. And thus arrogantly proclaiming this is surely "god" is nothing more than a plead to ignorance.
It is the common answer given by a believer ignorant of a real answer. "Why does the wind blow?" - God - "Why do people get sick?" - God - "What causes storms?" - God... nevermind that atmospheric instabilities and variances are what makes the wind blow and what causes storms.... nevermind that people get sick because of microbes and toxins.
Before man knew what was the integral reality of the situation - he bent himself on the position of ignorance because answering "god" left him no responsiblity.
On such a question I express my honor in saying (like everyone else) that I honestly do not know - and neither do you. Unlike you - I will refuse to allow myself to dismiss my curiosity into ignorant and deluded pretense and fantasy. I will instead base it solely on logic and reality.
If you're going to claim God is the "first cause" - to give such a claim a shred of validity - you must then explain how he went from his "uncaused" state to his "caused" state. This prys the question - "What force is it that caused God to create time and the universe?"
My personal hypothesis is that what we call "cause" does in fact regress backward indefinitly - while time does have a beginning. Yes I realize the logical complications with such. However - the notion of an "uncaused cause" is not only illogical on an absolute level - it is completely rediculous. No matter what there must have been a preceeding cause.... which would mean that time was caused... and that causes can be independant of time. Those are logical conclusions.
Then to a question of what is time? I do not know - neither do you. My hypothesis is it is an infraction of energy either for or against mass - i'm not quite sure whether for or against... i need to know more about dark energy before i logically conclude either way.
LOL
Yes, even those who escape are damaged psychologially.
Yes it isn't. But Chuk can't deal with your argument so he has to try and write it off.
And 'He' could have made things differently.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
We can also say that the leap from 4 to 5 is a non sequitur.
However, the real problem with the argument is that it dies in step 1. There is a cause for every effect
This is untrue. Quantum events are uncaused.
And if a theist wants to counter that they are 'caused' in some probalistic manner, then he must concede that the same holds true for the universe itself.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It was my intention of basing my conclusions on logic alone. Quantum physics and mechanics are still theoretical and not to be taken as granted.
LOGICALLY speaking an event cannot occur without a preceeding cause. I realize that logic tends to "step" - and thus may be the reason why this conclusion is made - however - i really don't think this whole argument has anything to do with reality anyway.
Whatever IS reality is something we cannot be sure of - thus we should go on the stance of seeking to find it - and not accepting the pretense of delusion.
Dammit - now i'm sounding like a Nihilist... I identify myself as an objectivist
Pessimism blows.
Basically - if we are ignorant of something - it should be awcknowledged - and pretense should NEVER be given ANY merit.
Yes that's true, especially if your talking about a Christian concept of God, i.e. a God whose is at least omnipotent, omniscience, and loving.
But the only attributes of god Chuckwu has given us is he's intelligent and praiseworthy. But he's not praiseworthy because at best he doesn't care about human suffering, and at worst he's Satan.
one diference: if you call creator, or god, the origin of universe or matter as we know it, you asume there's a WILL, a conscient intention to cause that, which leads you directly to the idea of a pre-existing being, more especificly, a PERSON wich acts deliberately to an end.
but, if you do not asume all this, i mean, if you supouse there's not evidence to think the phenomena that created universe had a conscient intention, and therefore, was not an acting person, but a strange or unique phenomena, well, then you should not use the word creator, or god, to denominating it.
i don't think a rational analysis, linguisticly based, on words is recursive or pointless, unless it's a bad rational analysis, wich would not be rational at all. anyway, i agree with you that in some levels or perspectives it is not necesary at all, but, of course, if you know previously what the words we use mean.
I understand your point, you want to focus on the matter, a priori.
However ,my argument would still be a logical argument, even as it rests upon an inductive claim.
Let me explain:
Quantum physics is one of the strongest, most supported theories in science.
As far as we know today, it's simply false to argue that every effect has a cause.
Therefore, we have NO grounds to make the assumption that every effect has a cause.
Therefore, statement one cannot hold.
There is no grounds for this claim. In fact, wWe know that quantum events occur without any cause. So unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you can't just assume the opposite.
This is the problem with the first premise in the argument.
If we are unsure whether or not quantum theory is true, then we would also be unsure whether every event has a cause.
Therefore, all we could go on was what science currently told us. So all we can say currently is that there is no rational grounds for claiming that every event has a cause.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
True. Good point.
Yes. If 'he' creates suffering, then it stands to reason that some would not find 'him' 'praiseworthy'.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The beauty of the written medium is that what is said is said forever – and the truth of what is said can be verified anytime from whence it is first read…
My concern now is not to persuade todangst – he contradicts himself and makes things up at every turn, ad nauseam – it is instead to use his own words to expose him for the utter imbecile he is...
I invite everyone to read carefully his comments about the Kalam argument, and then compare them to the ACTUAL ARGUMENT. I dissected every sentence of his last two posts in my last two – yet he still has the audacity to write I’m dodging, re-paste the same contradictions and falsities, etc. – and unsurprisingly, there are still some who are posting that the cosmo.arg relies on completed infinities when IT DENIES THEY(ACTUAL INFINITIES) EXIST. Read
If in the arg. above, it’s own 2nd premise relies on the fact that ACTUAL INFINITES DON’T EXIST – ask yourself why does todangst continue to say that it is relying on the “…idea of actual infinite…”??
Indeed to understand what is going on here, this question must be answered – for we have the argument above, and as has been shown to anyone who can read – the argument explicitly DENIES the EXSISTENCE of such entities…
So either the todangst CAN read and COMPREHEND, or he CANNOT…If he cannot, that is, if he just really can’t understand that the argument needs and has NO reliance, implicit or explicit, on the idea of “…actual infinites…”, even after reading it several times over – than he is an imbecile and should perhaps not be posting on a site purporting “rational response”…
However, if indeed he CAN read, and can do so to a sophomoric level of comprehension, then he must BE PURPOSELY inserting the idea of “actual infinites” in an attempt to confuse the unsuspecting reader who just won’t take the time to evaluate the claims that he is making… This is called “argumentum verbosium” - If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit...right todangst? And just keep repeating and keep posting until you wear ‘em down - eh you old fool?
Look closely…
You’ve by now read both the Kalam argument, the basis for the second premise, and the article on Wikipedia… Why in todangst quote above does he say that the tautology involes an “…actual infinite…”, when in the argument, it makes its case upon NO SUCH ACTUAL INFINITIES EXISTING?! Again, either he can read for understanding or he cannot, if he can’t he shouldn’t be speaking at all, and if he can he is MAKING UP BULLSHIT AND ATTRIBUTING IT TO THE ARGUMENT! This cannot be made any clearer – For GODSAKE, I encourage the reader to investigate the claims made by this man wherever and whenever there made, for, as it is commonly said, “Who does this kind of thing?”
Once you remove his creation and attribution of actual infinities (which the argument DOES – THEY DO NOT EXIST) there are ONLY two options. Either:
Time streches back infinitely (A)
∨(or)
Time does NOT strech back infintely (-A)
In the following, The Fool attempts to blow more smoke…
Again I invite the reader to scroll up and look for all instances of my writing “potential infinities” and in turn dismissing them as irrelevant. What I DID say was this,
Again, either you can read or you can’t – the “irrelevant terminology” is this “actual infinite” that you CONTINUE TO INTERJECT! I’ll quote myself more directly,
Again, you have BEEN EXPOSED as a LIAR and a BULLSHITER – instead of responding to what was stated – you respond to what you WANTED to have been stated… IMBECILE
And the hits keep coming,
Again – more bullshit – the Kalam argument EXPRESSLY DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL INFINITES… it doesn’t ASSUME SHIT, OR SAY SHIT about infinite regress involving your “actual infinity” – AGAIN ITS VERY EXISTENCE IS EXPRESSLY DENIED!
More assigning, ascribing and interjecting his bullshit… Plainly,
There is nothing left to show – I’ve shown that todangst will lie, make shit up, attribute his make-believe to the argument, then attack his make-believe, all the while trying his hardest to make it seem to everyone else that he is attacking the original argument….the work of an intellectually stunted and immature dilettante, who refuses to BE QUIET…
VERY GOOD! SO then you CAN follow that since there is NO INFINITE REGRESS – then there is a ‘god’.
You should then cease the speaking.
It’s now no wonder why you think todangst has MADE any points – you too aren’t taking any time to think… For you to deny that God has given an enslaved child ANY opportunity, than you would have affirm that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the slave child to DO ANYTHING about his condition – for, if the child can do SOMEthing about his condition than he has an opportunity – that is, an opportunity to CHANGE his condition.
It is TRIVIALLY obvious that the child can do a NEAR INFINITE number of things i.e. that he/she can proceed in life in a near infinite number of ways – How? Well – permutate the number of movements one can make at any given moment against the number moments and in a few thousand moments you’re already at a HUGE number! How many ways are there to arrange the number of cards in a 52-card deck? How many different completed games of chess can be played on a normal board? The answer of both of these questions is a number FAR LESS than the answer to, How many different paths can a human take on the way to the bathroom in our 3-dimensional space! Now take the answer to the bathroom question and apply to a life lived where paths, choices, movements, etc. aggregate by the second! Again, “near infinite” is positively correct – though syntactically “near” may mislead the un-rigorous reader – for “near” may colloquially mean “close to”, but then how can a number be “close to” infinity? So how about I use “practically infinite”; for one could not hope to exhaust EVERY possible physical option in every moment that they live just as one could not hope to count EVERY possible natural number in 10 lifetimes – and thus IN PRACTICE - the number is so large as to be labeled practically “infinite”.
LIFE IS AN OPPOURTUNITY!!! OPPOURTUNITY = CHANCE ; I don’t posit that everyone has the same opportunity – but there is opportunity in EVERY life – even if its small it exists. So you’re saying no child who is enslaved has an opportunity? So then there would be no example of a child slave who escaped slavery and went on to lead in their own words “a good life”? This is exactly what you would have to show – that NO child slaves AT ALL have an opportunity. In fact, what your positing is that a horribly bad life is WORSE than never having existed! Are you quite sure?! Because with life – you ALSO have the OPPOURTUNITY to END IT; if you’re so inclined as to believe that NOT existing would be better! So, in every case – you at the lowest common denominator have the opportunity TO DECIDE if you want to go on living…
I think it is better to have lived and lost than to not live at all… and I think you do to… Or, you would be advocating that all those in desolate situations commit suicide – and I don’t think you are, or would…but maybe you indeed do…Because you write:
So you suggest that those without shelter and “nice lives” and “post graduate degrees” and “without every day meals”, and “clothes” as you say should END their existence?! NO – you DON’T suggest this because you too know that every life is a CHANCE, AN OPPOURTUNITY, to change one’s lot – and as long as your LIVING you possess this chance – period. This is what most rational people believe – hence I call it trivial – but I will rescind that comment since you – someone who appears rational – had to be SHOWN…
No, I wasn’t dodging the subject, I was giving analogies – if a principle is correct, it should be able to “scale” – that is if I can show you it works under certain conditions, IT SHOULDN’T matter that the NAMES UNDER the conditions are changed if the CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME. This is one way to build toward a conclusion – take the fundamental principle and abstract it in a way that it can be understood. Complain that they are poor analogies – but they are far from bullshit – if in these trivial examples you would find that the enablers are praiseworthy than God is too praiseworthy…
Whoa, whoa, whoa – what you say in bold I strongly dispute – as this statement implies an omnipotence and omni-benevolence that has not been asserted by the GOD of the cosmo.arg. God didn’t FUCK UP anyone’s life – and a life isn’t FUCKED UP because its not like YOURS or because there are some serious hardships; GOD didn’t somehow force the course of their actions, didn’t pick out that “Judy” be born into slavery – it is just the CAUSE of all existence and syllogistically the cause of our own - cosmo.arg doesn’t suppose any type of “fatalism” – our actions are our OWN and horrific shit does indeed occur – but again – existence is better than no-existence, because at least with existence you can DECIDE if you would rather not exist(suicide) – alternatively if you DON’T exist, there is NO – THING there to decide to EXIST and further NO – THING to offer comparison! God is praiseworthy if your life is “easy” or “hard” because he is responsible for you EXISTING AT ALL…
Ok... So you say that child sex slaves can do an infinite amount of things, and by implication they should not complain because of all the opportunity and freedom of motion they have (when not physically restrained I assume)... they should praise god because they have been given the opportunity to live... It's not god's fault their lives are nothing but pain and suffering... but god can take credit for the gift of their existence.
I hope I got that right.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
If Chukwu still thinks the child that is forced into the sex slave trade can escape and have a happy life, how about the child born with a disease or deformity that causes life-long excruciating pain?
Let's even take that one step further: That same child born into a neglectful or abusive household. Or perhaps just one without decent insurance and they cannot take care of the child medically?
Not all that long ago, children like that were surrendered to institutions and those institutions weren't a very nice place to be.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
This is rapidly devolving into a debate about the cause of suffering, but let me give a Christian answer to this.
The life of the sex-slave, the suffering of the child, is directly caused by people. Period. God didn't make anyone do what they do. If you are abducted, don't blame God - blame your captor. People are the cause of much of the suffering in the world.
The suffering of someone from birth, either from a defect or some disease, is a result of human sin again, but this time against God. When man rebelled against God and brought death into the world, all the suffering in the world came with it. So even if the child is sinless at birth, it is his... nature... to sin. Thus seperating himself from God, and deserving what is thrown at him.
I don't want to get into an argument about the morality of this, so if you are to contend my points, look at the logic(or lack therof) of it.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Anything to defend god right? If I get kidnapped and there is a god then god created the person who kidnapped me knowing in advance that they would kidnap me, and he has the power to stop them or not create them at all so he sure as hell would be responsible in my book.
And this whole sin bringing bad things into the world thing is just lame alright; don't you think god knew beforehand that there would be sin? God would have made it that way, on purpose duh.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
No it's not.
I was just trying restate chukwu's position in the simplest terms that the creatorial force of the universe takes no responsibility for the context, content, or length of any being's life. But the creatorial force does take credit for the existance of a being. And by chukwu's logic any freedom of motion is equal to "nearly infinite" freedom, which the creatorial force also takes credit for. Since the creatorial force is responsible freedom of motion and existence, he is worthy of worship.
These are parts of chukwu's definition of this god, and should aid us in trying to understand how and why he thinks god certainly exists.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Shatner, it seems obvious that you believe that if the universe was created by a god, then everything by nature would be deterministic, or, if not, that our decisions would be known by God beforehand. But why does God have to know your destiny? Isn't it possible that a God may know all possible outcomes, yet let humanity choose its own course?
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Please don't call me that.
I'm just going by what theists say about god and that ususally includes knowing everything. If god knows all possible outcomes but not what will actually happen then god is not all-knowing. If that's the case then why should I listen to god, I'm not all-knowing either; why don't I just listen to myself?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Just so we're all clear that you weren't referring to some vague, supernatural creator/force/etc.
The christian god is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, from the second he "created" humanity in the form of adam and eve, he knew the fate of EVERY ENSLAVED CHILD EVER BORN AND SOLD INTO THE SEX TRADE. And, he knew every single action of every child sex merchant as well. Your argument smacks of a scientist with ESP(play along) who builds a dirty bomb, then sells it to a terrorist group, and then claims it's not his fault because he didnt make them use it to kill 750 people in downtown Detroit. Technically correct? Perhaps. An attribute of a loving, all-powerful, praiseworthy god? You MUST be delusional.
How could you blame the captor, when god-- who knew that the captor would do the things he does-- essentially created him to do exactly that? The captor has no choice, unless god is not omniscient.
It should be a policy on this site to simply ignore any argument that claims the veracity of adam and eve.
The logic is that no person on earth has any ability to alter his/her destiny. According to you and your kind, god is all-knowing. Therefore, every act of evil is known prior to the evil-doers birth, and thus cannot be altered.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I'm going to skip most of your response (for now) because I want to clear something up that's critical to my point.
You said earlier (in your first reply on this page)
You add in your last post,
Your first quote implies determinism, and your second quote denies determinism. Which one is it?
A bonus question: If the cosmo.arg doesn't suppose determinism, how do you know there's an casual chain all the way back to god?
I don't mean to dismiss you, xamination, but we weren't talking about the Christian idea of God. I was making my arguments off of points Chukwu was making. Notice in Chukwu's initial post we checked in at the door normal (Christian) ideas of god.
I'm just saying this because your response doesn't really answer my point, because Chukwu is arguing from a different angle.
OK, Mr. "God is so righteous", let me give you a situation, let's see how you explain that:
A child is born in, let's say, an Islamic region of the world. The area in which he is born is pretty remote, so he has no contact with other religions until he is, let's say, 14. He cannot, therefore, know that Yahweh is supposed to be "the one true God", because he cannot "guess" that, and nobody is there to tell him. In fact, he doesn't even know who Yahweh is, for the same reasons. His family is extremely poor, so nobody can say that his life is actually "a gift". At 14, the (replace with major global force, with Christian majority: USA, NATO, etc.) attacks, and, obviously, starts bombarding. Out of pure accident, the child's life is saved under, let's say, a piece of debirs that shields him from explosions, but his family, friends and people he knew are killed. He is forced to take up a weapon and fight back, for the love of his family and for revenge. He has now heard of Yahweh, as fellow millitants told him about "Christianity" as the religion of the invaders. Naturally, he hates the concept of Yahweh, as it was his men that killed everyone he knew and loved, and he sees these "Christian" men as going against whatever he holds sacred. So he is wounded, but manages to hide, survive and fight back, shooting one or two from time to time, until one day, when he is 17, a sniper sees him with a weapon in his hand and puts him out of his misery.
By all means, the main character of the story will go to Hell, because
- he has murdered
- he doesn't believe in God or J.C., he actually hates them
- he has another god before them
...etc.
So practically, God created that child so that he would suffer greatly both in this life, and in the afterlife... So would you care to tell me where the "divine justice" is in that situation? Because I fail to see any.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Oh really? Perhaps you would like to tell that to people with the Angelman Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome) (not that they would understand much of what you say). It's useless to try to teach a person with such a condition about God, sinning and all that, because he will never be able to comprehend such a topic. So he doesn't know and cannot imagine what consequences would his actions possibly have on a long term. Why would he be held responsible for sinning?
Many genetic syndromes are generally triggered BEFORE CONCEPTION (and the Down Syndrome is a very good example). So the kid wasn't even in the plan yet, that he was already "punished". Who knows how many more genetic annomalies might we have, if everybody had a child with somebody within this world.
Of course you don't want to get into an argument about mroality, because THERE ISN'T ANY MORALITY IN IT.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Honestly - my knowledge on quantum physics/mechanics is not developed in this area. And like all things - i approach this with skepticism - never allowing myself to automatically relegate it as authoratative on the subject.
I do not understand how to logically proclaim that an event can be uncaused. and yes, i realize my current perception is irrelevant to reality...
i understand why there is no necessity for intelligence to preceed what is... but not how nothing at all could preceed it.
for me i combine the laws of thermodynamics together... if energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transfered - then energy is eternal. i also conclude that energy preceeded time - and has had cause which regresses back indefinitly. thus making cause eternal.
This is my current theory and conclusion... however... is definitly subject to change with new information.
I disagree. I believe that if so - we have no EMPERICAL grounds for claiming that every event has a cause... however... it can be concluded as such with logic and reason... and perhaps flawed information.
Either way it be - neither way makes it possible for a god to exist.
If events can be uncaused - then God is irrelevant and unecessary to reality in all aspects.
If events MUST be caused - then cause MUST regress backward indefinitly. Meaning that all events must be self-sustaining - thus making God completely irrelevant and unneccessary to reality in all aspects.
In order for God to exist - reality MUST be that all causes REQUIRE preceeding intelligence to enact their events. Essentially everyone should know better than this.
Why isn't there/can't there be an infinite regress?
"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker
"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine
Alright... enough horseshit! Why don't you give us a plausable example of just what a sex-slave child could do to alter their situation?
Just what could a child confined to a cell do to a stronger adult forcing themself onto the child in the confined cell? Kick and scream until bones are broken? until the child is either beaten or drugged unconcious? then what? the situation of being a sex slave would have not changed... and the health of the child would have become so much more devestated.
You have made no parallel analogy as you may so naively think. Unlike a deck of 52 cards - a child sex slave does not have an open range of freedom to escape the bounds. adding in that the deck of 52-cards are all glued together would parallel what is being discussed... however it would nullify your bullshit.
Perhaps you do not understand - we are talking about a CHILD SEX SLAVE - not a child out freely roaming the streets that has an open end of plausable choices to make in their life. You are comparing random and open freedom to boxed and confined slavery and pretending they are identical. Do NOT be so foolish, please.
Alright captian bullshit - please attempt to keep your logic tracks consistent and stop comparing two mutually exclusive ideas to each other and pretending they are equal.
Your underlying thesis is that God is the First/Ultimate cause of the entire universe.
IF this is true - then all subsequent causes (and events) would be based on this beginning/first/ultimate cause from God.
Are you denying that God is all powerful? The bible persistantly claims he is "almighty" - in Matthew 28:18 Jesus says he was given "all power".
The funny thing about power is that responsibility is equivalent to it. If you are all-powerful - then you are also all-responsible.
To say that something happened outside of God's own personal fault is to say that something happened outside God's power.
IF God IS all-powerful... then all hardships are from God.
Perhaps we have pre-judged your beliefs. Perhaps you do not agree with the bible - perhaps you think god is not infinite and has limited power. Could you clarify?
But then - what would have caused your limited God?
Because Chukwu can't deal with the possibility that his god isn't the "one true god".
You say this quote...:
...implies determinism, yet it doesn't. First, "Determinism" is the notion that EVERY EVENT; every action, thought, feeling,etc., is "determined" by some PREVIOUS event. In the Cosmological arg. the only posited event is BEING - the causal chain is therefore only ontological, there are no claims made about any cause other than, "causes preceed events" - this is all that it says. There is nothing said about a "causes" thoughts, motions, feelings, etc. So, The First Cause IS DIRECTLY responsible for your being - but "directly" isn't qualified by omnipotence, omniscience, etc. - it is syllogistically qualified through cause/effect relationship of COMING INTO EXISTENCE. So, look at a causal chain as a bunch of IF...THEN statements the First Cause instantiated and initialized - at evey point in such a chain you can say the First Cause is responsible for that point's very EXISTENCE. THis is what is meant by directly responsible. If "Determinism" is the view that one's owns actions are determined or "known" to GOD, or the view that one has no Free-Will and is destined to some pre-determined end - then "Determinism" does NOT FOLLOW from the cosmological argument...
Ah, your bonus question shows that you are assumming that "determinism" is refering only to be-ing. As stated above - determinism implies that EVERY SINGLE event is causally determinedby some prior event - in the cosmological.arg the ONLY KINDS of events are materially ONTOLOGICAL - so it is quite possible that the 408,987,069th cause, if it is capable of thought, could be a first cause of ITS OWN feelings, thoughts, etc - as these feelings and thoughts can never be a DIRECT cause of ANY physical entity - they are indeed irrelevant to our ontological cause/effect chain. The cosmo.argument need not make ANY claims about such things, and does not - it speaks only of be-ing.
I'll say it plain - EVERY SCENARIO of EXISTENCE is better than NON-EXISTENCE... If one does not hold this, then they are the advocate of the view that those who live in the VERY WORST of conditions should either KILL themselves OR BE KILLED - and I think NO rational person holds that view - though I could be giving to much credit to "people"...
Because there is a begining of time.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms that any form of existence is better than non-existence. That's one reason I think euthanasia is a good idea. I would much rather cease to exist than live in excruciating pain, or horrible poverty, etc.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
WHAT?! Is this todangst under an alias?! I don't have to give an example "plausible" or otherwise of child sex-slaves... I HAVE TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING THAT HOLDS FOR EVERY child-sex slave - and I have: they exist!
Their very EXISTENCE is enough to praise GOD for - and it is the "gift" GOD gave them of existence that make it worthy of praise - further, if they think the "gift" is SHIT, they have the option of DESTROYING THE GIFT!
NOW - what YOU need to show is just ONE case of a child sex slave where it is both IMPOSSIBLE to improve their life in ANY way through action AND IMPOSSIBLE to end their existence! And I mean IMPOSSIBLE - not IMPROBABLE...these things CANNOT be shown!
Read - understand - and THEN respond...
Just because you can type doesn't mean you have something to say.
Yes, so perhaps some day, when you grow up, you'll finally see this error:
It's actually not a tautology because there is more than one kind of infinity. There are three options here, hence no tautology.
Actual infinities require a starting point. So both of your options here require starting points.
1) first kind of infinity: a completed infinity:
Time stretches back actually infinitely - this appears impossible.
2) Time has a beginning, and is finite.
It does not stretch back infinitely in any way.
and third:
3) The second kind of infinity: Time does not have a beginning, nor does it stretch back in an actual infinity, but only in a potential infinity. A potential infinity is never an actual infinity. It's finite without a starting point.
And this is what an infinite regress actually is....
And this is your error.
Again, there are two types of infinities, and your tautology assumes there is only one.
This is your error.
As for your points on the Kalam, anyone can see that I got it right and you're so violently ignorant that you can't see it yourself...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well than we simply disagree - and...I would not want to have a cold or be poor and meet you in a dark alley...
So we should euthanize 75% of Africa, huh? You're a dangerous fellow...!
I invite you to get an adult to read both to you.
One more time:
It relies on 'actual infinites being impossible.'
It claims that one of the two possibilities is an actual infinity, and then rules it out.
It relies on the idea of an actual infinity, in order to rule it out.
That's the point.
One more option: you're unable to grasp simple points.
Again, the Kalam argument relies on the concept of an actual infinity, in order to rule it out as impossible.
again, the entire point before you has to do with the fact that Kalam arguments speak only of actual infinities.
But an infinite regress is only a potential infinity,
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You might be one of the biggest fucking idiots I've ever met.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If you really drew that from what i said you are a complete and utter fool. I would never euthanize another person against their will. If there was a god and i myself was in that situation I certainly wouldn't thank him for existing. I'd tell him to go fuck himself up the ass sideways with a chainsaw.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
todangst, are you suggesting time may be interpreted graphically near time zero as an asymptote or a hole of some sort? even if reality(or whatever we are calling the y-axis if the x-axis is time) does not exist at time zero, time zero would still exist - it would simply be the right before everything came to be, a time when there was nothing, and the universe did not exist.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
todangst - that really wasn't necessary
if you feel he is unable to understand you, try simpler terms. Spell it out for him as you would a little kid. no need to get frustrated
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
Yes it was. 20 posts of insults from him is enough.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I am saying it is a false dichotomy to hold that there is either an actual infinite regress or a time zero.
Again, look to my comments from Smolin.
Again, look to my comments from smolin. There are problems with this assumption.
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
Also consider how Hawkings does away with a singularity....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
First – we’ve never met – and if we ever do I would probably thrash you physically in the same way I’ve thrashed you intellectually…
Mod note: Sorry, but that's enough posts from you.
Physical threats are not allowed here.
Wow. That turned ugly.
He never had an argument, he wasn't even able to see what I was saying. When his frustration drove him to violence.... well, that was predictable..
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
He didn't see what I was saying either, although it's too late to respond. My whole point about the sex slave children is that his god isn't praiseworthy, not that non-existance is better. Anyway...on to other threads.