Why God Certainly Exists...

Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Why God Certainly Exists...

...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...

First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".

God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.

God is NOT the Bible (or any "holy book&quotEye-wink - the Bible is simply a book. Look, I understand that when confronting a Christian it is perhaps best to do so on their 'home-turf' – however, not even deep in the recesses of the archives of the volumes of Christian Doctrine does it say anywhere that the Bible is God. Please, let both sides stop using this book to make claims about God (but by all means feel free to do so when constructing claims about Christianity).

God is NOT Christianity – despite the strong wishes on both sides, God is not Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that while fully aware of the distinction, Atheists refuse to make it. Maybe this is because 98% of you so-called Atheists are in actuality only really anti-Christianity. Maybe you get a kick out of pointing out obvious contradiction, and refuse to step out of your Christianity/God comfort zone where truth is less ‘obvious’, and the logic a little more complex. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience with a supposedly Christian person or a non-denominational church…shit – we’ve all been there. Whatever your reason for doing so, enough is enough. And if your one of those who was just plain ignorant (most likely a Christian) – well now you know. Regardless of what you heard or think you know, God is not owned by, was not created/invented by, God is NOT Christianity.

 

Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?

 

God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.

 

Ok? Good…

 

So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.

 

There is a certain argument that when Atheists encounter, they either ignore it (a la Dawkins), or unknowingly conclude that a known and verified scientific principle (which they themselves use to defend evolution and attack creationism) is wrong. I am of course talking about the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms but the gist is, 1. There is a cause for every effect. 2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely. 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain. 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.

 

The standard Atheistic replies are directed at 3 and 5. They’ll say, “An infinite chain is possible and perhaps actual, and besides even if its not, all you have is a first cause…not the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”

 

So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.

 

Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact. We now know that the universe is expanding. Confirmation of this happens daily with the observation of redshifts of stars increasing over time and in proportion to distance. To quote Stephen Hawking, “The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time.” Further, you Atheists use this claim to bolster arguments against literal Creationism and the view that the earth was formed in seven days! You can’t have it both ways – remember either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t, there is no third choice.

 

What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator… what we do not have the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”

 

Were you paying attention? God is not Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc. So why does the truth about God have to reflect Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc.? The answer is - it doesn’t.

 

God stands alone, without need for “holy books”, churches, ceremony, war, violence, hate, praise, worship, religion, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, patriotism, and yes even your belief…or mine for that matter.

 

Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.

 

Just be sure to toe your own lines.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
does a first cause entail

does a first cause entail a 'creator' or is it simply that, a first cause.

The word 'God' carries a lot of history with it. (it also carries a with it the sense of an intentional being) why not call the 'first cause' something else? something which doesn't have anthropomorphic, historical connotations?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Quickly

Chukwu wrote:

Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?

 

God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.

 

Ok? Good…

 

 

I'd just like to point out that you didn't actually answer the question, "What is God?"

No, I don't know what "God" denotes. Saying that "God is... The Creator of the Universe" just says what God does (or did, rather), not what it IS. What sort of thing creates a universe?

You assign a gender--"he"--to God... are you saying "he's" a human being, or some other gendered organism?

Could you maybe try that one again?


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Re:

Yes - a first cause entails a creator(what is a cause if its not causing something, and since were talking about causing be-ing, than we're directly talking about creation).

And if it makes you more comfotable calling the first cause something else - by all means call it what you want. But why do you have to play the name game the rest of the unthinking world is playing? Strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous. "God" simply denotes the creator of the Universe. Period. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
"God" is nothing more than

"God" is nothing more than a word.

We are called atheists. Remember? A-THEIST. Someone who believes theology, the bizarre concept of a deity which for some hitherto unexplained reason has the masculine pronoun as well as numerous other attributes attached to it, with no basis in reality is completely retarded.

For instance If I said the first cause of matter is the compression of energy (from a physics standpoint this is correct) then I could successfully say "God is pure energy". After all:

-Energy cannot be created or destroyed

-It is forever, since the beginning of time and until the end (this is not a metaphorical statement, it is required for spacetime)

-It is not a physical entity

This seems to perfectly sum up the correct definition of the word God. The cosmological argument is evidence for a first cause, not a theological concept.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
No - what was written is

No - what was written is correct.

"" refer to the word - so if I say "dog", I am talking about the word and not the object that word denotes.

 

"God" denotes the creator of the Universe - That entity which is responsible for the creation of the Universe. Nothing is hard about it.

 

So if God exists (notice no quotes) - he/she/it(better? come on now...) exists as the Creator of the Universe.

We have nothing other than words - I cant say human = 2; definitons are based on words...  


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Yes - a

Chukwu wrote:

Yes - a first cause entails a creator(what is a cause if its not causing something, and since were talking about causing be-ing, than we're directly talking about creation).

And if it makes you more comfotable calling the first cause something else - by all means call it what you want. But why do you have to play the name game the rest of the unthinking world is playing? Strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous. "God" simply denotes the creator of the Universe. Period.

does the 'cause be-ing' exist indendent of intention/volition as perceived and understood by humans who think they are believing in God that cares about their lives? ....Does God 'care' ?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Yes - a

Chukwu wrote:

Yes - a first cause entails a creator(what is a cause if its not causing something, and since were talking about causing be-ing, than we're directly talking about creation).

And if it makes you more comfotable calling the first cause something else - by all means call it what you want. But why do you have to play the name game the rest of the unthinking world is playing? Strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous. "God" simply denotes the creator of the Universe. Period. 

Two Questions: 1. Who created the creator? 2. Are you saying that we can also get rid of the connotation of the "N" word?

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
This is what I meant by

This is what I meant by "toeing ones own line"

 First, Energy IS INDEED a physical entity.

Second, I never contraindicated  a pantheistic point of view - so why are you?

I put no attributes on God other than First Cause - call it energy, the universe, its all gravy. But its still God.

 

Simply, if the universe has a creator - there is a God. Comso. Arg. gives us a creator. Period. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I put no attributes on God

I put no attributes on God other than First Cause - call it energy, the universe, its all gravy. But its still God.

Yes. I know that. But it appears that today, the word has evolved to mean a theological concept of a deity, which causes people to kill each other over who has the best invisible friend. Atheists do not deny a "God" in the sense that there is a force which spawned the universe,  they deny the idiotic concept of theology, that, again is why we are called atheists. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Clearly he exists

Clearly he exists independently, but as to whether or not he cares - thats not a question anyone but God can answer.

Thus where religion starts creeping in to a discusion where it really has no place. I wont put an attribute on God that is not founded in logic. SO benevolence, caring, etc. They have no place...

With that being said - there are some attributes which can be logically deduced... 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Why do you give this God the

Why do you give this God the masculine pronoun? The idea that "God can answer a question" would seem to suggest that it is a sentient entity. This is a baseless assertion.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
What?   Atheists CLEARLY

What?

 

Atheists CLEARLY deny a God in ANY sense.

Ok ok, maybe not you - but in the strict sense of the word "atheist" is a denial that the universe exists with a creator.  


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
agreed - and if I implied

agreed - and if I implied that he can answer - i apologized for assuming you could hold a statement in the abstract...I'll try to be more literal from here on out.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
No, an atheist is someone

No, an atheist is someone who denies a theological deity, or a sentient  God entity. If I said "I think God is pure energy, which is the foundation of the matter in this universe", I think most would agree.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: No - what

Chukwu wrote:

No - what was written is correct.

"" refer to the word - so if I say "dog", I am talking about the word and not the object that word denotes.

"God" denotes the creator of the Universe - That entity which is responsible for the creation of the Universe. Nothing is hard about it.

So if God exists (notice no quotes) - he/she/it(better? come on now...) exists as the Creator of the Universe.

We have nothing other than words - I cant say human = 2; definitons are based on words...

 

That's fine; I'm with you.  But what is the entity which is responsible for the creation of the universe?  Words don't do things; entities do.  Tell me about the entity.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
1.no one created the first

1.no one created the first cause (lookup the argument)

2.of course we can get rid of the connotation of the "N" word look at how its connotation has already changed drastically in the last 200 years...

 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow, are you very sure

Wow, are you very sure about that?

 Your using "theological" in a very colloquial sense... i.e. realting it to  some santa claus type being that you read somewhere...this is not a rigorous usage. In the rigorous sense a God of pure energy is a theological deity. 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Yes... So here is all that

Yes...

So here is all that can be said about God(at the outset):

 

It exists. 


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Yes... So

Chukwu wrote:

Yes...

So here is all that can be said about God(at the outset):

 

It exists.

 

Ok... and what is it?

 

[Just as a reminder:  it might be helpful to use the quote function, so that we know whom you're addressing with ease.] 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
I like the way you wrote

I like the way you wrote what you did.

So I hope you don't mind that I steal your phrasing...?

I'll credit you though Laker.

 

So from here on : All that Cosmo. Arg. gives us is fundamental information about "the Entity" - God - i.e. that he exists!

 

BTW - what more can you ask for? I find it to be enough for a earthshattering reformation in one's own mind... 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Deity (Wikipedia): A deity

Deity (Wikipedia):

A deity or god is a postulated preternatural being, who is usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

This is the ridiculous baseless concept which atheism expressly denies, not the idea that a "cause" be it energy or whatever, by which definition this "cause" would be given the term "God". 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
it = creator of the

it = creator of the universe = God

 

what is not clear? what more are you looking for? 

 

Why must there even be anymore - I don't follow... 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
it = creator of the

it = creator of the universe = God

Yes. I get that part. There is nothing illogical about that statement. That which spawned the universe is, by definition "God".  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Heh, um not to be an ass -

Heh, um not to be an ass - but you can't get more colloquial than an encyclopedia or dictionary - these books exist to relate how these terms are COMMONLY used...

"Deity" - "God"

God - Creator of Universe

 

preternatural is an attribute not assumed or touted by either the Cosmo. Arg. or fundamentally Theists.... dont group religion and theism


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: it = creator

Chukwu wrote:

it = creator of the universe = God

 

what is not clear? what more are you looking for?

 

Why must there even be anymore - I don't follow...

 

Let me try to put it in perspective for you.

it = killer of rodents = cat

Now, that a cat kills rodents when it gets a chance tells us nothing of what it IS, just what it does.  We could plug "owl" or "snake" into that third slot.

What differentiates God from any other thing?  What is God?  Is it a living thing?  What is it made of?


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

Yes...

So here is all that can be said about God(at the outset):

 

It exists.

 

Ok... and what is it?

 

[Just as a reminder: it might be helpful to use the quote function, so that we know whom you're addressing with ease.]

oh my bad - I assumed reply gt that done...sorry 


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Laker-taker

Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

Yes...

So here is all that can be said about God(at the outset):

 

It exists.

 

Ok... and what is it?

 

[Just as a reminder: it might be helpful to use the quote function, so that we know whom you're addressing with ease.]

oh my bad - I assumed reply gt that done...sorry

 

No problem, C. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Aren't we moving away from

Aren't we moving away from the thread into splitting hairs over definition?

 We understand that the universe must have had some sort of cause, which it must be right to call God

But we also understand that religion and theism have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever, and they paint the above concept as some kind of violent, murderous sentient, anthropomorphic entity which enjoys hurling "souls" (another nonexistent concept) into a place that is apparently outside space and time called "hell" unless you follow a "holy book" which was evidently beamed into the heads of man by this sentient creator, thereby causing many of them to kill each other over concepts taht they made up, saying numerous ridiculous things like that embryogenesis is formed from a blood clot (Quran) and the first man and woman were two caucasians who lived in a garden 6000 years ago (OT).

That is completely retarded. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

it = creator of the universe = God

 

what is not clear? what more are you looking for?

 

Why must there even be anymore - I don't follow...

 

Let me try to put it in perspective for you.

it = killer of rodents = cat

Now, that a cat kills rodents when it gets a chance tells us nothing of what it IS, just what it does. We could plug "owl" or "snake" into that third slot.

What differentiates God from any other thing? What is God? Is it a living thing? What is it made of?

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator... 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Aren't

deludedgod wrote:

Aren't we moving away from the thread into splitting hairs over definition?

We understand that the universe must have had some sort of cause, which it must be right to call God

But we also understand that religion and theism have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever, and they paint the above concept as some kind of violent, murderous sentient, anthropomorphic entity which enjoys hurling "souls" (another nonexistent concept) into a place that is apparently outside space and time called "hell" unless you follow a "holy book" which was evidently beamed into the heads of man by this sentient creator, thereby causing many of them to kill each other over concepts taht they made up, saying numerous ridiculous things like that embryogenesis is formed from a blood clot (Quran) and the first man and woman were two caucasians who lived in a garden 6000 years ago (OT).

That is completely retarded.

Ok, your right on everything except including Theism in your diatribe...A belief in God does not equal religion. Theism has just as much a basis in reality as the pantheistic notion that the universe is God, or energy is God, etc. 


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: the

Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things.  We know what a human is.  What's God?


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?  


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Laker-taker

Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

?? 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Laker-taker

Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

Uh Oh - we know what a human is? Since when ? Please give me the definition of a human... 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

??

 it = runner of races = runner

The better answer for what a..."runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things.

--->

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Laker-taker

Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

??

it = runner of races = runner

The better answer for what a..."runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things.

--->

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

Fine.  Well done.

 

Could you tell me what God is, please? 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...i don't think so - but im somekind of platonist, maybe your of a different opinion)

What differentiates God from anyother thing - God has no cause...sorry if it underwhelms you - but the point is to show the univers has a creator...

 

 

The better answer for what a "baker" or "runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things. We know what a human is. What's God?

 

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

??

it = runner of races = runner

The better answer for what a..."runner" IS, is that they are human beings that do specific things.

--->

Uh Oh - A greyhound is a human that does specific things? A horse?

 

Fine. Well done.

 

Could you tell me what God is, please?

I am trying hard to understand what your looking for, and I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty.

You accept that God, if it exists, is the Creator of the Universe 

but in the next sentence ask me to say what God is...all BS aside please explain what you want or mean .


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote:the

Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...

If you want to talk ontology, how can you even refer to your 'god' at all without stealing from naturalism?

As for separating a 'thing' from what it does, the actual problem before you is that you haven't given any ontology for the 'thing' to begin with, ergo talking about 'its' role is moot.

Finally, as for the first cause argument: it's bad cosmology.... 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: I am trying

Chukwu wrote:

I am trying hard to understand what your looking for, and I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty.

You accept that God, if it exists, is the Creator of the Universe

but in the next sentence ask me to say what God is...all BS aside please explain what you want or mean .

"Creator" of the universe aside--that is a different discussion entirely...

I say to you, "Arglebargle exists."

How do you respond?


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

the ontological question of whether a thing can be seperated from what it does....plato vs. aristotle...blah blah - your missing the simplicity (btw - it = baker of baked goods = baker; it = runner of races = runner; etc. can a thing exist without the things it does...

If you want to talk ontology, how can you even refer to your 'god' at all without stealing from naturalism?

As for separating a 'thing' from what it does, the actual problem before you is that you haven't given any ontology for the 'thing' to begin with, ergo talking about 'its' role is moot.

Finally, as for the first cause argument: it's bad cosmology....

 

 

As far as stealing from any naturalism - it almost goes without saying...I mean there is no known mechanism for begetting or creation from the trancendental... this is inplicit in the argument

second, if a thing is in fact FUNDAMENTALLY bound to what it does, than what it does is not 'moot', it is ITSELF FUNDAMENTAL to its ontology.

third - huh? bad cosmology what? 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

I am trying hard to understand what your looking for, and I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty.

You accept that God, if it exists, is the Creator of the Universe

but in the next sentence ask me to say what God is...all BS aside please explain what you want or mean .

"Creator" of the universe aside--that is a different discussion entirely...

I say to you, "Arglebargle exists."

How do you respond?

If "Arglebargle" denotes the creator of the universe, than i say amen, if it denotes something else, i will do as Wittgenstein says and be silent.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Laker-taker

Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

I am trying hard to understand what your looking for, and I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty.

You accept that God, if it exists, is the Creator of the Universe

but in the next sentence ask me to say what God is...all BS aside please explain what you want or mean .

"Creator" of the universe aside--that is a different discussion entirely...

I say to you, "Arglebargle exists."

How do you respond?

If "Arglebargle" denotes the creator of the universe, than i say amen, if it denotes something else, i will do as Wittgenstein says and be silent.

Well, I'm not saying that.  Arglebargle exists though.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
This boils down to gog of

This boils down to god of the gaps arguements. No one here knows the first cause or if there ever was a "first" cause. So instead it is asserted that god exisits because that gap has not been filled yet. Seems a little petty.....


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

I am trying hard to understand what your looking for, and I am obviously having a great deal of difficulty.

You accept that God, if it exists, is the Creator of the Universe

but in the next sentence ask me to say what God is...all BS aside please explain what you want or mean .

"Creator" of the universe aside--that is a different discussion entirely...

I say to you, "Arglebargle exists."

How do you respond?

If "Arglebargle" denotes the creator of the universe, than i say amen, if it denotes something else, i will do as Wittgenstein says and be silent.

Well, I'm not saying that. Arglebargle exists though.

Does Arglebargle relate to God in some way? No. In fact flying spaghetti monsters and the like in NO WAY parallel God. That is meant to parallel faith. Faith is not necessary with God - God is fact. If your trying to attack religion, maybe Arglebargle has some relevance, otherwise i see none. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: As far as

Chukwu wrote:

As far as stealing from any naturalism - it almost goes without saying...I mean there is no known mechanism for begetting or creation from the trancendental... this is inplicit in the argument

I'm having a hard time following you... are you conceding that you must steal from naturalism in order to make any god claim?

Quote:

second, if a thing is in fact FUNDAMENTALLY bound to what it does, than what it does is not 'moot',

You're missing the point for a second time. The point is that you can't talk about the 'thing' in the first place, because in order to do so you'd have to steal from naturalism.

Quote:
 

it is ITSELF FUNDAMENTAL to its ontology.

You're missing the point... the 'thing' CAN'T have an ontology in the first place, if you are stealing from naturalism.

 

Quote:
 

 third - huh? bad cosmology what?

First cause arguments are self negating, arguments from ignornace. You have to violate your own first precept (everything needs a cause) and then you must argue from ignorance.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: This boils down

BGH wrote:
This boils down to god of the gaps arguements. No one here knows the first cause or if there ever was a "first" cause. So instead it is asserted that god exisits because that gap has not been filled yet. Seems a little petty.....

 

It's an argument from ignorance... and even worse, the theist fails to grasp that he's stealing from naturalism.... if his 'god' is necessarily defined as outside of the causal chain (and he must) then the theist cannot provide a positive ontology for 'god' without stealing from naturalism. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: This boils down

BGH wrote:
This boils down to god of the gaps arguements. No one here knows the first cause or if there ever was a "first" cause. So instead it is asserted that god exisits because that gap has not been filled yet. Seems a little petty.....

 

Again - toe your own rope sir.

 If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief? YOu don't believe in a big-bang? No expansion of the universe for you? 

 

We damn sure know that there was a first cause - if your afraid to call it God call it something else...doesnt change the fact that "God" <---> "Creator of Universe" <---> "First Cause"

 

Shit call it the devil if it make you happy 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
I completely agree,

I completely agree, naturalism must be taken from in order for the point to be made.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Does

Chukwu wrote:

Does Arglebargle relate to God in some way?

Does that matter? Arglebargle exists.

Chukwu wrote:
God is fact.

Arglebargle is fact.

Chukwu wrote:
If your trying to attack religion, maybe Arglebargle has some relevance, otherwise i see none.

It's not a religious attack; I'm just trying hard to understand why you deny the relevance of Arglebargle. I'm having great deal of difficulty on that angle.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: BGH

Chukwu wrote:

BGH wrote:
This boils down to god of the gaps arguements. No one here knows the first cause or if there ever was a "first" cause. So instead it is asserted that god exisits because that gap has not been filled yet. Seems a little petty.....

 

Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief? 

You're contradicting youself.

If time is 'infinite' then that means there is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago....

See the error? 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.