Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[notting]

If you would like to present a scientific view of how the universe was created without external influence and prove this was the only way it could have happened then I will believe there is no god.

Untill then...

I have already debunked that notion on two counts. One it makes the devastatingly simplistic assumption that 'the world' 'must have been created' based on nothing but your own prejudiced thinking that assumes imagines and fantasizes that 'if things exist, they must be created.' So it's not a scientific question science doesn't deal in the sphere of 'en devouring to establish incoherent propositions.'
But if you insist on the notion that 'if something exists, it must have been created.' Then the infinite regression argument suggested above also applies to your creator god.

How did he come into being?
Well according to your insistence he like all things can only exist if he was created. So he must have been created by a creator god and that god, if it exists must also have been created by a creator god......

 

[SirRumpole]

So he must have been created by a creator god and that god, if it exists must also have been created by a creator god......

Only if god is subject to time. If god is timeless then it has existed forever. If a god created the matter and energy of a universe it would have created time along with it.

 

[Value Collector]

If there is a God, it's possible that He chooses to manifest only to some people, but not everyone. In that case, some people not only believe , but know truth as well.

And different gods seem to manifest to different people, and different people both believe equally that different gods exist.

They can’t both be right, but they could both be wrong.

 

[explod]

Very misguided actually. Jesus taught morals which can be applied to everything. The role of the Church is to work things out.

Nobody really knows that, the writings and the bibles have been re written, revised and altered to suit changing regimes for 2000 years.

 

[Value Collector]

Only if god is subject to time. If god is timeless then it has existed forever. If a god created the matter and energy of a universe it would have created time along with it.

That’s a lot of “ifs”,

Do we have any evidence that anything can exist outside of space and time?

And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.

 

[explod]

Richard Dawkins is just one, of many classic examples I could give, of how easily a person can delude themselves into believing that their "crusade" is somehow justified.
Please note, that I do not blame atheism for Dawkins evident state of self delusion, for the very same reason that I do not blame theism for the Spanish Inquisition.
Atheism was simply, the style of music, Richard happened to be listening to, when he decided to allow, his, over inflated ego, to take him for a ride down fallacy lane.

You cannot push such comments or know unless you have read Dawkins works. He's written about 11 books on varying subjects, and I might add only the one directly about religion.

One I've recently read is "The Ancestor's Tale" about our four billion year evolution. Again a factual gathering together of the findings of anthopologist work over the ages. He is a leading academic and university researcher and if they made up stories they'd be straight out the door so quick the boot would be caught.

 

[cynic]

You cannot push such comments or know unless you have read Dawkins works. He's written about 11 books on varying subjects, and I might add only the one directly about religion.

One I've recently read is "The Ancestor's Tale" about our four billion year evolution. Again a factual gathering together of the findings of anthopologist work over the ages. He is a leading academic and university researcher and if they made up stories they'd be straight out the door so quick the boot would be caught.

On the contrary! I do not need to read every word written, nor hear every word spoken, to arrive at the conclusion that the author/orator, is engaged in a crusade, intitiated consequent to their own self delusion. A small sampling of his stated philosophy, has provided ample supportive evidence for my conclusion

Did you, perchance, read every available, theistic scripture, prior to choosing atheism as your philosophy?

Have I ever exploited, your, less than exhaustive, research, to contest the integrity of your decision, to accept atheism as your religious philosophy?

By what possible reason, other than pure hypocrisy, can you accuse me, of your very own, self described failing?

 

[SirRumpole]

And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.

Creation is dependent on time. If time does not exist or something is not subject to it, then creation is irrelevant.

 

[cynic]

That’s a lot of “ifs”,

Do we have any evidence that anything can exist outside of space and time?

And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.

Can you see how these two objections are logically incompatible? (i.e. it is impossible for both objections to be concurrently valid!)

Do you see what I see? If not, why not?

Interestingly enough, a certain argument, answering your questions and objections, has already been presented and explained.

I have, as yet, not received, any logically sound rebuttals, to that argument, from yourself, or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[explod]

On the contrary! I do not need to read every word written, nor hear every word spoken, to arrive at the conclusion that the author/orator, is engaged in a crusade, intitiated consequent to their own self delusion. A small sampling of his stated philosophy, has provided ample supportive evidence for my conclusion

Did you, perchance, read every available, theistic scripture, prior to choosing atheism as your philosophy?

Have I ever exploited, your, less than exhaustive, research, to contest the integrity of your decision, to accept atheism as your religious philosophy?

By what possible reason, other than pure hypocrisy, can you accuse me, of your very own, self described failing?

As a youngster I read the bible prolifically and as I began my journey towards the priesthood got a good understanding of metaphysics, which in arguing the potential of a rock its a bit like our chatting here. Later at University I felt something did not add up. In fact as a ten year old I argued with our priest the components of the holy trinity, in the end he told me to just accept it and move on (SHUT UP) So yes I do have a fair grasp and lifelong jnterest.

Please tell where is my failing and my hypocrisy. Is it because I want to know and will not accept the pie in the sky of BELIEF.

However if you can produce a god and I can shake his hand on parting the river for our path from ASF headquarters, then I'll know. Untill then your just dreaming ole pal.

 

[Value Collector]

I have, as yet, not received, any logically sound rebuttals, to that argument, from yourself, or anyone else, for that matter.

Which arguement are you talking about?

 

[Value Collector]

Creation is dependent on time. If time does not exist or something is not subject to it, then creation is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Sounds like word games to me.

Can you give me an example of something that exists, but isn’t subject to time?

 

[SirRumpole]

Can you give me an example of something that exists, but isn’t subject to time?

Not in the physical universe, but that's the whole point of a god, to be eternal and not subject to physical constraints.

 

[cynic]

As a youngster I read the bible prolifically and as I began my journey towards the priesthood got a good understanding of metaphysics, which in arguing the potential of a rock its a bit like our chatting here. Later at University I felt something did not add up. In fact as a ten year old I argued with our priest the components of the holy trinity, in the end he told me to just accept it and move on (SHUT UP) So yes I do have a fair grasp and lifelong jnterest.

Please tell where is my failing and my hypocrisy. Is it because I want to know and will not accept the pie in the sky of BELIEF.

However if you can produce a god and I can shake his hand on parting the river for our path from ASF headquarters, then I'll know. Untill then your just dreaming ole pal.

You seem to repeatedly mistake my meaning! You clearly have not read every theistic scripture, nor have I, for that matter! The Roman Catholic Church, like many other religions, does not hold the monopoly on theism!

You asserted that I cannot make comment, or know, until I have read Dawkins works!

I maintain that I can, and already have, presented sufficient evidence, of Dawkins expressed sentiments and fallacious beliefs, to substantiate the validity of my criticisms of him.

He is an anti-theist.

He does do the reputation of atheism, and atheists alike a serious injustice.

He is unable to recognise his own contradictory statements and/or assertions.

He regularly proclaims unproven theories to be established facts, and often presents arguments founded on faulty logic and/or untrue premises.

He often makes the error, of only taking sufficient time, to form a convenient misunderstanding of things he has prejudged to be fiction.

He often uses unsound analogies to refute theistic concepts, and yet he fails to treat similarly uncertain atheist concepts in the same fashion.

He fails to notice that a number of his expressed beliefs, are hypocritical and/or contradictory.

And above all, he is most definitely too self deluded to even recognise, or acknowledge the existence of any of his above mentioned personal failings!

There has already been enough evidence posted to the religious threads of this forum, demonstrating the truth of the majority of my criticisms of Richard Dawkins, and his crusade against all theistic religions.

 

[cynic]

Which arguement are you talking about?

My abridged version, of the kalam argument for the existence of god. You know! The one that logically demonstrates, the necessary existence, of a potent,eternal uncreated creator!

 

[explod]

Ok, lets move on from Richard.

There is no physical evidence that there is a living God. God is a belief formed in the (conditioned) mind.

So I invite you to prove me wrong with fact cynic.

Actually your trips in circles is reminiscent of Thomas Aquenas

 

[cynic]

Ok, lets move on from Richard.

There is no physical evidence that there is a living God. God is a belief formed in the (conditioned) mind.

So I invite you to prove me wrong with fact cynic.

Actually your trips in circles is reminiscent of Thomas Aquenas

Whilst I am most definitely opposed to anti-theism, I am most definitely not seeking to prove atheism wrong!

I do not claim to be able to conclusively, prove or disprove, the existence of divinity. However, I do claim that there exist, sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion, that there exists a great mystery, which must either be, or contain, at minimum, a potent creative force.

I do not see how any non-theist, can justify boldly insisting that theists are wrong, for the simple reasons that non-theists are currently unable to furnish a sound explanation for material existence, nor are they able to conclusively disprove the existence of all possible deities.

You have identified as atheist! That's wonderful! Truly! Because it means that you spent some time considering the question, and arrived at a decision about what you do and do not believe!

But does your satisfaction, and confidence, in your chosen beliefs and disbeliefs, entitle you to presume that those whom chose differently, must be wrong?

 

[explod]

Whilst I am most definitely opposed to anti-theism, I am most definitely not seeking to prove atheism wrong!

I do not claim to be able to conclusively, prove or disprove, the existence of divinity. However, I do claim that there exist, sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion, that there exists a great mystery, which must either be, or contain, at minimum, a potent creative force.

I do not see how any non-theist, can justify boldly insisting that theists are wrong, for the simple reasons that non-theists are currently unable to furnish a sound explanation for material existence, nor are they able to conclusively disprove the existence of all possible deities.

You have identified as atheist! That's wonderful! Truly! Because it means that you spent some time considering the question, and arrived at a decision about what you do and do not believe!

But does your satisfaction, and confidence, in your chosen beliefs and disbeliefs, entitle you to presume that those whom chose differently, must be wrong?

I am not saying you are wrong. You are so rigid that you do not see the argument. And why do assert that I seek satisfaction in our argument. I only seek understanding so as to learn. It is clear that matter we see and feel before us is a fact and has been around probably according to the latest science always. No beginning and no end. I believe (but I don't know) this.

However there is no evidence at all that some magical being had anything at all to do with it apart from some fairy tales as we find contained in the bibles and scriptures.

Again it goes back to the two points put forward from yesterday.

In God there is "belief" and,

In science we "know"

 

[cynic]

...
In God there is "belief" and,

How have you come to know this?
And...

In science we "know"

How have you come to believe this?

 

[explod]

How have you come to know this?
And...

How have you come to believe this?

Science is observation, people believed the earth was flat, observation (ie. science) proved it was round.

With God I (BELIEVE) we are both situated where the people were when it was thought the earth was flat and so contend that we do not know.