Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
I wonder if humankind will ever learn equally and to be equal.

Like the Chiefs of the tribes created the witch doctor to keep fear in the tribe and thereby control so too did the wealthy promote and prosper religion to control the masses.

Of course as I may well have expressed previously we now have the cricket, footy and the races.
 
explod said:
I wonder if humankind will ever learn equally and to be equal.

Like the Chiefs of the tribes created the witch doctor to keep fear in the tribe and thereby control so too did the wealthy promote and prosper religion to control the masses.

Of course as I may well have expressed previously we now have the cricket, footy and the races.
Click to expand...
It's true.

We see the very same thing with climate alarmism.
 
Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne, Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.
 
explod said:
Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne, Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.
Click to expand...
Yep, the mistake they made was messing wirh science. They forgot about the falsification step and that at least some people still have the faculty of critical thinking. ;)
 
cynic said:
The argument has already been covered by Dr Craig, in the video I linked in an earlier post.

If you are doubtful of the validity, of any of the premises, and/or the integrity of the logic, used to derive the uncaused causer conclusion, from those premises, I would be genuinely interested in seeing your logical basis (if any) for contesting the integrity of the argument and its conclusion.

I have strongly believed in the existence of God since a specific event which occured approximately 30 years ago. I had neither seen nor examined any philosophical arguments, of this nature, beyond my own personal contemplations of questions surrounding the mysterious and seemingly paradoxical nature of material existence. Interestingly enough, the kalam cosmological argument seems to operate along similar lines to my personal ruminations.

My observations weren't sufficient to dispel my lingering doubts around the question of the existence of a god, or perhaps gods.

What finally convinced me of the existence of God was God!

It was during one of the darker periods of my life, when I had an urgent need, for an answer, to a very important question about life. My true position at the time could fairly be described as lying somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.

Upon posing the question, it was answered, within seconds, when a small bird, broke an exit sign, right in front of me. (Sometimes I like to describe this event as God sending a winged messenger to deliver me a sign.)

Since that moment, I have never had cause to doubt in the existence of a potent higher intelligence. Nor do I have any reason to doubt, that we are here by design(not accident) and our existence does have purpose.
Click to expand...

The argument in no way states he “uncaused cause” must be a god, that’s where thrust leap frog the logic and start injecting their god in.

Also, it’s could be possible the universe is infinite which renders the whole arguement bunk.

Theists then go on to claim the universe can’t be infinite, and must have begun, yet they then assume their god is infinite, which is special pleading, if they are willing to accept some things are infinite eg god, how can hey rule out the universe itself being infinite.
 
Value Collector said:
The argument in no way states he “uncaused cause” must be a god, that’s where thrust leap frog the logic and start injecting their god in.

Also, it’s could be possible the universe is infinite which renders the whole arguement bunk.

Theists then go on to claim the universe can’t be infinite, and must have begun, yet they then assume their god is infinite, which is special pleading, if they are willing to accept some things are infinite eg god, how can hey rule out the universe itself being infinite.
Click to expand...

I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:

If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!

So even if I accept the possibility of the universe being infinite (and it just so happens that I do), the premise that anything which begins to exist, needing to have been caused to exist, is still sufficient to support the logical deduction that there must exist an uncaused cause!

So if there is an uncaused cause, one need only ask oneself what the attributes, or qualities, an uncaused cause, would, of necessity, possess, in order to be an uncaused cause. Amongst other things, it would, at the very minimum, have to be eternal, powerful and creative! These three qualities are often attributed to the God concept espoused in a number of belief systems. Have there been any concepts, other than God, throughout history, credited with all three of those qualities (i.e. potency, creativity, and timelessness)?

If you'd prefer to label it as something else, that is your prerogative. But do take care to resist the temptation to apply, any labels, already assigned to completely different concepts, such as purple unicorns, planet orbitting teapots or pure nonsense.

Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.
 
Last edited:
cynic said:
I
Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.
Click to expand...

Dawkins (should check though) may not believe there is consciousness. If I was an atheist I think I'd drop that view as well . How things become living (creature life) is another mystery too.
 
cynic said:
I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:

If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!

So even if I accept the possibility of the universe being infinite (and it just so happens that I do), the premise that anything which begins to exist, needing to have been caused to exist, is still sufficient to support the logical deduction that there must exist an uncaused cause!

So if there is an uncaused cause, one need only ask oneself what the attributes, or qualities, an uncaused cause, would, of necessity, possess, in order to be an uncaused cause. Amongst other things, it would, at the very minimum, have to be eternal, powerful and creative! These three qualities are often attributed to the God concept espoused in a number of belief systems. Have there been any concepts, other than God, throughout history, credited with all three of those qualities (i.e. potency, creativity, and timelessness)?

If you'd prefer to label it as something else, that is your prerogative. But do take care to resist the temptation to apply, any labels, already assigned to completely different concepts, such as purple unicorns, planet orbitting teapots or pure nonsense.

Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.
Click to expand...
Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief.

To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.
 
explod said:
Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief.

To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.
Click to expand...
What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!
 
cynic said:
What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!
Click to expand...


I'm surprised you used that video, because it actually shows the lengths creationists will go to to discredit Dawkins. This video was actually used by Dawkins himself to show the tricks Creationists use. Check this out from the 13 minute Mark or even a bit earlier for other examples.

 
bellenuit said:
I'm surprised you used that video, because it actually shows the lengths creationists will go to to discredit Dawkins. This video was actually used by Dawkins himself to show the tricks Creationists use. Check this out from the 13 minute Mark or even a bit earlier for other examples.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Out of interest, has Dawkins furnished a plausible answer to the question?

Edit: It is a pity that anyone would make the error of engaging deceit to support their position, particularly when the opponent to their position is already doing such a great job of discrediting himself.
 
cynic said:
It is said to be the aramaic spelling of the name that the Hebrew God gave when he spoke to Moses, and also said to have sounded similar to the aramaic expression: "I am who I am".

I haven't studied the book of mormon and like to keep some distance between myself and scientology, so I do not consider myself qualified to make specific claims about their perspective on god.

What I can say is that this god is present in any religion that includes the book of exodus as part of their doctrine.
I could also logically argue, that it is the god of any religion that includes the book of genesis, on account of the reference to the kabala (tree of knowledge) contained therein.
Click to expand...

I am who I am sounds like a bad Jackie Chan movie. OK, most of his latter films are pretty bad...

I think we all agree that if belief in God/s makes you happy, find peace and all that... that's a good thing.

As to trying to prove that such a God exists, for real, I give you VC :D
 
The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so. Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages. His book "The God Delusion" is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.
 
explod said:
The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so. Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages. His book "The God Delusion" is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.
Click to expand...

Just because people cannot correctly comprehend or interpret a subject or thing does not mean it does not exist.
 
explod said:
The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so. Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages. His book "The God Delusion" is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to quote some of, what you'd consider to be, his better arguments, so that I can assess the true merit (oor absence thereof) of your endorsement of Dawkins book?

The reason I ask, is that I have had the experience of having ant-theists confidently presenting me with faulty arguments which I strongly suspect tp have been sourced from that book. It has become the anti theists gospel!

So, please, hit me with the best of his arguments!
 
cynic said:
Are you willing to quote some of, what you'd consider to be, his better arguments, so that I can assess the true merit (oor absence thereof) of your endorsement of Dawkins book?

The reason I ask, is that I have had the experience of having ant-theists confidently presenting me with faulty arguments which I strongly suspect tp have been sourced from that book. It has become the anti theists gospel!



So, please, hit me with the best of his arguments!
Click to expand...

He does not present arguments, as a biologist he presents facts. However there is considerable material ( writings) to the examinations of these facts. You need to read the book and form your own view of his presentations.

I read it in 2010 however I'd formed my own (and a similar view to Dawkins) when I was at Uni in 1986 from the psychology of art history. Pictures tell many tales.

I am not declaring that there is no God, I just do not know. Many believe there is a God and that belief is strong and good for them. However this does not prove there is a God nor can a mountain of bibles do it either. In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins. But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough" by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists
 
Top