John Cuthber Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 A viable hypothesis is that the universe was made by the Devil. That would certainly explain why it's a mess. The existence of the universe is evidence for this hypothesis to exactly the same extent that it is evidence for the existence of the Christian God. However, if the Devil made the universe then- plainly, God didn't. So the existence of the universe, by being evidence of the Devil as a creator is evidence for the non-existence of the Christian God. So, you are claiming evidence of His not existing as being evidence that He exists. Do you have evidence that actually makes sense? 1
imatfaal Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe. But the universe's very existence is only evidence for the universe existing - not for (continued or temporary) existence of a creator. As the existence of the universe is a given - then any logical sequence that relies on it must be exclusive and logically sound - ie it cannot rest on an assertion. I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem. "If the universe exists it must have a creator (of any form)" is not accepted. It is a good debate - and it is undecidable; for sure the existence of the universe cannot be used as evidence as this is part of the proposition (ie petitio principii/begging the question). Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists. No; this is a logical fallacy masquerading as a proof and as such you do not need to be an atheist to call it such. Um, what? Yrreg initial proposition works just as well with every mention of God replaced with Devil (this is why it is not evidence). 1
iNow Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Do you have any other completely unfounded baseless assertions you'd like to make, or are you content just to leave it with this one? Perhaps you want to say that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns and have us accept that as fact, too? Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem. Well, it really is, though... if you actually expect any of us to take you seriously. Um, what? Just an observation... If you're struggling to understand and comprehend the points of others, you might consider limiting the number of times you blanketly dismiss their posts and make unsupported assertions of your own as if they are somehow absolute. Your response are akin to, "I can't grasp what you mean, but I know you are wrong." It looks silly, and I know you're better than that. 1
John Cuthber Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Um, what? Which part did you not understand? I will try to explain it more slowly. I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote that because I had a bus to catch.
yrreg Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 [...] There is no evidence that God exists. If He does exist, what caused him to exist? I am talking about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. You must first state that there is no first cause, and then say that there is no evidence of any such existence as a first cause, except the concept, or even the concept itself of the first cause is an invalid concept. But you have strayed from the topic by asking a question which is also irrelevant, what caused God to exist if He does exist. Please think about the concept of a first cause from which all things originated directly or indirectly by intermediate causes which came from the first cause. Please abstain from asking a question that is irrelevant to the topic. And please also acquaint yourself with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, this concept of God precludes the question what or who caused God -- for if anything or anyone caused this God then this God is not God, not in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Now, if you have another concept of God which concept is not the one in the Christian faith and not in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator everything in the universe that is not Himself, then you are not dealing with God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. I am talking about the first cause and God as the first cause, with the concept of God as understood in the Christian faith. Yrreg
Moontanman Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'. So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question. ----------------------- Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself. As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Yrreg Let me get this straight, first you want us to assume that not only is there a god but he is the christian god and that he has always existed and you want us to assume he is the cause of everything in the universe.... what is your point? If we assume all those things there is no debate only agreement.
John Cuthber Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 I am talking about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. You must first state that there is no first cause, and then say that there is no evidence of any such existence as a first cause, except the concept, or even the concept itself of the first cause is an invalid concept. But you have strayed from the topic by asking a question which is also irrelevant, what caused God to exist if He does exist. Please think about the concept of a first cause from which all things originated directly or indirectly by intermediate causes which came from the first cause. Please abstain from asking a question that is irrelevant to the topic. And please also acquaint yourself with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, this concept of God precludes the question what or who caused God -- for if anything or anyone caused this God then this God is not God, not in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. Now, if you have another concept of God which concept is not the one in the Christian faith and not in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator everything in the universe that is not Himself, then you are not dealing with God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe. I am talking about the first cause and God as the first cause, with the concept of God as understood in the Christian faith. Yrreg Also please acquaint yourself with the concept of this logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
yrreg Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 yrreg' date=' on 4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said: I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'. So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question. ----------------------- Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself. As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Yrreg [/quote'] Let me get this straight, first you want us to assume that not only is there a god but he is the christian god and that he has always existed and you want us to assume he is the cause of everything in the universe.... what is your point? If we assume all those things there is no debate only agreement. ----------------------- Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions? What is a pure assumption? First, by way of illustration: There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys. The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman. That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption. A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all. An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation. The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption. It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about. So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption. Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge. Yrreg *See, http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html
Tres Juicy Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 ----------------------- Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions? What is a pure assumption? First, by way of illustration: There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys. The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman. That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption. A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all. An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation. The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption. It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about. So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption. Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge. Yrreg *See, http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Come on, this is rubbish I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe
yrreg Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 Title of thread: "God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God." I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'. So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question. ----------------------- Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself. As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. Yrreg Is there evidence for God? Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God. Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God. Yrreg yrreg' date=' on 7 March 2012 - 09:25 AM, said: [...'] Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions? What is a pure assumption? First, by way of illustration: There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys. The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman. That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption. A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all. An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation. The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption. It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about. So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption. Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge. Yrreg *See, http://www.cfpf.org..../br/br_god.html Come on, this is rubbish I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe Please define rabbits. Yrreg
Keenidiot Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against. Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides, that's all that matters. Is there evidence for God? Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God. Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God. Yrreg Please define rabbits. Yrreg Please define "cheese."
Tres Juicy Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Is there evidence for God? Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. Circular reasoning However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God. Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God. This is just weak but I'll play along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God Please define rabbits. Yrreg Really?! use google...
Appolinaria Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 [/size] Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides nice try. by "crazy theists" i was expressing how a lot of atheists view theists. i could be considered a theist. if you actually read my posts youd take note of that.
yrreg Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against. Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides, that's all that matters. yrreg, on 7 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said: Is there evidence for God? Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God. Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God. Yrreg Come on, this is rubbish I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe. Please define rabbits. Yrreg Please define "cheese." Please abstain from flippancy, it is not worthy of a serious poster. If you have no definition of what is evidence and have no concept of what is God and also give their respective examples, just read; but don't go into flippancy. It is of the utmost importance for viable and productive exchange of thoughts that posters who use a term for its substance in the advancement of their position should be ready to define the term, otherwise they should abstain from bringing in the term. One such term is evidence. Atheists are always demanding evidence for God's existence. I bring in the concept of first cause and also of God, and I have defined them. Originally posted by Yrreg post #1 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64820-god-as-the-first-cause/page__view__findpost__p__662706 [...] I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question. [Concept of God:] Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself. [Concept of first cause:] As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence. And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever. Yrreg To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words. Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite. Otherwise you cannot really convince people of the worth of your reference and also more significantly its relevancy to the question by just giving the link. Reproduce the text you refer to as definition of a term or as an authority or also as an opinion akin to yours, or better and best, say in your own words the thought of the text you give a web link to. In this way you will show people that you have read your referred to web text or outside the web source, and have understood it adequately as to be able to re-state its thought content in your own verbal formulation. Yrreg
Keenidiot Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 nice try. by "crazy theists" i was expressing how a lot of atheists view theists. i could be considered a theist. if you actually read my posts youd take note of that. Ok, fine then. I take note of your theism, and don't care. I did note you're a theist, but your phrasing seems to suggest superiority both to common theists and athesits. However, now I see that you simply phrased it poorly. Please abstain from flippancy, it is not worthy of a serious poster. I'm sorry, apparently we haven't met on this board yet. If you have no definition of what is evidence and have no concept of what is God and also give their respective examples, just read; but don't go into flippancy. Sorry, I tend to be flippant when I see a poster who's past history is known to me and know there's no real point in attempting serious discussion.
doG Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. Why? The existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. It is not evidence that there was even a beginning since it's possible the universe has existed for eternity. That said, it is not evidence for a first cause of any kind and is certainly not evidence for the existence of any god. 1
DrRocket Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Do they leave behind any evidence of their existence? No. But there is evidence that's unaccounted for. Like our finite universe and why it began. So it's a free for all until we can answer a few questions. P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against. There is no reason, at the moment, to conclude that the universe is finite (spatially compact). Nor is there reason to conclude tnat it is infinite (spatially non-compact). That remains an open question in cosmology. I personally doubt that it will ever be answered, since the one thing that is abundantly clear is that the universe is REALLY big, so big and so rapidly expanding that parts of it appear to be forever causally disconnected from us. The question as to why the universe beganl, as opposed to the physics of the formation of the structure of hte universe, is a question for theology and philosophy rather than for science (don't hold your breath waiting for an answer). Crazy atheists are just as crazy as crazy theists. But it is amusing to watch crazy atheists turn atheism into a religion without recognizing that they are doing just that. Absence of evidence for God is not evidence of absence of God. Neither is absence of evidence for a solid physical explanation for the formation of the universe evidence for the existence of God. The existence or non-existence of God is simply not a scientific question. There are simply some questions that science, by its nature, cannot answer. It is designed to answer questions as to how nature operates. Why nature operates that way is not a scientific question. Neither is it a question that will ever be answered or for which an answer is required. It is quite difficult enough to figure out how nature operates, and that question is still far from completely answered. 2
Appolinaria Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 However, now I see that you simply phrased it poorly. That I did.
Moontanman Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Please abstain from flippancy, it is not worthy of a serious poster. If you have no definition of what is evidence and have no concept of what is God and also give their respective examples, just read; but don't go into flippancy. It is of the utmost importance for viable and productive exchange of thoughts that posters who use a term for its substance in the advancement of their position should be ready to define the term, otherwise they should abstain from bringing in the term. One such term is evidence. Atheists are always demanding evidence for God's existence. I bring in the concept of first cause and also of God, and I have defined them. So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence. And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever. Yrreg To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words. Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite. Otherwise you cannot really convince people of the worth of your reference and also more significantly its relevancy to the question by just giving the link. Reproduce the text you refer to as definition of a term or as an authority or also as an opinion akin to yours, or better and best, say in your own words the thought of the text you give a web link to. In this way you will show people that you have read your referred to web text or outside the web source, and have understood it adequately as to be able to re-state its thought content in your own verbal formulation. Yrreg You start out by making an absolutely unsupportable assumption then you demand we assume that assertion is true then you accuse us of being flippant. You have no evidence for any god much less the christian god, and you call us flippant... You have no evidence that any god much less the christian god is the first cause of anything much less everything then you call us flippant. You demand we define our concept of god when you cannot even provide any evidence of any god much less the one you are assuming is real. I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods. Then you insinuate that we are somehow ignorant of the christian god if we cannot define it. Are you aware of the psychopath that is described as god in the holy book you assume is true? Have you even read your own holy book, i get really tired of having to show believers what their book demands they believe. Your argument is nothing but horse feathers, you make the assumption there is a christian god, give some evidence of this god, just because you can define it doesn't make it any more likely to be real. I see no evidence for any god or gods, in the absence of evidence for the existence of gods the default position is there are no gods. 1
Appolinaria Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 There is no reason, at the moment, to conclude that the universe is finite (spatially compact). Nor is there reason to conclude tnat it is infinite (spatially non-compact). That remains an open question in cosmology. I personally doubt that it will ever be answered, since the one thing that is abundantly clear is that the universe is REALLY big, so big and so rapidly expanding that parts of it appear to be forever causally disconnected from us. The question as to why the universe beganl, as opposed to the physics of the formation of the structure of hte universe, is a question for theology and philosophy rather than for science (don't hold your breath waiting for an answer). Crazy atheists are just as crazy as crazy theists. But it is amusing to watch crazy atheists turn atheism into a religion without recognizing that they are doing just that. Absence of evidence for God is not evidence of absence of God. Neither is absence of evidence for a solid physical explanation for the formation of the universe evidence for the existence of God. The existence or non-existence of God is simply not a scientific question. There are simply some questions that science, by its nature, cannot answer. It is designed to answer questions as to how nature operates. Why nature operates that way is not a scientific question. Neither is it a question that will ever be answered or for which an answer is required. It is quite difficult enough to figure out how nature operates, and that question is still far from completely answered. Okay, I understand. Thanks for the response.
yrreg Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 yrreg, on 7 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said: Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God. Why? The existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. It is not evidence that there was even a beginning since it's possible the universe has existed for eternity. That said, it is not evidence for a first cause of any kind and is certainly not evidence for the existence of any god. I like to invite you to give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence, because you use that word everytime and everywhere in the question of God's existence. ----------------------- You say that " it's possible the universe has existed for eternity." I would propose that you make the qualification that the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity, however as we humans now observe the universe, it is a totality of existence now that is not identical to the totality of existence prior to the existence of man and also prior to the existence of time and space. On that qualification I will heartily agree with you that the universe has existed for eternity. So, the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity even before the existence of man and the existence of time and space, that totality of existence that has existed and is existing for eternity is the totality of existence that consists in the existence of God. -------------------------- Please don't forget to give your concept of what is evidence, but from your stock knowledge. Yrreg
imatfaal Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I like to invite you to give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence, because you use that word everytime and everywhere in the question of God's existence. ----------------------- You say that " it's possible the universe has existed for eternity." I would propose that you make the qualification that the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity, however as we humans now observe the universe, it is a totality of existence now that is not identical to the totality of existence prior to the existence of man and also prior to the existence of time and space. On that qualification I will heartily agree with you that the universe has existed for eternity. So, the universe as the totality of existence has existed for eternity even before the existence of man and the existence of time and space, that totality of existence that has existed and is existing for eternity is the totality of existence that consists in the existence of God. -------------------------- Please don't forget to give your concept of what is evidence, but from your stock knowledge. Yrreg Repeatable and objectively documentable observations via a known and shared methodology that either tend to add weight to a theory or run contrary to the theory's predictions, processes, or axiomata and thus might disprove the theory. That the universe has changed is indisputable, but you seem to be positing some form of change of quality (otherwise why are you bothering) which I cannot see. "prior to the existence of time and space." Is a self-contradiction until and unless you accept something outside the universe. As this is the subject of the argument to rely on that acceptance is begging the question and logically very suspect. Your last sentence is just a blank assertion dressed in its Sunday best. /edit typo Edited March 8, 2012 by imatfaal
yrreg Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 You start out by making an absolutely unsupportable assumption then you demand we assume that assertion is true then you accuse us of being flippant. You have no evidence for any god much less the christian god, and you call us flippant... You have no evidence that any god much less the christian god is the first cause of anything much less everything then you call us flippant. You demand we define our concept of god when you cannot even provide any evidence of any god much less the one you are assuming is real. I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods. [...] The existence of God is not a pure assumption but a principle of human rational knowledge, otherwise you have no explanation for the origin of everything with a beginning. A pure assumption is like saying that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars, it is a pure assumption because it explains nothing that is worth or requires explaining, like how to explain everything in existence that has a beginning. --------------------- You make a lot about evidence, please just give me from your stock knowledge what is evidence. ---------------------- You also say: "I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods." See, you are being irrational in denying the existence of God when in the first place you claim not to have any definition of God or god. First, have an idea of the something that you do not believe in before you can say that you do not believe in it. Tell me, you don't believe in aswang, do you? You will ask me what I mean by aswang if you are rational. But you are not rational if without first finding out what is aswang, you already say that you do or you don't believe in aswang, i.e. even though you have no idea what is an aswang.* Again: first get the correct idea of something before you say that you don't believe in it -- or you believe in it. ----------------------------------- I am telling people that they are being flippant for saying that rabbits explain the existence of the universe or cheese explains the existence of the universe; however they would not be flippant if they first define what they mean by rabbits and by cheese, namely, as their words for the creator of everything in the universe that has a beginning. In which case I will just tell them to choose other words instead of rabbits and cheese, because these two words, rabbits and cheese, have already established definitions in English which is the language used in this forum. Now, if they then insist that for them rabbits and cheese mean whatever they want them to mean, then I will certainly tell them they are being flippant and in effect irrational: because these are already English words with established meanings and they just want to be troublesome instead of contributing to the exchange of sensible ideas and opinions. Yrreg *An Aswang (or Asuwang) is a mythical creature in Philippine folklore. The aswang is an inherently evil vampire-like creature and is the subject of a wide variety of myths and stories, the details of which vary greatly. ... Cf., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswang http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cts=1331232619940&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAswang&ei=Sf9YT-X8BOmRiQeEgPHPDQ&usg=AFQjCNGHmfGf1pYJDDR5berYrDGaa20ldg
John Cuthber Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) This assertion "It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about." or the equivalent on "The existence of God is not a pure assumption but a principle of human rational knowledge, otherwise you have no explanation for the origin of everything with a beginning." is just plain wrong, but anyway... There is a Universe. Either it has always been here or it came into being at some time in the past. It might be an un-caused event. We don't know because we were not there at the time. The fact that we see a universe is only evidence that there is a universe to see (and that we aren't blind to it). It's existence tells us nothing of its origin or history. It's possible (but not certain) that it was created by some sort of creator. However there is nothing about the universe that tells us anything of the nature of that creator (or even if one exists). That creator might be something like the Christian God. But there is no reason to favour that suggestion over the idea that the creator might be the flying spaghetti monster or even something like the Christian "Devil". It is, based on a more or less total lack of evidence, just as true to say "the universe is evidence for the existence of the FSM (blessings upon his noodly appendages)" as it is to say "the universe is evidence for the existence of the Christian God". But the two are not the same and the existence of one precludes the existence of the other, because there can only be one creator. Only one of them could be true, yet it is paradoxically asserted that the existence of the universe is evidence for both the existence of God and also for his non-existence (because the universe was created by the FSM). Edited March 8, 2012 by John Cuthber
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now