Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God...

Qynze
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?
Charlie Eppes: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Colby Granger: Uhhh... no.
----------
NUMB3RS
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:40:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As an Ignostic, I couldn't tell you whether or not there is a God unless you define god.

Certainly, there are definitions of God that make the concept a reality. Then there are definitions of god that are either irrelevant, or obviously false.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Qynze
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:44:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:40:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
As an Ignostic, I couldn't tell you whether or not there is a God unless you define god.

Certainly, there are definitions of God that make the concept a reality. Then there are definitions of god that are either irrelevant, or obviously false.

There are many different definitions of God, and I can't tell you which one to use...go by your own terms, I suppose.
Charlie Eppes: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Colby Granger: Uhhh... no.
----------
NUMB3RS
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 12:47:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Then this...

http://www.debate.org...
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 1:33:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.

That's a good summation.

In case it is very difficult to construct an argument for God that stands up to the most superficial scrutiny. He seems like an unnessary embellishment.

Side arguments would be that you can logically demonstrate that the Christian God is a paradox, so therefore can't exist. Or that any worthy deity is indifferent to the concept of faith.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 1:40:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 1:33:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.

That's a good summation.

In case it is very difficult to construct an argument for God that stands up to the most superficial scrutiny. He seems like an unnessary embellishment.

Side arguments would be that you can logically demonstrate that the Christian God is a paradox, so therefore can't exist. Or that any worthy deity is indifferent to the concept of faith.

You seem to know the nature of God better than i do.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 1:46:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 1:40:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/22/2011 1:33:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.

That's a good summation.

In case it is very difficult to construct an argument for God that stands up to the most superficial scrutiny. He seems like an unnessary embellishment.

Side arguments would be that you can logically demonstrate that the Christian God is a paradox, so therefore can't exist. Or that any worthy deity is indifferent to the concept of faith.

You seem to know the nature of God better than i do.

The God of the Bible is not the same God that his theologians adhere to. The biblical God is small, subject to doubt, fear, rage and intense cruelty. I don't need to take passages out of context or behave like Dawkins to show that, it is quite clearly shown.

That same God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipotent. The two value sets do not mesh. An omni-God does not fear humanity building the tower the babel, does not flood the earth and feel bad afterwards, does not punish people for doing as he made them, does not send people to hell to pay for his crimes etc etc.

The Christian God is not God, he may be the demiurge but not GOD.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2011 1:48:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 1:46:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 1:40:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/22/2011 1:33:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.

That's a good summation.

In case it is very difficult to construct an argument for God that stands up to the most superficial scrutiny. He seems like an unnessary embellishment.

Side arguments would be that you can logically demonstrate that the Christian God is a paradox, so therefore can't exist. Or that any worthy deity is indifferent to the concept of faith.

You seem to know the nature of God better than i do.

The God of the Bible is not the same God that his theologians adhere to. The biblical God is small, subject to doubt, fear, rage and intense cruelty. I don't need to take passages out of context or behave like Dawkins to show that, it is quite clearly shown.

That same God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipotent. The two value sets do not mesh. An omni-God does not fear humanity building the tower the babel, does not flood the earth and feel bad afterwards, does not punish people for doing as he made them, does not send people to hell to pay for his crimes etc etc.

The Christian God is not God, he may be the demiurge but not GOD.

Oh that "God", yeah i agree. He was made in our image.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 11:48:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Pantheist or Panantheist concept of God is the only one that makes sense to me, though I sometimes feel it is misleading to refer to that concept as "god".

However, to bridge gaps in communication with people of a vastly different mindset than your own, it is necessary to speak using terminology you might not otherwise use. It is necessary to speak in metaphors.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 12:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 1:46:59 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 1:40:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/22/2011 1:33:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:38:47 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

I live under the assumption that such a god does not exist since the very idea is so implausible and the lack of proof that would substantiate such a claim.

That's a good summation.

In case it is very difficult to construct an argument for God that stands up to the most superficial scrutiny. He seems like an unnessary embellishment.

Side arguments would be that you can logically demonstrate that the Christian God is a paradox, so therefore can't exist. Or that any worthy deity is indifferent to the concept of faith.

You seem to know the nature of God better than i do.

The God of the Bible is not the same God that his theologians adhere to. The biblical God is small, subject to doubt, fear, rage and intense cruelty. I don't need to take passages out of context or behave like Dawkins to show that, it is quite clearly shown.

That same God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipotent. The two value sets do not mesh. An omni-God does not fear humanity building the tower the babel, does not flood the earth and feel bad afterwards, does not punish people for doing as he made them, does not send people to hell to pay for his crimes etc etc.

The Christian God is not God, he may be the demiurge but not GOD.

Despite the obvious facts which you presented and your great knowledge of the scriptures I shall still blindly believe contrary to the obvious truth and force others to do so too !!!!!!!! >:( x 9001 = Madness
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 12:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
>:( x 9001 = Madness
I believe that this equation is missing some Spartans but you get my point.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 12:12:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?:

No one knows. Therein lies the original problem.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.

But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:41:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

God creates stone that is unliftable.
God lifts stone.
Stone was not unliftable, as it was lifted.

An unbreakable shield and a sword that cuts through anything logically can't exist in the same universe at the same time.
I miss the old members.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:50:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 11:48:12 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The Pantheist or Panantheist concept of God is the only one that makes sense to me, though I sometimes feel it is misleading to refer to that concept as "god".


Exactly.

"'Everything God' and 'no God,' are identical positions." -- Colridge
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 3:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:41:12 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

God creates stone that is unliftable.
God lifts stone.
Stone was not unliftable, as it was lifted.

An unbreakable shield and a sword that cuts through anything logically can't exist in the same universe at the same time.

If God creates a stone that is "unliftable", He cannot possibly lift the stone.

Why? What God creates, by definition, is. If he wants to make an unbreakable shield, it's done. Therefore, if he makes a stone of infinite weight, it's done. Not even he can invalidate this by lifting the stone.

Therefore, God isn't omnipotent and there isn't God.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 5:24:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 3:59:20 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:41:12 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

God creates stone that is unliftable.
God lifts stone.
Stone was not unliftable, as it was lifted.

An unbreakable shield and a sword that cuts through anything logically can't exist in the same universe at the same time.

If God creates a stone that is "unliftable", He cannot possibly lift the stone.

Why? What God creates, by definition, is. If he wants to make an unbreakable shield, it's done. Therefore, if he makes a stone of infinite weight, it's done. Not even he can invalidate this by lifting the stone.

Therefore, God isn't omnipotent and there isn't God.
God cannot do things that are logically impossible.
It cannot draw a square circle, make a three sided pentagon, or make an unliftable stone in the same universe as someone who can lift all stones.
Mutually exclusive objects can NOT exist in the same universe. What are you are proposing is for God to defy logic, something that is impossible.
I miss the old members.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 5:25:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/23/2011 5:24:02 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:59:20 PM, rarugged wrote:
At 1/23/2011 3:41:12 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/23/2011 1:41:49 PM, rarugged wrote:
God exists in the deep recesses of the human imagination.



But really, I've been more fascinated by some logical fallacies of the existence of God, by the most standard definition: an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being.

If there's such thing as God, isn't it possible He could create a rock of infinite weight, such that He could not lift it?

If the answer is yes, that proves that God is not omnipotent, and if God isn't omnipotent, He's not God at all.

If the answer is no, then that shows that God wasn't omnipotent to start with; therefore, there is no God, by definition.

God creates stone that is unliftable.
God lifts stone.
Stone was not unliftable, as it was lifted.

An unbreakable shield and a sword that cuts through anything logically can't exist in the same universe at the same time.

If God creates a stone that is "unliftable", He cannot possibly lift the stone.

Why? What God creates, by definition, is. If he wants to make an unbreakable shield, it's done. Therefore, if he makes a stone of infinite weight, it's done. Not even he can invalidate this by lifting the stone.

Therefore, God isn't omnipotent and there isn't God.
God cannot do things that are logically impossible.
It cannot draw a square circle, make a three sided pentagon, or make an unliftable stone in the same universe as someone who can lift all stones.
Mutually exclusive objects can NOT exist in the same universe. What are you are proposing is for God to defy logic, something that is impossible.

Your argumentation is admirable, but please check out the topic:

The existence of God (For).

All of your issues are discussed rather extensively and somewhat incompletely, I might add...
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Lucyyy
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 2:20:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, I don't like to refer to our creator "God" for various reasons. Because of the topic I won't get into those various reasons, but I will say this, I like to think of god as a higher power or being not necessarily a God that you must worship. Again because of my various reasons I don't like to say God.

1.God is an ultra dimensional being. Ultra dimensions and dimensions itself is an interesting notion I encourage you to do research on it. I will provide a few sources for you to visit below. This higher power (being or god, 'whichever you prefer') exists. But some of us including myself don't like to say god simply because we don't believe he should be called god or worshiped (again for various reasons.) He is a divine being. Let me make it clear that I am not into christian religion practices (again for various reasons.)

In an article I read it says, "There is much evidence from both the Bible and from science that demonstrates God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it. The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him" God exists, if you'd like to worship him as your god then go for it, but know that there should be a different perspective when you think of god simply because hes an ultra dimensional being. This is a very logical explanation simply because it explains and make sense when you think about stuff like how is divine possible etc...

2. God is an extraterrestrial...
there is too much to say about both of these theories so i'm going to stop right here.

Definitlty check this webpage out if you're interested in the first proposed perspective on god!
http://www.godandscience.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2011 12:35:24 PM, Qynze wrote:
The idea, the physical being, the laws, the notion, the theory, the mentality, the reality, the dream, the religion, the cause, the reason, etc.

...does or does not exist, on what level?

God the creator(s) of our universe(s) that governs all things within to its will.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 5:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.

How can you refute cause and effect? If everything in our universe is an after effect of a previous event, how would anything exist without some form of an initial creator?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 6:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 2:20:55 PM, Lucyyy wrote:
First of all, I don't like to refer to our creator "God" for various reasons.

The Fool: Then refer to him as "Monkey"

Lucyyy: Because of the topic I won't get into those various reasons, but I will say this, I like to think of god as a higher power or being not necessarily a God that you must worship.

The Fool: I like to think of many things too!. And not others.

Lucyyy: Again because of my various reasons I don't like to say God.

The Fool: Third times a charm. And a Subjective truth, For yourself.

Lucyyy: 1.God is an ultra dimensional being. Ultra dimensions and dimensions itself is an interesting notion I encourage you to do research on it.

The Fool: Oh yeah, that's nothing. Mine is a Super Ultra Dimensional^(itself)^(for itself)-Deluxe-Star-Creator-masturbate-er-Sabre-maker-no-sh!t-taker-God Boss, Destroyer and Creator..BEING!!!!

The Fool. WINS!! Flawless Victory,
<(8D)

Fatality!!

<(80)

Lucyyy: I will provide a few sources for you to visit below. This higher power (being or god, 'whichever you prefer') exists.

The Fool: This End part is the most convincing. ---->""'whichever you prefer') exists."" to yourself.

Lucyyy: But some of us including myself don't like to say god simply because we don't believe he should be called god or worshiped (again for various reasons.) He is a divine being. Let me make it clear that I am not into christian religion practices (again for various reasons.)

"
The Fool: You want be clear. Define divine..

I will stick with the Enemies I understand "Thank you" (for various reasons)

Lucyyy: In an article I read it says, "There is much evidence from both the Bible and from science that demonstrates God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined.

The Fool: I am sure the Term "Demonstrate" is being use a bit loosely.. iAs a Subjective truth perhaps.

They day you can conceive for yourself More then 3 Dimensional space, it will actually be possible to believe for yourself. But who Knows maybe next reincarnation.

Maybe,

Big MAYBE!!.

No promises. ..

God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it.

Knuckle head Na-nu na-nu: thats really mysterious.

The Fool: Shut up. Na-nu

Lucyyy: The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him"

The Fool: The Bible doesn't actually say anything, is just paper really, people say things. And sometime monkeys.
Okay I made the monkey part up, But maybe, to myself they do. ... Its a subjective self truth.. To myself,
<(8D)

And My monkey...

Lucyyy: God exists, if you'd like to worship him as your god then go for it, but know that there should be a different perspective when you think of god simply because hes an ultra dimensional being.

This is a very logical explanation simply because it explains and make sense when you think about stuff like how is divine possible etc...

The Fool: I love how instead of demonstrating logically, you just came out and said Bluntly this IS very Logical... and didn't even care to finish that sentence. It could really end up saying.. "And it is not At all logical." I like that, Leaving lots for the imagination, so if someone is creative enough they could create for themselves whatever they their self's desire.

Lucyyy: : 2. God is an extraterrestrial...

there is too much to say about both of these theories so i'm going to stop right here.

The Fool: I understand, you have said "too much" already, And Ultra.

If that was really your picture and you didn't belong in an insane asylum, with ultra dimensional security, I would think you cuter to myself.

And so would my monkey..

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 5:41:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.

How can you refute cause and effect? If everything in our universe is an after effect of a previous event, how would anything exist without some form of an initial creator?

Well, that is a very heavy question. There are also a lot of assumptions one even has to make before asking that question. First, I would start with the metaphysics of time. If the B-Theory is true, then The Big Bang would just exist at the start of a tenselessly eternal 4d or n+1d space-time block, but the universe wouldn't come into being at The Big Bang. As William Lane Craig notes:

"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184)

So, if B-Theory is true, then nothing comes into being. Temporal becoming would just be an illusion. Most philosophers of time are B-Theorists. This is the same with physicists. Since the universe would not begin to exist under this theory of time, it is not clear why the universe would need a cause, or why the universe must be contingent.

Now, lets say that Dr. Craig is correct and that the A-Theory of time is true. Standard Big Bang cosmology suggests that the universe never really has a beginning point. This is because the singularity at t=0 posited as the first state of the universe couldn't have existed. It is logically impossible. This is because it posits temperature, density, and curvature which is some number n over 0. However, dividing by 0 leads to logical contradiction. This means, there is no first state of the universe for God to cause. One could say that the first instant after t=0 would be the first state. However, there is no first decimal after 0. This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily:

t=... 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001...

So, since any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another (no matter how small), and there is no initial state for a God to cause to come into being, then Standard Big Bang cosmology supports the universe not having a beginning point under A-Theory.

So, I would just deny the universe began to exist. All the evidence we have is telling us that the universe did not come into being; even if the universe may have a finite past.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2013 7:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:21:25 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Absurd-Stability Argument

P1: The natural world seems to work via cause and effect.

P2: For this cause and effect to remain constant, stability is required.

C1: P1, P2; The natural world requires stability.

---

P3: A triangle is the most stable 2D shape, the tetrahedron is the most stable 3D, shape.

P4: A hyper-tetrahedron is the logical next step in 4D to the triangle in 2D and the tetrahedron in 3D.

C2: P3, P4; It is very likely that the hyper-tetrahedron is the most stable 4D shape.

---

P5: A hyper-tetrahedron probably has five, discrete, different, interconnected vertices, which rely on each others' existences to be able to exist themselves.

P6: Cause and effect works in four dimensions.

C3: C2, P5, P6; A hyper-tetrahedron, as described, is the most stable structure which can provide stability for cause and effect.

---

P7: Stability requires a form of compensation, if one side changes, the other needs to change in the opposite manner to provide stability.

P8: The best form of compensation comes from conscious beings, which can create active compensation.

C4: P7, P8; Consciousness is much better at providing stability than non-consciousness.

---

P9: Stability is much better provided externally than internally.

P10: To be external of the natural universe, such a thing needs to be transcendent.

C5: P9, P10; Stability is better provided by a transcendent thing.

---

C6: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5; The stability of our universe is best explained by five, discrete, different, interconnected, conscious and transcendent beings, which rely on each other for their own existence.

---

P11: A transcendent and conscious being can be considered a god.

C7: C6, P11; It is more likely than not that --

Five, discrete, different, interconnected gods, which rely on each other for their own existence, exist.

---

Voila!
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 6:58:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 6:58:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 5:41:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.

How can you refute cause and effect? If everything in our universe is an after effect of a previous event, how would anything exist without some form of an initial creator?

Well, that is a very heavy question. There are also a lot of assumptions one even has to make before asking that question. First, I would start with the metaphysics of time. If the B-Theory is true, then The Big Bang would just exist at the start of a tenselessly eternal 4d or n+1d space-time block, but the universe wouldn't come into being at The Big Bang. As William Lane Craig notes:

"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184)

So, if B-Theory is true, then nothing comes into being. Temporal becoming would just be an illusion. Most philosophers of time are B-Theorists. This is the same with physicists. Since the universe would not begin to exist under this theory of time, it is not clear why the universe would need a cause, or why the universe must be contingent.

Now, lets say that Dr. Craig is correct and that the A-Theory of time is true. Standard Big Bang cosmology suggests that the universe never really has a beginning point. This is because the singularity at t=0 posited as the first state of the universe couldn't have existed. It is logically impossible. This is because it posits temperature, density, and curvature which is some number n over 0. However, dividing by 0 leads to logical contradiction. This means, there is no first state of the universe for God to cause. One could say that the first instant after t=0 would be the first state. However, there is no first decimal after 0. This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily:

t=... 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001...

So, since any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another (no matter how small), and there is no initial state for a God to cause to come into being, then Standard Big Bang cosmology supports the universe not having a beginning point under A-Theory.

So, I would just deny the universe began to exist. All the evidence we have is telling us that the universe did not come into being; even if the universe may have a finite past.

This is ridiculous , are you denying that the universe beginning for X "theories" ?!! The universe did begin to exist , and time did not begin to exist.

Nothing is forcing you to assume time and universe are the same thing.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:05:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 7:06:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:21:25 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Absurd-Stability Argument


The Pent-atheism DDO prophet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 10:18:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 6:58:42 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/12/2013 6:58:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 5:41:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.

How can you refute cause and effect? If everything in our universe is an after effect of a previous event, how would anything exist without some form of an initial creator?

Well, that is a very heavy question. There are also a lot of assumptions one even has to make before asking that question. First, I would start with the metaphysics of time. If the B-Theory is true, then The Big Bang would just exist at the start of a tenselessly eternal 4d or n+1d space-time block, but the universe wouldn't come into being at The Big Bang. As William Lane Craig notes:

"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184)

So, if B-Theory is true, then nothing comes into being. Temporal becoming would just be an illusion. Most philosophers of time are B-Theorists. This is the same with physicists. Since the universe would not begin to exist under this theory of time, it is not clear why the universe would need a cause, or why the universe must be contingent.

Now, lets say that Dr. Craig is correct and that the A-Theory of time is true. Standard Big Bang cosmology suggests that the universe never really has a beginning point. This is because the singularity at t=0 posited as the first state of the universe couldn't have existed. It is logically impossible. This is because it posits temperature, density, and curvature which is some number n over 0. However, dividing by 0 leads to logical contradiction. This means, there is no first state of the universe for God to cause. One could say that the first instant after t=0 would be the first state. However, there is no first decimal after 0. This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily:

t=... 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001...

So, since any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another (no matter how small), and there is no initial state for a God to cause to come into being, then Standard Big Bang cosmology supports the universe not having a beginning point under A-Theory.

So, I would just deny the universe began to exist. All the evidence we have is telling us that the universe did not come into being; even if the universe may have a finite past.

This is ridiculous , are you denying that the universe beginning for X "theories" ?!! The universe did begin to exist , and time did not begin to exist.

That is ridiculous, the universe did not begin to exist if B-Theory is true. And I argued that the universe did not begin to exist if one assumes the standard Big Bang model.


Nothing is forcing you to assume time and universe are the same thing.

I never said it was. This is a straw-man. Either way, there is no reason to believe the universe began to exist. Maybe it did under a quantum mechanical model; but they all work without reference to God.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 3:56:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/12/2013 6:58:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/12/2013 5:41:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/12/2013 4:58:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's epistemically possible that God exist. However, all arguments I have come across to try to justify God's existence fail. I don't think there is a good reason to believe in God that the theist has brought forward.

How can you refute cause and effect? If everything in our universe is an after effect of a previous event, how would anything exist without some form of an initial creator?

Well, that is a very heavy question. There are also a lot of assumptions one even has to make before asking that question. First, I would start with the metaphysics of time. If the B-Theory is true, then The Big Bang would just exist at the start of a tenselessly eternal 4d or n+1d space-time block, but the universe wouldn't come into being at The Big Bang. As William Lane Craig notes:

"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184)

So, if B-Theory is true, then nothing comes into being. Temporal becoming would just be an illusion. Most philosophers of time are B-Theorists. This is the same with physicists. Since the universe would not begin to exist under this theory of time, it is not clear why the universe would need a cause, or why the universe must be contingent.

Now, lets say that Dr. Craig is correct and that the A-Theory of time is true. Standard Big Bang cosmology suggests that the universe never really has a beginning point. This is because the singularity at t=0 posited as the first state of the universe couldn't have existed. It is logically impossible. This is because it posits temperature, density, and curvature which is some number n over 0. However, dividing by 0 leads to logical contradiction. This means, there is no first state of the universe for God to cause. One could say that the first instant after t=0 would be the first state. However, there is no first decimal after 0. This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily:

t=... 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001...

So, since any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another (no matter how small), and there is no initial state for a God to cause to come into being, then Standard Big Bang cosmology supports the universe not having a beginning point under A-Theory.

So, I would just deny the universe began to exist. All the evidence we have is telling us that the universe did not come into being; even if the universe may have a finite past.

Are you implying that the universe had no beginning but rather always existed? Or are you saying that the universe doesn't exist?