A
anthony022071
Guest
Considering that the puddle of water cannot comment on this,we
will answer for it by saying “no”.
- Status
will answer for it by saying “no”.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
No it is not, since all those natural theories require that something “exists”. Why cant you see that?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The problem is, is that the knowledge is not superior, those thoeries, that you rightly said are not yet accepted by morden science as true, are all basically based on something already existing. Its not hard for us to see, even with limited knowledge, that they are talking about something coming about as a result of some “existing process”.
I’m taking about the world coming out of “nothing”, not the world coming out of “something”; do you understand?
Anyway, if it is so superior to your understanding, how do you know whether or not their theories are making logical sense or even providing an “alternative”, as far as the problem of “nothingness” is concerned? If you don’t know what they’re talking about, why are you presenting them as alternatives?
I agree with Stephen. We know the universe has a beginning through the cosmological model, therefore we can suppose that there is a Creator.
The cosmological model and common-sense tells me it’s true. That’s not naturalistic dogma, that’s basic logics.
Well… Current science makes the existence of God a very high probability as a result of observing that the world “began”, that’s all natural laws, forces, everything; so I can’t for the life of me imagine where you have got that idea from. If you dont want God because of some principle you have, fair enough, but please don’t pretend that the evidence doesn’t point to God.
J
john_doran
Guest
…what’s the point? you have aparently already designated anything i have to say as “unserious”…
J
john_doran
Guest
no. what cannot happen is for the universe to come into being out of nothing without being caused. the universe does, in fact, have an original cause, and that cause is god.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
They have already been addressed in this thread, and I am also very bored with them. And I haven’t said one word concerning ‘anything you have to say,’ but if that’s all you got, please read the thread…
If the theists posting here are so concerned about the logicality of theism (which seems rather self-defeating to me), then they must needs study up.
If the theists posting here are so concerned about the logicality of theism (which seems rather self-defeating to me), then they must needs study up.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
22 pages…:yawn: …did the atheists give any reasons yet for not being theists, does anyone know?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Do you actually have anything logical to say? Maybe you should try proving some of the theistic arguements wrong? Merry atheist has at least tryed to do that much. Well done Merry Athiest.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The world popped out of nothing by itself.
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, they aren’t “theories” really, more like hypotheses that attempt to explain current observations. Some have been shot down due to conflicts with observed data, while others remain largely conjectural, pending further evidence.
Perhaps part of the problem is that you seem to use the terms “world” and “universe” interchangeably. “World” to me is synonymous with “earth” and “the immediate environment we live in”, while “universe” means “everything” and “all energy and matter that exists”. It’s sometimes hard to figure out which you are referring to.
Yes. I myself am an idiot; an ignoramus; a know-nothing. But I provided them to show you that not all scientists agree with you, and that they may have some good reasons. Argue with me all you want, for all it gets you; but your real argument is with them.
I don’t have to pretend anything. I simply don’t agree that the evidence points to the existence of god. It matters very little to me what you think of my reasoning (or lack thereof). Frankly, I’m surprised at the shock you are expressing… have you never encountered an atheist before?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The Shock, is that i used to think that the concept of God and faith was irational, and that the atheists had a good reason for being athiests, but now, after much studing, i find that they do not have any good reasons at all.
I used to be a Maxist, more specifically a Socailist Worker. My world veiw was that the belief in God was an enemy, a cancer stopping people from rising up from world oppression. Its been a good five years since i held that veiw.
The best arguement that i have heard from you, which isn’t really an arguement at all, is…
“I simply don’t agree that the evidence points to the existence of god”
Yet you cannot provide any logical satisfactory good evidence to prove this assertion to be correct; its like you are simply hoping that people will believe you.
Nice speaking to you, gotta dash, dont want to miss the last bus!
M
MerryAtheist
Guest
“…there is no purely rational demonstration of God’s existence that could carry universal conviction. Proofs of God turn out in fact not to be coercive for everyone, whatever may be thought of the “possibility” of knowledge of God as taught by Vatican I. There is not a single proof that is universally accepted.”
Kung goes on to decide for God, but he states that decision is necessarily related to one’s view of reality
“Hence there are actually no positive arguments for the impossibility of atheism. If someone says that there is no God, this cannot be positively refuted. Neither a strict proof nor an indication of God can prevail against such an assertion. For this negative statement rests in the last resort on a decision, a decision that is connected with the fundamental decision for reality as a whole. The denial of God cannot be refuted purely rationally.”
Hans Kung, “Does God Exist”, Random House, 1981, pg 533.
Kung goes on to decide for God, but he states that decision is necessarily related to one’s view of reality
“Hence there are actually no positive arguments for the impossibility of atheism. If someone says that there is no God, this cannot be positively refuted. Neither a strict proof nor an indication of God can prevail against such an assertion. For this negative statement rests in the last resort on a decision, a decision that is connected with the fundamental decision for reality as a whole. The denial of God cannot be refuted purely rationally.”
ibid, pg. 569
K
Keikiolu
Guest
The first “posit”, the first proposition, is that the Creator is, exists, which would make Him omnipotent in all regards, since there’s no way He could be THE creator of everything without being omnipotent in all regards.
You either accept that on faith, with essentially no proof that you could in any way CALL proof (otherwise your “faith” wouldn’t be faith at all), or you don’t.
If you don’t, then you’re free to come to your own conclusions about the “beginnings” and the “endings” of things.
If you DON’T totally discount the concept of the Creator, then you accept that He may exist, and therefore have just as much faith in Him as anyone else, as He has deemed it necessary that His existence be indeed UNPROVABLE, as that would negate the free will choice of faith.
The fact that one who doesn’t understand the purpose of “pain and suffering” also doesn’t understand the “purpose” of God, is not a particularly huge surprise.
The kind of concept of god (small “g”) illustrated by the thinking, “Because suffering exists God can’t”, shows a complete lack of understanding of all the concepts involved in this issue, namely what suffering is, and Who God is.
Since the god (small “g” again) that such a thinker substitutes in place of God, and then calls it “God” while trying to convince those who know the difference between gods and God, shows those who know the difference that the “thinker” is,… “held back” in their development in this area.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Merry, you are absolutely correct if you regard these quotations as “wisdom”.
God will not take from us our ability to freely choose, least of all to freely choose Him.
Were there a thorough (utterly convincing) proof of God, someone would have found it, and we would all believe in God.
For such a proof to exist, God would have to deny us our free choice of Him, which He won’t do, therefore, such a proof doesn’t exist.
May you be happy as long as possible with your choice as to what to believe, as may we all be happy with our choice as long as possible.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
G
Gareth
Guest
I think you’ve got a strange idea of faith acutally would it be acceptable for me to be a christian and say I think God may NOT exist? That wouldn’t have gone down well where I went to church… Well he’s sure doing a good job of being unprovable.
I didn’t say God couldn’t exist because of suffering, merly that I couldn’t see how he could be benevolent. To me he would be neither wholy benovelent or malovenlent. I also didn’t mention God’s purpose, since I’m not sure wether he exists or not.The fact that one who doesn’t understand the purpose of “pain and suffering” also doesn’t understand the “purpose” of God, is not a particularly huge surprise.
The kind of concept of god (small “g”) illustrated by the thinking, “Because suffering exists God can’t”, shows a complete lack of understanding of all the concepts involved in this issue, namely what suffering is, and Who God is.
It is true that pain and suffering seem to be random to me and to have no purpose.
Tell us the ‘purpose’ of the holocaust, child rape, the extinction of %99 of all species, cancer, cystic fibrosis, miscarridge, murder, genocide etc etc…
Or perhaps some more helpings of you’re too thick to understand?
C
cpayne
Guest
Arguments such as what you are asking for are going on now in a different thread, “Can the Existence of God be Proven by Natural Reason?”
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Exactly. Both I and the person I was responding to have been flipping back and forth between those two threads, I think, and I didn’t really want the two to become indistinguishable. The question ‘Why aren’t you theists?’ is much broader, and although logical argument has its place in the range of answers, it’s certainly not the only one!
But I admit to getting these two threads a little confused, pardon me!
But I admit to getting these two threads a little confused, pardon me!
F
freesoulhope
Guest
This is what convinces you to deny the existents of God? Are you pulling my Leg.
Whether something is universally accepted or not, does not dictate the truthfulness of a proposition.
The man you have quoted has made alot of assertions, but has not once given us any reason for us to agree. He thinks like many others that there is no reassonable evidence on either side, and that it is a matter of opinion and bias. But the Bigbang, makes God high probability, where as there is zero probability, unless you think the world popped out of nothing, that the world came about by natural means; its simply imposible.
The guy above has not taken that in to consideration; he has just made statments about what he thinks rather then what the evidence shows; he is a lot like you.
Its like me saying,
“There is every reason to think that God exists”.
Its all good and well me saying that, but where is the logical reason for me to think it?
Me, along with many others on this thread, have provided that reason; the man you have blindly quoted, has not.
Its seems to me, that you accept what this man is saying soely because he is a respected scientist; that means he could lie through his teeth, and you would believe him.
In the words of spock, “Thats not logical!”.
G
Greg27
Guest
Rational arguments for or against God can decide one’s faith, but also encountering statements like this also help:
“”[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)."
According to this infallible dogma, Catholics are apparently bound to believe all non-Catholics (billions and billions of human beings) are going to hell for belonging to the wrong organisation. Asides from the evident disgust I feel for such a horrible sentiment, there is the argument I once saw against Pascal’s Wager; if you believe in the wrong God, you end up in hell (if Islam is correct for example), or to put a Buddhist spin on it, you go through a number of different re-incarnations.
But, sometimes it can be people who feel they represent God on Earth and stand in his name and judge others who refuse to conform to what they think God’s will is, which really destroy a person’s faith.
“”[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)."
According to this infallible dogma, Catholics are apparently bound to believe all non-Catholics (billions and billions of human beings) are going to hell for belonging to the wrong organisation. Asides from the evident disgust I feel for such a horrible sentiment, there is the argument I once saw against Pascal’s Wager; if you believe in the wrong God, you end up in hell (if Islam is correct for example), or to put a Buddhist spin on it, you go through a number of different re-incarnations.
But, sometimes it can be people who feel they represent God on Earth and stand in his name and judge others who refuse to conform to what they think God’s will is, which really destroy a person’s faith.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
If you keep on researching the Catholic achieves, you will also find acceptions to this rule.
My preist, a Catholic, says quite explicitly that “there are not only Catholics in heaven”.
There is only one truth, and there is only one way that leads to the truth; no other way leads to that thruth. Thats what it means to think that any other path or way, leads to hell, simply because the “truth” is heaven, and there is only “one way” to heaven. However, circumstances, that are not of your own making, may decieve you, and lead you from the truth; therefore it is quite posible that i may in fact see a budist in heaven, but not because he is a budist, but because Gods mercy has saved him in his ignorance.
Whether one finds the idea of themselves being ignorant, offensive or not, is irrelevent to the truth, and the truth is not sympathetic to the emotional fretting of those who have strayed from the truth; that is why you will often hear the saying, “the truth hurts”.
- Status