4 Step Perfect Proof for God

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
4 Step Perfect Proof for God

Step 1 - There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on (many examples given in the link below).

Step 2 - The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is there is a cause and effect to all things in nature, even the first event, and nothing can come from nothing or start up all by itself, so the universe requires a cause.

Step 3 - Don't argue against God by misrepresenting Him. I throw this point in because this is done 99% of the time.

Step 4 -Like Step 1 there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the same reason given but applied to supernatural events if they exist.

Conclusion: we are left with no other possibility than there must be an uncreated Creator who is alone from everlasting, nothing was created that was created without Him, and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God.

The 4 Step Proof for God is a masterpiece of perfection,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:Step 1 - There

Parture wrote:

Step 1 - There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on (many examples given in the link below).

 

Invoking sin, a concept dependent on the very conclusion of this argument, violates this premise as it is question begging.

 

Quote:

Step 2 - The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is there is a cause and effect to all things in nature, even the first event, and nothing can come from nothing or start up all by itself, so the universe requires a cause.

 

Quantum Mechanics refutes this premise.

 

Quote:

Step 3 - Don't argue against God by misrepresenting Him. I throw this point in because this is done 99% of the time.

 

The concept has so many different representations that this premise assumes the argument knows which version you are seeking to prove, and since there isn't a definiton of 'god' given in the argument, you are again begging the question

 

Quote:

Step 4 -Like Step 1 there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the same reason given but applied to supernatural events if they exist.

This premise includes an if-then hypothetical, is a repeat attempt at step 2, and consequently adds nothing.  It is slightly unitelligible due to grammatical errors as well.

 

Quote:

Conclusion: we are left with no other possibility than there must be an uncreated Creator who is alone from everlasting, nothing was created that was created without Him, and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God.

 

Or you don't know how to formulate a logical argument given some of your premises don't even make sense.

 

Quote:

The 4 Step Proof for God is a masterpiece of perfection,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

 

 

Your god would punish you for how poorly you attempt to represent him.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Additionally

Parture wrote:

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

 

Appeal to Force

An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name, “argumentum ad baculum”, literally means “argument with a cudgel”. Disbelief, such arguments go, will be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore, you’d better believe.

Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences, where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the arguer.

Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious.

Source: LogicalFallacies.com

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:Step 1 - There

Parture wrote:

Step 1 - There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on (many examples given in the link below).

Since god(s) don't exist, I don't sin, sin can only occur if there is a transgression against a god. No god, no sin.

Quote:

Step 2 - The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is there is a cause and effect to all things in nature, even the first event, and nothing can come from nothing or start up all by itself, so the universe requires a cause.

Sure I am with you on this, there was a cause that started what we call the big bang which ended up forming this entire universe and everything in it. However since not many in the scientific community believes that this universe came from nothing, and many atheists on this board also don't believe the universe came from nothing, that is usually the domain of theists that claim that the universe came from nothing. That cause can also be a natural cause.

Quote:

Step 3 - Don't argue against God by misrepresenting Him. I throw this point in because this is done 99% of the time.

present a logical, rational explanation for god, and a proper logical and rational description of god and then we can go from there.

Quote:

Step 4 -Like Step 1 there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the same reason given but applied to supernatural events if they exist.

however the quantum field has causeless events occurring, so yeah so far I see no need for this god that your trying to set up as necessary.

Quote:

Conclusion: we are left with no other possibility than there must be an uncreated Creator who is alone from everlasting, nothing was created that was created without Him, and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God.

The 4 Step Proof for God is a masterpiece of perfection,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

you have eliminated the entire quantum field, and all the other scientific explanations? really I don't see it, so far I see a massive fallacy, nothing can start from nothing, but god can, god can always exist for an eternity, however nothing else can....it's called special pleading, if this universe needed a cause, then what created god? after all you can claim everything requires a cause but god.

As for the last part about hell, again no god no sin, show me the evidence that god exists.

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Parture,Surely you get that

Parture,

Surely you get that people who believe in an infinite set of past causes do not think that people have existed for eternety. And surely you know that there are atheists who believe in a first cause that is not an anthropomorphic deity. Those two objections, and the fact "sin" assumes that a deity exists, makes this an invalid argument.

But then, Parture is probably a hit and run Christian spammer. So perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to write this at all.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:But then,

Jormungander wrote:

But then, Parture is probably a hit and run Christian spammer. So perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to write this at all.

 

I just wanted to be first, in my own special way.  But that dick AE got it... what an ass.


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
So you are going to argue

So you are going to argue the case in leu of your bible, the word of god itself? How much faith do you really have in your book and god?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry VB

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

But then, Parture is probably a hit and run Christian spammer. So perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to write this at all.

 

I just wanted to be first, in my own special way.  But that dick AE got it... what an ass.

 

But the temptation was too great for my sinful heart...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

But then, Parture is probably a hit and run Christian spammer. So perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to write this at all.

 

I just wanted to be first, in my own special way.  But that dick AE got it... what an ass.

 

But the temptation was too great for my sinful heart...

 

 

lol  I was racing to make my argument... how pathetic is that?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

If Sapient or any other mod-gods are watching us from beyond the forumic universe, please stretch forth your hands and delete my first post from this thread...

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
parture wrote:Therefore,

parture wrote:

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

 

So, your argument is crap, but even if it were true, it says nothing about the nature of God or hell. If God exists, then it was pretty sure he would be fairly upset that you are condemning people for him. Pretty arrogant of you don't you think? That has to be one of his favorite jobs given the state of the world. Therefore God must hate you.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: If

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

If Sapient or any other mod-gods are watching us from beyond the forumic universe, please stretch forth your hands and delete my first post from this thread...

 

 

 

haha, it'd be even more pathetic if I then felt any satisfaction


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Would somebody please tell

Would somebody please tell me why the fuck these people continually mix up conscience and conscious(ness)?

I say "these people" even though its probably the same repeating nutter -_-

What Would Kharn Do?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
What frightens believers so

What frightens believers so much? The fact that atheists don't need fictional overlords with disembodied brains floating everywhere and nowhere at the same time? That we can do good without the fear of punishment or the bribe of reward?

I am no more frightened of the claims of a Christian hell than a Christian would or should be frightened of a Muslim's claims of hell. I am as frightened of these fictional claims as I am of Kriptonite. One doesn't have to fear that doesn't exist.

Now here is where the theist pipes in, "But but but what keeps you in line? Why, if you don't believe in a god, aren't you murdering and raping?"

Because belief in a god is NOT required to KNOW what harm to others is. I don't do it because of human empathy of knowing what pain is, AND my own self preservation of not wanting harm to come to myself as a result of my own actions.

There is no magic to life and no super heros to save us and no magic needed to know right from wrong.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The proof is not perfect and

The proof is not perfect and it doesn't prove God. However, it does have four steps.

He's batting .333 - in baseball he'd be hot stuff.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
1. If matter/energy, or some

1. If matter/energy, or some low level precursor, has existed eternally, then if the emergence of life has a finite probability, and after emergence it lasts for a finite period of time before going extinct, then that implies that whatever the typical cycle of human emergence, growth, and extinction is, it will have happened an infinite number of times.  There is nothing logically impossible about that, given the initial assumption of an infinite past, and nothing that logically requires any one cycle of human existence to have lasted forever.

We know that our Big-Bang Universe has not existed forever, but there could well have been, or still may be, an infinite number of such Universes within a larger Universe, or 'Metaverse', which do not interact significantly, if at all, with us, so do not affect our history.

So the possible existence of an infinite past for existence as a whole is not logically inconsistent with our experience of a very finite history of human life as we know it within this particular sub-Universe.

 

2. There is overwhelming evidence that there are uncaused events, such as the spontaneous decay of unstable atoms. To prove empirically that such events are actually caused would require finding the cause. Failure to find the cause does not prove they are uncaused, but unless you do find the cause, you cannot prove that it is caused.

And even if there was no quantum theory, framing this as an empirical argument based on observation destroys it, because observation cannot prove that there are no uncaused events, especially in the case of one-of-a-kind events such as the appearance of our Universe.

 

3. Noone can have certain knowledge of the nature of any all-powerful being - such a being would have infinite capability to persuade us of the truth of any proposition including those about his own nature. So there is no way to 'define' God into existence - you are still logically required to prove than any existing definition of "God" is valid and applies to any actual creator being that may exist.

 

4. Like Step 1, if any sequence of events at any level has a finite probability of occurring, and there is an infinite past, that sequence of events will have already occurred an infinite number of times. But from the perspective of any instant within one of the occurrences of such a sequence, it will still have had a start at a finite time before that instant, so falls within the scope of ordinary historical narrative.

If each occurrence of some particular set of events occurs at a different location within the totality of existence, it can occur and run its course independently of the others.

 

Finally, the evidence of Quantum Theory and Relativity is that cause-and-effect, Time, and chance, are far more subtle than the simple assumptions employed here.

It require extreme self-centered narcissism, to jump from these vague and/or fallacious arguments to the claim that there is a God just as described in your personal Holy story-book, and that you have certain knowledge that this being who created a Universe so vast that most of it forever beyond our reach has some personal interest in our well-being, despite leaving us in a world which continues to inflict arbitrary disasters on us.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 Oh boy, this looks like

 

Oh boy, this looks like the cosmological argument too me,  a better way to present it would be this: 1): whatever begins to exist has a cause.2): the universe began to exist; we know this from the theory of the big bang, a theory that has proven itself time and again.3) Therefore the universe has a cause. To fit in as the (fisrt cause) this cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent. This cause is God.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We know

BobSpence1 wrote:
We know that our Big-Bang Universe has not existed forever, but there could well have been, or still may be, an infinite number of such Universes within a larger Universe, or 'Metaverse', which do not interact significantly, if at all, with us, so do not affect our history.

So the possible existence of an infinite past for existence as a whole is not logically inconsistent with our experience of a very finite history of human life as we know it within this particular sub-Universe.

 

Seems to be some important problems straight out of the gates there for you if an infinite number of such universes within a larger universe ( which is sheer speculation) what created the larger universe? secondly its not even possible for us to locate the existence of a super cosmos, so in this regard how can this theory be any better than the God hypothesis? and finnaly a ''larger universe'' super cosmos is logically contradictory, In order for the larger universe that create the universe we live in to exist must have existed eternally or it would require a cause, if we regard it as existing eternally we must suppose that is is logically possible for an infinite number of events to occur, however, this is dubious, consider this analogy.

 -Say, for instance, that there was a line of people waiting to ride a roller coaster that was infinitely long. In other words, an infinity of people are anxiously waiting to ride this new attraction. Now, let’s say that half of the people in this line decide that the wait is too long and they all head over to wait in the line for the Merry-Go-Round. Now, several inconsistencies appear. Even though half of the people left, the line for the roller coaster is still infinitely long! Additionally, the Merry-Go-Round also has an infinite number of people waiting in line! So now, there are two rides with an infinite number of people, instead of only one, even though the only thing that has happened is the transfer of half of the people from the roller coaster to the Merry-Go-Round. As is easily seen, this scenario has lead to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

Moreover,The greates problem with the “larger universe” is that it would have created our universe an infinity ago. If the “larger universe” has existed forever, and it has the ability to create universes, then it would have never created our universe a mere 15 billion years ago as some suggest. If 15 billion years ago, why not 16? The conditions for creating the universe would have already existed for an eternity. There is simply no way that the “Super-cosmos” could create our universe unless our universe has existed eternally. so massive problems straight out of the gates right there.

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: Oh boy,

Damasius wrote:

 

Oh boy, this looks like the cosmological argument too me,  a better way to present it would be this: 1): whatever begins to exist has a cause.2): the universe began to exist; we know this from the theory of the big bang, a theory that has proven itself time and again.3) Therefore the universe has a cause. To fit in as the (fisrt cause) this cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent. This cause is God.

 

None of those attributes are logically necessary attributes of whatever lead to the Big Bang event. Especially not the the "enormously intelligent" bit.

That final conclusion is what has to be proved, not the necessity for a first cause. A 'first cause' may or may not be necessary, Quantum Theory suggests it is not necessary. All that is 'necessary' is that the state of reality be such that a Big Bang event is possible.

To provide an argument for God, it is necessary to show why the pre-conditions for a Big Bang to be possible must include the existence of an entity with all those attributes which you identify as defining a God.

A god is as dependent on pre-existing basic laws of existence as anything else. If reality is such that it can allow something as impressive as you define God to be, it is even easier to imagine it being such as to allow just unstructured matter and energy to exist, a far simpler possibility.

Actually the "uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless" attributes also apply to "nothingness".

All the evidence we have indicates that Power to affect material change requires energy. Control of energy requires matter. 

Similarly, Intelligence requires complex structure, which requires a persistent substrate, analogous to matter, and proceeds via a series of events, so cannot be timeless. A timeless, changeless entity cannot have a thought, or initiate anything.

Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it cannot have been something with those attributes.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Damasius

BobSpence1 wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Oh boy, this looks like the cosmological argument too me,  a better way to present it would be this: 1): whatever begins to exist has a cause.2): the universe began to exist; we know this from the theory of the big bang, a theory that has proven itself time and again.3) Therefore the universe has a cause. To fit in as the (fisrt cause) this cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent. This cause is God.

 

None of those attributes are logically necessary attributes of whatever lead to the Big Bang event. Especially not the the "enormously intelligent" bit.

That final conclusion is what has to be proved, not the necessity for a first cause. A 'first cause' may or may not be necessary, Quantum Theory suggests it is not necessary. All that is 'necessary' is that the state of reality be such that a Big Bang event is possible.

To provide an argument for God, it is necessary to show why the pre-conditions for a Big Bang to be possible must include the existence of an entity with all those attributes which you identify as defining a God.

A god is as dependent on pre-existing basic laws of existence as anything else. If reality is such that it can allow something as impressive as you define God to be, it is even easier to imagine it being such as to allow just unstructured matter and energy to exist, a far simpler possibility.

Actually the "uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless" attributes also apply to "nothingness".

All the evidence we have indicates that Power to affect material change requires energy. Control of energy requires matter. 

Similarly, Intelligence requires complex structure, which requires a persistent substrate, analogous to matter, and proceeds via a series of events, so cannot be timeless. A timeless, changeless entity cannot have a thought, or initiate anything.

Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it cannot have been something with those attributes.

 

To say that it cannot have been something with these attributes is pretty bold in my oppinion, it would seem like a basic law in science that ''Nothing'' does not create ''something'' so a thousand nothings cannot create the slighest something, to suggest as much is even more absurd than the god hypothesis. you keep talking about '' all the evidence'' I haven't seen a shred yet in your posts.

Secondly your definition of intelligence is way too fancy, who said God had to be complex? and finnaly who said God had to be dependent on prexisting basic laws? it simply would not be God by his definition, but something else, God cannot be subject to these laws because he created them, so whatever wou;d be subject to them would simply not be God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:BobSpence1

Damasius wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
We know that our Big-Bang Universe has not existed forever, but there could well have been, or still may be, an infinite number of such Universes within a larger Universe, or 'Metaverse', which do not interact significantly, if at all, with us, so do not affect our history.

So the possible existence of an infinite past for existence as a whole is not logically inconsistent with our experience of a very finite history of human life as we know it within this particular sub-Universe.

Seems to be some important problems straight out of the gates there for you if an infinite number of such universes within a larger universe ( which is sheer speculation) what created the larger universe? secondly its not even possible for us to locate the existence of a super cosmos, so in this regard how can this theory be any better than the God hypothesis? and finnaly a ''larger universe'' super cosmos is logically contradictory, In order for the larger universe that create the universe we live in to exist must have existed eternally or it would require a cause, if we regard it as existing eternally we must suppose that is is logically possible for an infinite number of events to occur, however, this is dubious, consider this analogy.

 -Say, for instance, that there was a line of people waiting to ride a roller coaster that was infinitely long. In other words, an infinity of people are anxiously waiting to ride this new attraction. Now, let’s say that half of the people in this line decide that the wait is too long and they all head over to wait in the line for the Merry-Go-Round. Now, several inconsistencies appear. Even though half of the people left, the line for the roller coaster is still infinitely long! Additionally, the Merry-Go-Round also has an infinite number of people waiting in line! So now, there are two rides with an infinite number of people, instead of only one, even though the only thing that has happened is the transfer of half of the people from the roller coaster to the Merry-Go-Round. As is easily seen, this scenario has lead to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

Yes, there are conceptual difficulties when you introduce the idea of infinity anywhere. 

There is no logical inconsistency or contradiction in your scenario, that is the nature of infinite numbers. 

A simple example is the mathematical concept of the sum of an infinite converging geometric series, such as 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... < for an infinite number of terms >.

The result is finite, equal to 2.

None of the terms is zero, there are an infinite number of them, but the finite result is mathematically, and therefore logically, valid. Infinite quantities don't lend themselves to naive logical arguments.

The "larger universe" is certainly not inherently contradictory, given the assumption that something could have existed forever - it has fewer difficulties than the God Hypothesis, since it is an extrapolation of our observable Universe, whereas God is the pure speculation.

Quote:
 

Moreover,The greates problem with the “larger universe” is that it would have created our universe an infinity ago. If the “larger universe” has existed forever, and it has the ability to create universes, then it would have never created our universe a mere 15 billion years ago as some suggest. If 15 billion years ago, why not 16? The conditions for creating the universe would have already existed for an eternity. There is simply no way that the “Super-cosmos” could create our universe unless our universe has existed eternally. so massive problems straight out of the gates right there.

You are wrong again. You did not follow my argument. If the probability of BB event occurring in any given interval of time is finite, analogous to the well-defined probability that a specific type of radio-active nucleus will decay in a given time interval, then there will have been an infinite number of such events if this multiverse has always existed. if the BB 'sub'-universes eventually die, there may only be a finite number in existence at any one time. Maybe none at times, depending on their typical lifetime and the average rate at which they appear. 

We happen to be in one of them, and it popped into existence about 15 billion years ago. If there is any one around in our Universe in 10 billion years, then from there viewpoint it will have come into existence 25 billion years ago.

 

Look at the example of radioactive decay. The properties of an unstable nucleus that allow it to decay have always existed, yet it doesn't decay immediately. It might decay now, or it might 'wait' for a million years. It behaves according to the laws of probability and pure 'randomness'. I am just assuming that BB events behave in a similar way to this well-observed phenomena.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:BobSpence1

Damasius wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

Oh boy, this looks like the cosmological argument too me,  a better way to present it would be this: 1): whatever begins to exist has a cause.2): the universe began to exist; we know this from the theory of the big bang, a theory that has proven itself time and again.3) Therefore the universe has a cause. To fit in as the (fisrt cause) this cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent. This cause is God.

 

None of those attributes are logically necessary attributes of whatever lead to the Big Bang event. Especially not the the "enormously intelligent" bit.

That final conclusion is what has to be proved, not the necessity for a first cause. A 'first cause' may or may not be necessary, Quantum Theory suggests it is not necessary. All that is 'necessary' is that the state of reality be such that a Big Bang event is possible.

To provide an argument for God, it is necessary to show why the pre-conditions for a Big Bang to be possible must include the existence of an entity with all those attributes which you identify as defining a God.

A god is as dependent on pre-existing basic laws of existence as anything else. If reality is such that it can allow something as impressive as you define God to be, it is even easier to imagine it being such as to allow just unstructured matter and energy to exist, a far simpler possibility.

Actually the "uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless" attributes also apply to "nothingness".

All the evidence we have indicates that Power to affect material change requires energy. Control of energy requires matter. 

Similarly, Intelligence requires complex structure, which requires a persistent substrate, analogous to matter, and proceeds via a series of events, so cannot be timeless. A timeless, changeless entity cannot have a thought, or initiate anything.

Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it cannot have been something with those attributes.

To say that it cannot have been something with these attributes is pretty bold in my oppinion, it would seem like a basic law in science that ''Nothing'' does not create ''something'' so a thousand nothings cannot create the slighest something, to suggest as much is even more absurd than the god hypothesis. you keep talking about '' all the evidence'' I haven't seen a shred yet in your posts.

Secondly your definition of intelligence is way too fancy, who said God had to be complex? and finnaly who said God had to be dependent on prexisting basic laws? it simply would not be God by his definition, but something else, God cannot be subject to these laws because he created them, so whatever wou;d be subject to them would simply not be God.

Something timeless and changeless cannot have a thought and do anything, if you don't 'get' something as basic as that I can't help you. It doesn't require evidence, it is a logical non-sequiter.

"All the evidence" about intelligence is all the studies of actual intelligent creatures on Earth - humans, dolphins, elephants, many parrots and crows, other primates, and comparing them and their brain structure and behaviour with simpler, less intelligent organisms. Then there are the continual development of computer programs which recreate many basic decision-making processed we used to think were exclusive to intelligence, like playing chess. It all points to intelligence being an outcome of complex structured processes, which all require a matrix of matter.

With regard to "Power", it is a basic principle of science that to effect any action requires the transfer of energy. 'Pure' energy unconstrained by matter, such as a beam of light, simply travels endlessly until it encounters matter.

Intelligence is what brains, or perhaps eventually some electronic analogues of them, do.

If God is not complex then he cannot be intelligent. If God is defined to be intelligent but not complex, you have defined something inconsistent with what we know about intelligences that have actually been observed, therefore something corresponding to that definition is unlikely to exist. You have defined an intelligent creature without a brain, almost as bad as a married bachelor.

I have not assumed something is "created by' nothing. At most simply that something can come to exist where there was previously nothing. This is actually problematic, as with all these statements about stuff coming into existence, and so on: they all make some assumptions about Time prior to 'existence', but that is a whole fresh can of worms.

If something cannot come from nothing, then something must always have existed. But this 'something' need be no more than the 'law' behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

There is some disagreement about interpretation, but Quantum Theory seems to say that true "Nothing" cannot 'exist'. Even in 'empty space' there is a finite probability of a pair of 'virtual particles' existing, as long as they don't persist longer than a certain very short time. Nothing is actually assumed to have 'created' them, they just have a low but non-zero probability of existing at any time when we 'look'.

The first part of your definition of God defined him as having all the properties of "Nothing", then you just turned into a giant contradiction by asserting that this changeless nothingness could actually have thoughts and affect material objects. Don't accuse me of absurdity, God is the most absurd attempt at explaining the origin of existence that is proposed by apparently intelligent people.

Your God definition is incoherent and baseless so it is pointless to assert anything such a concept. For something to 'do' anything, there must already be structure to existence, so God cannot create that structure, he would be dependent on some coherent properties of existence for His existence.

If you can imagine your strange God-thing to have always existed, you cannot logically assert that a far simpler 'stuff' with the absolute minimum of structure and regular attributes could not.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous wrote:Step 1 -

Anonymous wrote:

Step 1 - There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on (many examples given in the link below).

Step 2 - The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is there is a cause and effect to all things in nature, even the first event, and nothing can come from nothing or start up all by itself, so the universe requires a cause.

Step 3 - Don't argue against God by misrepresenting Him. I throw this point in because this is done 99% of the time.

Step 4 -Like Step 1 there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the same reason given but applied to supernatural events if they exist.

Conclusion: we are left with no other possibility than there must be an uncreated Creator who is alone from everlasting, nothing was created that was created without Him, and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God.

The 4 Step Proof for God is a masterpiece of perfection,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Please formulate this using clearer logic steps to show that it's at least valid, if it is. 

Step 1 - Is this premise relying on the Christian conception of sin? We don't subscribe to Christianity. This begs the question.

There is no exponential progression of conscience. Don't just make shit up.

Step 3 - That's fine and dandy, but it's not a logical part of the argument. It's garbage. 

Conclusion: "nothing was created that was created without Him," This is unjustified.

"and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God." This is unjustified.

This argument doesn't even specify why the first cause would have to be intelligent. Okay, even assuming that your premises are correct, God could be a 'supernatural,' unintelligent impartial cause.

Jeez, you could have at least picked a popular argument like Kalam or TAG to hit us with. This is just pathetic.

Quote:
Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence,

It's entirely based on the evidence.

Quote:
for your flesh can rationalize anything away,

My flesh can't rationalize anything. It's just flesh. 

Quote:
but it is about your heart

My heart pumps blood throughout my body. This is not about my heart. This is about evidence.

Quote:
and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God.

There is no such as a spirit. I don't believe in God.

Quote:
Consequently you will go to Hell.

I don't believe in hell.

Quote:
You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator.

I am not a bad person. There is no such thing a sin.

See? I can argue using naked assertions, too. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
  In a recent deletion of

  In a recent deletion of multiple spam related accounts the op was accidentally removed.  Please re-create an account with the same email address you used last time.  You can use the same name as well.  Sorry.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist wrote:even

liberatedatheist wrote:
even if it were true, it says nothing about the nature of God or hell. If God exists, then it was pretty sure he would be fairly upset that you are condemning people for him. Pretty arrogant of you don't you think? That has to be one of his favorite jobs given the state of the world. Therefore God must hate you.

We first establish God exists, so since you can't disprove the proof for God, to be an atheist is irrational.

I don't recall condemning anyone. You condemn yourself. Why blame me for your choice? That sounds obnoxious and arrogant of you.

God is simply giving you the choice. Don't blame God for your choice to go to Hell and be eternally separated from Him. That's arrogant and belligerent.

 

 


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:h boy, this

Damasius wrote:
h boy, this looks like the cosmological argument too me,  a better way to present it would be this:

 1): whatever begins to exist has a cause.2): the universe began to exist; we know this from the theory of the big bang, a theory that has proven itself time and again.3) Therefore the universe has a cause. To fit in as the (fisrt cause) this cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.This cause is God.
 I disagree with your steps. Let me explain. For (1) I wouldn't just assume what begins to exist has a cause, but according to Step 2 of the 4 Step Proof for God, something can't come from nothing that which does not exist. This is a stronger foundation.  I also don't like your 2) because it assumes the universe(s) began to exist. The big bang itself doesn't prove the universe didn't have prior causes from natural phenomenon or even supernatural phenomenon not initiated by God. It doesn't confront the possibility of an eternity of the past of cause and effects which Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof does.  So your Step 3 is rendered only by way of too many unfounded assumptions. People don't realize this is the problem with Kalam's argument. Go back to the Opening Post     

 


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Your forums are way too

Your forums are way too cumbersome. You can't view posts while you are posting. The argument is presented here,

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:Your forums

Parture wrote:

Your forums are way too cumbersome. You can't view posts while you are posting. The argument is presented here,

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476

 

Repeatedly posting crappy arguments doesn't make them better.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Crapy how?

Crapy how?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:Crapy how?Read

Parture wrote:

Crapy how?

Read this thread from the beginning for the answer to your question - thanks.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I did. Nothing I haven't

I did. Nothing I haven't heard before. I am here to help you. Which one is your main issue?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:I did. Nothing

Parture wrote:

I did. Nothing I haven't heard before. I am here to help you. Which one is your main issue?

You've heard them before but you've provided no counter arguments - why is that?

My problem is the argument's creator is reverse engineering the argument. He started with a conclusion (a god he wanted to prove) and found premises to fit (even if they had to be constructed in illogical ways).

Conclusion-first research is never a good way to go.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:y problem is

jcgadfly wrote:
y problem is the argument's creator is reverse engineering the argument. He started with a conclusion (a god he wanted to prove) and found premises to fit (even if they had to be constructed in illogical ways).

Conclusion-first research is never a good way to go.

 

What premises?

If you want to talk faster in chat we could do that if you like. http://biblocality.com/forums/chat/


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I didn't first conceive of

I didn't first conceive of God. I had no idea. It was the evidence that drew me in that led me to what it was showing me. The only condition is an honest heart.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous wrote:Step 1 -

Anonymous wrote:

Step 1 - There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on (many examples given in the link below).

Step 2 - The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is there is a cause and effect to all things in nature, even the first event, and nothing can come from nothing or start up all by itself, so the universe requires a cause.

Step 3 - Don't argue against God by misrepresenting Him. I throw this point in because this is done 99% of the time.

Step 4 -Like Step 1 there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for the same reason given but applied to supernatural events if they exist.

Conclusion: we are left with no other possibility than there must be an uncreated Creator who is alone from everlasting, nothing was created that was created without Him, and there are no gods before God, no gods besides God, and no gods after God.

The 4 Step Proof for God is a masterpiece of perfection,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

Therefore, realize the reason you reject the uncreated Creator doesn't have to do with evidence, for your flesh can rationalize anything away, but it is about your heart and that you prefer to remain in a state where your spirit is dead to God. Consequently you will go to Hell. You are a bad person. For there is no greater sin than the sin of rejecting your Creator. You're pointing to yourself as the center. This is a form of insanity.

 

1- You start with an assertion, that there can't be an eternal past. As far as we know with our Universe there was a starting point. As to what occurred prior to our Universe is unknown. You are question begging here.

A - What do you mean by sinning? A sin is supposedly against a god or deity. No god, no sin.

2- QM suggests otherwise.

3-No need to misrepresent that which has no basis in our dimension of reality. All I have ever seen is ancient writing that is akin to myths and legends. You have something more than the mistranslated, misunderstood writings by unknown glorifiers of ancient Judah?

4-Your 4th step is more conjecture based on an assertion and interjects unproven claims as well.

Your 4 step proof is poorly thought out and is devoid of anything that would substantially sway any but a weak minded confused individual.

You make unsupported assertions and near threats:

-Infer that atheists are bad people.

-Will go to Hell.

-Claim that rejecting an unprovable god being is the greatest sin.

-Suggest that we see ourselves as the center of (importance?)

-Suggest we have a form of insanity.

On the other hand, I have no clue whether you are good or bad. Being a believer may be a completely evil immoral action on your part. You are involved in propagating mythology and fantasy as being real. You teach/preach that God is the one that knows all and man is subservient to this god's every whim. To serve the god is the highest good while to be concerned with the welfare of your fellow man is evil or must be as you consider those of us that are to be bad people.

As to Hell, there is quite a bit of disagreement on if there is such a place even amongst your fellow believers. No wait, there is a Hell, Hell, Michigan anyway.

How do you know what is the greatest sin? Your interpretation of your book of mythology and fantasy?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1-

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1- You start with an assertion, that there can't be an eternal past.

I said, "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because..." then gave the reason.

 

How is that starting with an assertion?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:jcgadfly

Parture wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
y problem is the argument's creator is reverse engineering the argument. He started with a conclusion (a god he wanted to prove) and found premises to fit (even if they had to be constructed in illogical ways).

Conclusion-first research is never a good way to go.

 

What premises?

If you want to talk faster in chat we could do that if you like. http://biblocality.com/forums/chat/

Please be kidding - I'm not going to waste time with someone who posts arguments without knowing how one is constructed.

Oh, what the heck.

Premises are the sentence that provide support for the conclusion of an argument.

Your first statement was an assertion that can't be proven "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature". You (or the person you copied this from) have no basis for this claim - personally, I think it's semantic sleight of hand - a distraction so you can pull the conclusion from your nether regions.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Parture

Parture wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1- You start with an assertion, that there can't be an eternal past.

I said, "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because..." then gave the reason.

 

How is that starting with an assertion?

 

You actually said:"There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because, having been derived from and approximated into that alleged past eternity, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still "

You assert this is because mankind is still sinning which is unprovable. Sin is against a supposed god. You are claiming to present a proof for this god yet you invoke an action, sin as proof.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Your first

jcgadfly wrote:
Your first statement was an assertion that can't be proven "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature". You (or the person you copied this from) have no basis for this claim - personally, I think it's semantic sleight of hand - a distraction so you can pull the conclusion from your nether regions.

I said "There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature because..." then I gave the reason.

How is that an assertion? You haven't disproven the reason given.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
You assert this is because mankind is still sinning which is unprovable. Sin is against a supposed god. You are claiming to present a proof for this god yet you invoke an action, sin as proof.

The definition for sin being used is not against God but against what people commonly accept as wrong (dictionary definition), e.g. rape, murder, breaking into a store and stealing.

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Parture

Parture wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
You assert this is because mankind is still sinning which is unprovable. Sin is against a supposed god. You are claiming to present a proof for this god yet you invoke an action, sin as proof.

The definition for sin being used is not against God but against what people commonly accept as wrong (dictionary definition), e.g. rape, murder, breaking into a store and stealing.

  

Defining words as you go are you? The common definition from Webster's:

Main Entry: 1sin Pronunciation: \ˈsin\Function: nounEtymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at isDate: before 12th century

1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:an

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : 

This is the dictionary definition of sin in the 4 Step Proof for God that we are using. If you read the Proof this is made clear several times so there is no misunderstanding.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

 

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Parture

Parture wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : 

This is the dictionary definition of sin in the 4 Step Proof for God that we are using. If you read the Proof this is made clear several times so there is still misunderstanding.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

 

I read through your(?) 4 step rambling proof in that link which has even more problems than your approach in this thread.

For example:

It begins by claiming "God said He proves Himself by observing nature. Let's see if He is right".

God said this exactly where? In the writing of the Bible I suppose. Yet, this poorly translated extremely misunderstood book written in ancient times has nothing different than many other such works of literature, mythology and legends to support it as being of this dimension of reality.

Then we have your claim that your version of fantasy belief in mythology is correct:

"Choose the one true faith (true reality) that comes out on top from the ones that are accessible: Christianity, Hinduism/Buddhism, Islam. Obviously Christianity is the most personal because God reveals Himself in Christ"

Does your god reveal himself in Christ or have you just accepted Paulinity as real? Was there even a Jesus? If so, was he more than a Kingdom of God is at hand proponent? Was he something other than one that tried to bring the Jews back to the "pure law of Moses"?

Then you have your claim of knowledge here:

"Don't worry about who God is yet or even if He exists, just realize the universe needs a cause and can't come from nothing."

You have some sort of insight beyond what is understood to explain with evidence what there  was before the Big Bang caused our Universe other than conjecture about a god from an ancient book of fantasy and literature? 

And this goes on and on in this link. Claims that after billions of years "sin" should be virtually gone or you say it might be only 6000 years. Yet, even in ancient times man treated his fellow man morally or fairly in some cultures. Yet you generalize and see today as better though it's not uniform and would slip back into fending for one's self in no time given a world wide problem, food shortage, water shortage or a major catastrophic occurrence.

I'm no fan of Islam, yet you claim it encourages 'human sacrifice' as a practise. Such an ignorant statement.

Your proof contains the claim of original sin, yet those who originated the belief in Yahweh or God don't share this concept. Instead, the Jews claim man is born with a pure soul and can return it to God the same way.

In this link you go on to claim that before time was there had to be something and drag out god as what must have been. You don't have any possible way to know this and certainly have zero evidence for it so it's an assertion on your part.

What was before our Universe, no one knows. Does it require a god to explain as a cause, not at all. The proof is all around you, the Universe is here and no gods are here just fantasy delusions like those expressed in this link.

There are many things we will not understand in our lifetime yet today we understand much more than 2,000 years ago. We have many new tools some good, some not that we use in our civilization. One of the best tools is the Internet and Information availability to all who have access. This should help speed understanding of more over the years, yet we still will not understand all there is to know in our lifetimes but who would have dreamed of the world we have today 100, 1000, or 6,000 years ago.

Your link has so much misunderstanding and misconstruing of everything such as this fantasy:

"Demons corrupted the dinosaurs. Lucifer and his fallen angels fell from 3rd heaven to 2nd Heaven then proceeded to impact the development of the existing creatures on earth. There were bejeweled cities the Bible says in a first garden before the Garden of Eden, but we have no fossil remains of intelligent beings or any such cities. Hence, these beautiful cities were in 2nd Heaven."

Really now, demons! You have so much in common with Islam yet you know not. The Koran speaks of Jinn existing before man much as your demons.

And this is just too funny, "The fallen angels ruled over spirit beings which we know to be the demons that inhabited the dinosaurs. "

You have one of the better fantasy stories I have read in quite a while.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:It

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It begins by claiming "God said He proves Himself by observing nature. Let's see if He is right".

God said this exactly where?   

I thought you said you read it. In the fifth paragraph... "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, 'even' his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" (Rom 1.20).

Similar quotes are throughout the Bible from God and from God to men.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Parture

Parture wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It begins by claiming "God said He proves Himself by observing nature. Let's see if He is right".

God said this exactly where?   

I thought you said you read it. In the fifth paragraph... "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, 'even' his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" (Rom 1.20).

 

I did read it, I don't consider a Pauline scripture as God saying anything. It's a writer who puts forth his assertion that things of the world demonstrate the god's power.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
According to Islam the jinn

According to Islam the jinn are made from the fire and can eat and drink (whereas angels are made from light and mankind is made from altered clay).

Islam is of course false for it claims Jesus didn't die on the cross.

 

The reason for killing in nature is due to evil spirits, both fallen angels and demons.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote: Similar

Parture wrote:

 

Similar quotes are throughout the Bible from God and from God to men.

 

Or so you consider without any way to validate.

I'm very familiar with the Bible. I went to parochial schools and have a grad degree from a Jesuit University. I have studied theology and comparative religions as well. 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Or

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Or so you consider without any way to validate.

I'm very familiar with the Bible. I went to parochial schools and have a grad degree from a Jesuit University. I have studied theology and comparative religions as well. 

The 4 Steps show how nature proves God exists.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Parture

Parture wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It begins by claiming "God said He proves Himself by observing nature. Let's see if He is right".

God said this exactly where?   

I thought you said you read it. In the fifth paragraph... "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, 'even' his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" (Rom 1.20).

Similar quotes are throughout the Bible from God and from God to men.

"Invisible things" cannot be "Clearly seen" - that is a metaphor, and it is just describing the well-known tendency of people to interpret what they see in the light of their expectations, to form patterns which are not objectively there. They will "see'" what they expect to see. This is a very poor justification for belief.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Parture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:they see in

BobSpence1 wrote:
they see in the light of their expectations

No, that's not what it means. It means what is shown in the 4 Step Proof for God by observing nature just as it said.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Parture wrote:Your forums

Parture wrote:

Your forums are way too cumbersome. You can't view posts while you are posting. The argument is presented here,

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476

 

Yes you can. Just open another page or tab in your browser.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology