Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Arguments for God (2)

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:42:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The original thread devolved into childish nonsense, so let's try it again. This thread is for people to post what they regard to be logical arguments for God, and for other people to challenge those arguments. This being the religion forum of a debate site and all that.
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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:42:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The original thread devolved into childish nonsense, so let's try it again. This thread is for people to post what they regard to be logical arguments for God, and for other people to challenge those arguments. This being the religion forum of a debate site and all that.

"They all turned against me, so only people that agree with me this time."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:46:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
the greatest thing must exist b/c if it didn't it wouldn't be the greatest.

I think greatest means Smartest, powerful, compassionate, strict.. but loving... and most fair.

therefore...

God exists and he's smartest, most powerful, most compassionate, strict.. but loving and most fair.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:52:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:46:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
the greatest thing must exist b/c if it didn't it wouldn't be the greatest.

I think greatest means Smartest, powerful, compassionate, strict.. but loving... and most fair.

therefore...

God exists and he's smartest, most powerful, most compassionate, strict.. but loving and most fair.

That argument is such an obvious fail, I can never understand how it has persisted through the ages.
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.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:56:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:52:56 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:46:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
the greatest thing must exist b/c if it didn't it wouldn't be the greatest.

I think greatest means Smartest, powerful, compassionate, strict.. but loving... and most fair.

therefore...

God exists and he's smartest, most powerful, most compassionate, strict.. but loving and most fair.

That argument is such an obvious fail, I can never understand how it has persisted through the ages.

I think it's the best they got...

so they stick with it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

How about this.

I will provide immutable evidence that there is God to anyone that can provide immutable evidence for the Theory of Relativity.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:02:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

lol good argument you've got there.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:42:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The original thread devolved into childish nonsense, so let's try it again. This thread is for people to post what they regard to be logical arguments for God, and for other people to challenge those arguments. This being the religion forum of a debate site and all that.

I agree that the flamingly egotistical logicasters and secularistic snide snipers came out of the woodwork to take their snippy shots at the theological worldview, and that they got pettily personal as they're wont to do. However, my reply in the original thread wasn't meant to be annoyingly negative, just a statement of the reality that it's impossible to devise an objective, satisfying-to-all-and-sundry argument to defend a religious understanding of life. See that thought below.

Although my fundamental view of reality could be termed "religious" there's one, common problem with all "logical" arguments for God or for any of the elements of a spiritual worldview, and the sooner we religionists accept it the sooner we can stop beating our heads against the wall of adamant skepticism erected by the minds of secularists.

And what's this insurmountable problem with all rational arguments for a spiritual view of things? Simply that all arguments of any kind must proceed from either tangible evidence or accepted axioms. Now when it comes to ultimate questions, such as the existence of a God, or the nature of reality, well, there can be no tangible evidence for such intangible ultimate matters. This is why materialistic, mundane science doesn't even entertain such ultimate matters. So then reasoning from evidence is out, and as for accepted axioms, well, it should go without saying that the basic axioms that religionists would argue from aren't going to be accepted by secularists. This means that religionists can construct the most beautiful and ingenious arguments and secularists will simply pull the rug out from under them by promptly and predictably rejecting the axioms underpinning them.

What all of this means, at the end of the day, is that all religious arguments can only be a bit of intellectual masturbation, i.e., intellectually preaching to the choir, once you step outside of the church and begin to preach your arguments to a more diverse audience you're invariably going to encounter those who simply reject your most foundational axioms and therefore see no merit in your arguments. So, the only value of arguing for one's religious convictions is that it can be an intellectual exercise that clarifies and increases your understanding of your own religious views, but if you think that you're ever going to come up with an argument that's so brilliant that it will win everyone over then you're doomed to disappointment.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:04:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:02:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

lol good argument you've got there.

Haha.
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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:04:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:02:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

lol good argument you've got there.

What argument?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:10:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Yea I might have actually seen it, I meant to reply but the thread pretty much got trashed.

Are we all agreed that the universe is infinite? I am not sure that is a universal consensus at all.
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.
the-good-teacher
Posts: 444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:10:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:42:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The original thread devolved into childish nonsense, so let's try it again. This thread is for people to post what they regard to be logical arguments for God, and for other people to challenge those arguments. This being the religion forum of a debate site and all that.

How could the very 1ST verse of the bible have been written/inspired by anyone other than God ? - Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Time,Space, and Matter, "the universe"

The Seal
Title - - - - - - - God.
Position - - - - - Creator
Territory - - - - - Heaven and Earth

Just like the official seal from Obama, - Obama - President - USA.

Here's another seal, (Same verse) - The Number "7" is the biblical number of completion or perfection, = divine authorship.

Over 500 times the Bible uses the number "7" , and it can also be seen in the world around us.

Days of creation, continents, days in a week, colours in a rainbow, main waterways, musical notes etc..

When translated into Hebrew this verse has only Seven words and not "10" as we see in English - 1 = "In the beginning" - 2 = "Created" - 3 = "God" - 4 = "the" - 5 = "heaven" - 6 = "and" - 7 = "the earth" ..These 7 words contain 7 distinctive features in that sentence.

,It's the only verse in the bible to contain 7 features from 7 words.

Add all letters from the 7 Hebrew words = 28 = 4x7. three leading words = 3,5,7, = God, heaven, and earth, = 14 Hebrew letters = 2x7. The remaining Letters also = 14. The expression of the objects in this verse also = 14 (the heaven and the Earth) the shortest Hebrew word is in the middle "4" (the) = 2 letters, added to the word on the left "3" (God) = "7", and to the right "5" (heaven) = "7". There are three important nouns in this verse, God, heaven ,earth, the Hebrew 3,000 year old Hebrew number values Given to each word = 86-395-296 = 777 or 111x7

In Gods manner of biblical expression, this triple intensification of his perfect #7 is the strongest possible manner of speaking the touch of his divinity,
The numeric value of the only verb (created) in the verse = 203 = 29x7 .

These facts of hidden 7s are hidden beneath the surface of Hebrew text, and were discovered by special investigation and counting, and not expected to be seen or placed there by the original author.

According to the law of chances, these 7 multiple of 7s have a 1 in 823,543 of being an accident.

This verse is for those who have "eyes to see" !
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:11:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:10:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Yea I might have actually seen it, I meant to reply but the thread pretty much got trashed.

Not a problem; we got the ball rolling now (with the thorns removed *cough cough J.Kenyon*)

Are we all agreed that the universe is infinite? I am not sure that is a universal consensus at all.

I find it difficult to believe otherwise; if the universe is expanding at an infinitely high pace, how long must it have taken to become infinitely large? I would assume, infinity.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:13:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

Aristotle turned out to be wrong about almost everything. He did provide a very effective and intelligent understanding of reality scientifically that endured for thousands of years, but then modern science proved all of his scientific theories wrong. (Though he was right that atoms exist, lol.)

How about this.

I will provide immutable evidence that there is God to anyone that can provide immutable evidence for the Theory of Relativity.

Why is that a condition necessary for you to give your argument? It doesn't make sense. Just give us the argument since you claim to have immutable evidence for Gods existence.
"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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:13:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:04:57 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:02:17 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

lol good argument you've got there.

What argument?

yep
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:14:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:11:54 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:10:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Yea I might have actually seen it, I meant to reply but the thread pretty much got trashed.

Not a problem; we got the ball rolling now (with the thorns removed *cough cough J.Kenyon*)

Are we all agreed that the universe is infinite? I am not sure that is a universal consensus at all.

I find it difficult to believe otherwise; if the universe is expanding at an infinitely high pace, how long must it have taken to become infinitely large? I would assume, infinity.

if the universe is infinite, it doesn't need a cause.

it just is.

and there's no reason to give it 'godly' characteristics..

so what's Your argument?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:15:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:13:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

Aristotle turned out to be wrong about almost everything. He did provide a very effective and intelligent understanding of reality scientifically that endured for thousands of years, but then modern science proved all of his scientific theories wrong. (Though he was right that atoms exist, lol.)

How about this.

I will provide immutable evidence that there is God to anyone that can provide immutable evidence for the Theory of Relativity.

Why is that a condition necessary for you to give your argument? It doesn't make sense. Just give us the argument since you claim to have immutable evidence for Gods existence.

It's like saying "I'll do 'x' when pigs fly". It's hypothetical; you really believe that he has this "immutable" evidence?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:16:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

If everything needs a cause then God needs a cause. You're okay with that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:16:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
the universe is in your terms "temporally unrestrained"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:17:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Contradiction. If the Universe is infinite, then it had no beginning. Thus, no first cause and no God.

Congrats, you just negated God by asserting an infinite Universe.
"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
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:17:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:14:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:11:54 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:10:10 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Yea I might have actually seen it, I meant to reply but the thread pretty much got trashed.

Not a problem; we got the ball rolling now (with the thorns removed *cough cough J.Kenyon*)

Are we all agreed that the universe is infinite? I am not sure that is a universal consensus at all.

I find it difficult to believe otherwise; if the universe is expanding at an infinitely high pace, how long must it have taken to become infinitely large? I would assume, infinity.

if the universe is infinite, it doesn't need a cause.

Why not? I gave logical assertions, and some reasoning behind it. Why does something infinite not need a cause?

it just is.

It can't "just be". That's not an attribute you can give to an idea/object

and there's no reason to give it 'godly' characteristics..

I gave you the reasons.

so what's Your argument?

Read all the above.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:17:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 12:46:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
the greatest thing must exist b/c if it didn't it wouldn't be the greatest.

I think greatest means Smartest, powerful, compassionate, strict.. but loving... and most fair.

therefore...

God exists and he's smartest, most powerful, most compassionate, strict.. but loving and most fair.

This is what's known in theological circles as the ontological argument, and although technically it's airtight it's also so unmistakably circular and sophistical that it doesn't really satisfy a lot of people. Kant supposedly refuted it with a counter argument that boils down to the position that existence is not a property, and therefore can't be a property or predicate of perfection. Alvin Plantinga has attempted to revive the ontological argument in a new and less circular form, so its validity or lack thereof is not a closed book yet. I'll paste an outline of Plantinga's version below.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:17:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:16:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If everything needs a cause then God needs a cause. You're okay with that?

I think he was saying all "temporally restrained" things need a cause.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:16:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

If everything needs a cause then God needs a cause. You're okay with that?

God is a being/idea that is independent of a dependency on a cause. The idea of God is temporally unrestrained. The universe was created.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:19:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite.

No. It's not.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:21:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:13:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/17/2010 12:59:18 PM, Ren wrote:
I rest my case.

I still think that it's completely absurd that people here believe that they are more intelligent than Aristotle.

Aristotle turned out to be wrong about almost everything. He did provide a very effective and intelligent understanding of reality scientifically that endured for thousands of years, but then modern science proved all of his scientific theories wrong. (Though he was right that atoms exist, lol.)

Okay, you provided two ways that he was correct and no ways that he was wrong, and stated that he was wrong about everything.

How about this.

I will provide immutable evidence that there is God to anyone that can provide immutable evidence for the Theory of Relativity.

Why is that a condition necessary for you to give your argument? It doesn't make sense. Just give us the argument since you claim to have immutable evidence for Gods existence.

I don't claim that I have immutable evidence for anything.

That's the point, au contrarian.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:21:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:17:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/17/2010 1:04:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
Everything has a cause. We agree that the universe is infinite. If the universe was to cease existence right now, infinity will have elapsed, which is impossible, unless you have a temporally unrestrained beginning. If everything has a cause, the *first* cause has to be temporally unrestrained. Thus, the first cause must be God, the only thing that could be temporally unrestrained AND a cause.

I posted this in the first one TWICE, no one saw it because of J.Kenyon's and C_N's little quarrel.

Contradiction. If the Universe is infinite, then it had no beginning. Thus, no first cause and no God.

Congrats, you just negated God by asserting an infinite Universe.

Sorry; I copied this from the first "Logical Arguments for God" thread, and it had a footnote saying I was in class and had awkward wording. Let me try again.

What are your beliefs on the universe? I'll work from there, once we have consensus, so my assumptions aren't disagreed upon.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 1:22:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 1:18:49 PM, m93samman wrote:
The universe was created.

the universe is infinite... why did it have to be "created"??? why couldn't it just Always be?

why can't "time" be no more than our way of seeing things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."