To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan, Isn't it more likely that God was Intelligently Designed by man than man (and the universe) was created by God?

Why isn't it more likely that God shares our characteristics because "we" designed "him" than it is that God created us?

It breaks no laws of physics for man to create God and it breaks every law of physics for God to create (the universe) and us.

I feel that your deconversion must be coming soon

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is though is the study of ancient tablets , establishes that there were once advanced beings who came to this Planet and changed Humanity , our ancestors

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kindly give Max Muller a break. Let him sleep in his grave peacefully.

 

[ Repeat in parts ]

James R

Now this line of argument can be attacked on many fronts. Let's look a few.

1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.

As has already pointed out, this is an assumption, completely unproven. Whatever logically follows from this depends on this premise, but the question remains as to whether the premise itself is true. Thus, even if points 2,3 and 4 followed from 1, it still remains to establish 1.


[...]

​

Everything with a beginning has a cause, that is truth by examination, if you don't accept that, then present an example in reality outside mental constructs of something having begun to exist that is not caused by something else.

I can give you an example, you have a beginning in your cause which are your biological parents.

 

[ Repeat ]

It's certainly an answer but in what way is it the "best" answer?

It's not testable. It goes against everything that we can observe in our daily lives. It's not the simplest answer that would explain things. In fact it's the most complex answer.

So, in what sense can you possibly consider "God did it" as the best explanation?

For any other subject the "best" answer would generally have to be testable, not at odds with all known physical laws, and the simplest or least complex explanation that got the job done would be preferred.

"God did it" is the worst explanation if you consider how we would usually approach such matters.
​

I have to say that you are as usual into gratuitous statements and using the word magical will only reveal your kind of speech is not conducive to serious intelligent discussion.

Now, to make the matter brief, in reasoning on facts and logic, I consider the ultimate explanation of the existence of the universe, which according to the vast majority of scientists who pursue science without any involvement with the concept and existence of God, they tell us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years back in time.

 

The thing is, invisible unicorn's may exist, why not? I don't get the choice to believe or not in God, I am just lucky to have faith in Him which in turn gives me eternal hope, a very nice thing to have. Pink or invisible unicorns haven't had millions of stories backed up with historical evidence for their existence, so I chose not to believe, not because I won't get 21 virgins when I die, but logically it makes no sense.

As for atheists... why not swallow your pride and at least become agnostic? It is so arrogant to think and promote that no God exists. At least Christians go against the grain and proudly proclaim their faith despite getting crucified and beheaded for it.

 

What?
There are only two positions with regard to the belief in god(s).
Atheist or theist.
Agnosticism does not come into it.
It's orthogonal to theism/ atheism.

Certainly no less arrogant than to promote the belief that god(s) do exist - and far less coercive.

 

Well, to enthusiasts of what used to be called speculative science which borders on science fiction, I will just ask you to search for the tell-tale signs with writings you love to read in media hypes, in particular how the universe and everything came forth from nothing, but perhaps from vacuum fluctuation which is a mathematical construct.

And keep in mind that that the finding of scientists which is not being given the media hype treatment is that what science knows of the universe amounts to just 4% of the whole universe; so never neglect the disclosure, namely, though unspoken, that everything you read about universe coming from nothing, or effects without cause, or effects preceding their cause, etc. etc. etc., it is based on mathematical constructions in the minds of speculative writers that can if at all connect to only 4% of what scientists know of the universe.

 

What I translated.

(इयं विसृष्टि यह विविध प्रकार की सृष्टि (यत: आ वभूव) जिस मूल तत्व से प्रकट हूई है (यदि वा दधे) जो धारण करता है (यदि वा न) जो नहिं करता (य: अस्यो अध्यक्ष जो इसका अध्यक्ष वह (परमे व्योमन) परम पद है (स: अंङ्ग वेद) सब जानता है (यदि चा न वेद) यदि कोई न जाने.

Hindi is in Unicode font code2000

 

Not sure if you're a troll so here's one post. Agnostic means you don't believe in either therefore it is a sane position to be at if you don't have faith in God.

The difference being that theists believe that there is something greater then they are, atheists tend to think they know there isn't a God, and the atheists who sit on forums like this all day attacking other peoples belief are simply arrogant kids.

See how silly atheism is?

Most people who call themselves atheist don't know a position called agnostic exists, otherwise sound minds without faith would choose agnosticism everyday of the week, unless they're arrogant fools.

 

Wrong.
Atheist means you don't believe. (This can vary from a lack of belief to a firm belief that there is/ are no god(s)).
Agnosticism is a stance on what can be known about god(s). Note the word "gnosis" in there?
That's why it's possible to be an agnostic theist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope, atheists tend to say "What evidence do you have for claiming that everyone should subscribe to YOUR beliefs/ claims?".

Right, not all like the arrogant theists who claim that they're right because this book says so and they know the book is true because... the book says it is.
Not at all arrogant like theists who declare that everyone should live in a certain way, behave according to their "laws" etc.

 

the important thing is we witness, the scientists cannot define witnessing in terms of logic. this gods creations, big bang are things of facts.

 

Your hard work...

Tell me, what is the difference between "don't know" to "don't believe" in this context?

While all along knowing that theists cannot produce objective evidence. So why do they troll these forums looking for someone to "pick on". Fool.

I don't speak for all theists, obviously you'll get arrogant theists because they're arrogant people. Atheists who attack people based on their beliefs are not just arrogant, they are sick in a way. A bit like a thug who beats the life out of someone they just robbed.

 

What God do Atheists refer to ?
God according to a theists is invincible, cannot be known, the one above all.
with this description given by theists why atheists are trying to find something which cannot be found. isn't it absurd.
Now to theists, you believe God cannot be defined because god is one above all yet you still entice atheist to find god. isn't it absurd.
how can a person be atheist when the theist has said god cannot be known by mere experiment when he is one above all and exists. isn't it illogical, irrational.
why atheists want to negate the existence of god ?
these foolish things are of no value. 'mind' throws people in useless mazes cause the fear of unknown.

 

Many theists not only define God (e.g. Original Cause, and many things attributed to God within Scriptures).
Many (e.g. Jan) consider God knowable.

It's absurd that you claim theists don't define God and then state a definition that the theists might use ("one above all").

The person can be atheist for any reason which leads them to conclude not to have belief in the existence of God.
Many atheists would think it illogical, and certainly irrational for them, to have belief in the existence of something for which they can have (per your comments) no evidence. So the irrationality, as they would see it, lies with such theists who believe without evidence.

Most don't. God either exists or not whether we believe in his existence or not. What many active atheists want to negate is the prevalence of religion within our cultures, especially when the only reason for something might be religious belief rather than anything more practical. When religious values are pushed upon someone merely on the basis that they are religious, some people push back.

So in answer to the unknown you propose "God did it"?

 

god cannot be known. the faiths who say god can be known are not guiding towards formulas.
to know god one has to seprate from god then only can be understanding of god.
understanding is only between two different entities. this is the problem here were are not two. god is in ourselves. what ancient faiths wrote is of no literal importance.
what i write is of no literal importance, no historic.
when i write on above all it means he is above me and i has surrendered with my limited knowledge. this not any definition but just a little reference.
atheism is belief. those atheists you talk about are idiot. their motto should be to end religion, what god has to do with religion ?
why attack god ?
man becomes religious first. then their are foundations laid for religion, i am religious without any religion.

 

James R,

It has to be supernatural, by default.

If we accept that the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. We can assume that the effects has characteristics of the cause. Hence we can learn something about the transcendental agency.

No. God is simply the best choice at that point. It has nothing to do with faith unless you want to know Him.

But you know what you don't accept or entertain.
But tell me something, how do you hope to find evidence of what came before the material manifestation, when by default that cause has to be transcendental?

That's my own personal thing and has nothing to do with anything. We are concerned with the first cause argument in which the logical conclusion is transcendent, all knowing (with regards its effect), and must have some of its characteristics. This is still what we comprehend to be God without what you describe as ''extra baggage).

jan.

 

I agree.

What's more, ambiguities are starting to slip into how we use the words in the argument. On one hand, 'cause' might mean physical efficient causation. On the other hand, it might mean something like explanatory account. The first-cause theistic argument seems to collapse these together into another implicit premise that's left unstated in your 1-4, namely:

1a. Everything without a beginning not only only doesn't have a physical efficient cause, it doesn't need any kind of explanation whatsoever.

That seems to me to simply be false. Even if X has no beginning in time and no physical cause, it still makes perfect sense to ask why there's an eternal X instead of nothing at all. That situation might arguably arise with the laws of physics and with the principles of mathematics and logic.

Again I agree. The word 'universe' seems to be ambiguous. On one hand, it might mean our space-time continuum along with its contents. On the other hand, it might refer to the sum total of reality, to everything that exists.

So we get two rather different alternative readings of 2:

2a. Our space-time continuum (which might not be all of reality) had a beginning.

2b. All of reality and Being itself in its broadest sense had a beginning.

Right. If we assume the truth of 1. and read 2. as meaning 2a., then 3. would seem to follow. There could still be problems with the idea of physical causation of a space-time continuum (must physical causation be temporal?) but reading 'cause' to mean explanatory account wouldn't seem to have that particular problem.

It seems that if we assume the truth of 1. and read 2. as meaning 2b., we land in a contradiction. 3. would seem to be insisting that something exists that isn't included in everything that exists. In other words, 1. and 2b. don't appear to be logically consistent.

This difficulty creates big-time problems for any attempt to produce an explanatory account of why existence exists in the first place. It isn't clear what logical form such an account could possibly take. Anything we cite to explain the existence of existence would seem to be included in what's to be explained.

That one is clearly a non-sequitur.

My own view is that the best position to take regarding the big metaphysical questions like these is agnostic. We simply don't know what accounts for the existence of our space-time-matter-energy continuum, let alone for the existence of existence itself, whether it consists of that continuum or anything else that might hypothetically exist in addition to it. We don't even know whether such an explanatory account is possible in principle.

Imagining whatever the hypothetical answer might be as a single existing being is already begging difficult questions. Labeling it 'God', imagining it as being divine in the religious sense and acting as if it's a suitable and proper object of religious devotion looks like an arbitrary posit to me. Imagining it as a conscious 'person' like ourselves and identifying it with one or more of the mythical deities from religious tradition takes us even farther away from the metaphysical question that we were considering.

 

The old cliche is appropriate here... Love is illogical so does that mean it doesn't exist?

Of course not. So this proves that something illogical can exist. Considering the fact that many religions refer to God as Love then that sort of wraps up the argument that God can and probably does exist.

Sorry for butting in.