Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[freesoulhope]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Keikiolu]

Finally I think you’re starting to see the truth actually. You’re a intelligent thinking person with a lot of learning but you’re not actually measuring the results ( or lack of them) of your belief.

Jesus says in the bible that prayers are answered, statistically we can measure this and know this is rubbish. Now you have corectly admitted that prayers are really no better than hopes. Well I agree.

My experience, statistically measurable, is that all my prayers are answered in the best way possible for what I need to receive.

If the results of your prayers are not what you “wish”, and you call that a “non-answer”, then you are measuring the wrong “result” of your prayers.

The fact that my prayer for you, in the instance above, is the hope that you’ll improve in your capacity to be better, does not mean that all prayer is simply “hope”, but that “hope” is ALWAYS a part of every prayer.

You talk alot about God and god small ‘g’ big G etc. But the stories you believe in are just as uncredible as the stories of other religions which you disagree with. Islam, mormonism, hinduism, it’s all stories. Your God is a small g god as well, the only reason you don’t see this is becuase of your bias.

Because you simply cannot believe in the “omnipotent”, you cannot believe in God as God, while you can believe in gods, being that you are one.

Small “g” gods are simply any creation (creature) that has free will.

When you confuse gods with God, and then use that confusion as proof that God doesn’t exist, while never having understood what God is in the first place, you simply show your ignorance of the terms in question in our conversation.

If God is as you say Omni… anything, then he would be unknowable to any human being and as such, can can only be a small g god within our understanding anyway.

Since God IS omnipotent He can present us with whatever He deems sensible for us to understand Him as, at any particular time.

Once again, you fail to understand the term “omnipotent”.

I don’t say we can disprove a Creator (big c) but we can disprove your god (small g), it is you who confuse the two not agnostics or atheists. We think the existence of God is unproven, but the existence of your god is disproven I believe. You use the arguments for a first cause and then tack your small god onto them.

Personally, I don’t use the “first cause” argument to prove anything. The only thing necessary to prove a uniquely singular thing is that uniquely singular thing, and since only God satisfies the qualities of being God, then God is as He is. God.

All “gods” are His creations, or His creations creations, and while I agree with you that any “gods” can be proven not to be “Gods”, there’s no way to call God a god.

You think that God is totally unknowable. As such, any supposedly “known” God must be a god, and since all gods are, in essence “false” (which is true), this “known” God is false.

Your problem, once again, yet again, is your non-understanding of what God means, as omnipotence implies being able to make Himself “partially known”, which invalidates your “God is totally unknowable” premise.

Are we sensing a trend here, yet?

You seem like a reasonable person, no hard feelings or offence is meant in my posts, I’m just expressing my opinion.

You seem a very nice person yourself, and other than an apparent incapacity to understand a few basic terms related to the discussion at hand, you seem a very logical, intelligent and reasonable person as well.

No offense taken in the least, my friend. Your opinion is VERY prevalent and fun to “butt up against”…!

Thanks for the nifty conversation.

Cheers
Gareth

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Atheism is a “gnosticism” because it “knows” (positively) that there is no God.

No. Atheism in general is a statement of non-belief, not a statement of knowledge.

Atheists KNOW that God doesn’t exist.

That is knowing,… not simply “non-believing”.

A “non-believer” who is also a “non-disbeliever” is an agnostic.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

God, as an entity, can ONLY BE described as omnipotent, therefore He must be so, therefore I’m left with no other choice but to state that He is.*
Your* God is defined that way. Since the dawn of existence mankind has defined the supernatural creator in many ways, not always as an omnipotent being. There is no reason to assume that if the universe was created, then that being had to be omnipotent.

I’m not concerned with how people have defined their gods (small “g”). I’m concerned with how God is defined, which is as omnipotent.

If people choose to “worship” creations of God’s creations (“gods” or angels or demons or men or ideas), that’s their problem.

What you are failing to understand is that there is only one way to define God, and any thing that is defined as non-God is not God but, if worshipped as a god, a god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

The proof you require is that reason be applied to this “puzzle” before you’ll have faith, but this “puzzle” is the singular case where you are prohibited from applying reason before having faith.

Therefore, there is no proof possible for you, due to your incapacity to accecpt the “ground rules” of this “puzzle”.
Ah, so you are saying that it is no reason to have faith in your God? Sorry, but it is not my unwillingness to accept your deity’s ground rules that is the problem here. There are many things that I could accept on faith, but why should I? Especially if there is no reason to do so before, and no reason to do so after?

You will have no wish to have faith (in anything) until it is needed. You simply have no need of faith right now, because your “lesson” is to deal with things (ie your life) without “faith”.

*I’m not sure what your meant by that last sentence (above), but I have a funny feeling that that encapsulates your “life problem” right now quite well. Best to you in working it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

You are right. The logic is perfectly circular. But it’s the same logic which states that “1” is “1” because “1” can only be “1” and not any other number, which is a valid, though circular, logic.*
Comparing apples to oranges here. If I remember correctly, the Catholic church also teaches that 1 = 3. *

1 does not = 3, even for the Catholic. Once God is three persons, though, much like 3 people can be 1 family.

…but I’m not going to deal with you about the Trinity, as you have apparently no clue as to what your talking about in that regard in the first place.

‘1’ is simply a symbol that we use to define a certain concept. That concept and whether or not we can demonstrate that it exists is important, not the name by which we call it. The same goes for your God, if we cannot demonstrate that he is omnipotent, or even that he exists, then we have no logical basis for belief.

God, as a word, is the symbol that we use to refer to God, the being. There is no “proof” acceptable to you to “demonstrate” that God is omnipotent, primarily because you refuse to accept that ANY definition of either God or omnipotence could possibly exist.

Since you have made it impossible for you to have “God” “PROVEN” to you, it’s not surprising that no one can prove it to you.

It’s simply not your time to be able to have faith in God. We’re here to present you with things to think about about God, not to deal with your impossibilities.

…continued →
*

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *It’s not important that you have faith in God, the “omnipotent one”, Who is singularly worthy of having faith in. What I was saying above was that if “omnipotence” has any meaning for you, only the omnipotent is worthy of being called omnipotent, and that to do otherwise is just silly.**Since you have no concept of what omnipotent means, this is not a concern for you.*Last I checked, omnipotent meant ‘all-powerful’, no? If a being is indeed all-powerful, then that being has the right to be called all-powerful. However, if that being cannot be shown to exist, then why bother debating its omnipotence?

Only if you first have faith in God can God be shown to exist. Once you understand that God does exist, then you can “debate” about the consequences of His omnipotence.

But since it’s not sensible to “debate” about the consequences of God’s omnipotence unless you acknowledge His existence, it makes no sense for you to “debate” anything regarding God whatsoever.

So why do you do it?

It seems that you want to show that faith in your God is logical definition rather than actual logic.

For those with faith in God, and for those who’ve recieved confirmation of His existence by the application of that faith, God is God, and belief in Him is not subject to being “removed” by logical means.

I don’t really understand your counterpositioning of the terms “logical definition” and “actual logic”. I’d love to hear an explanation. Thanks…!

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *Which tells me that you don’t like the idea of God. You can’t like the idea of God if you don’t “get” the idea of God (omnipotence). You can’t like what you are utterly clueless about.*I understand what omnipotence is, you have simply failed to show why it is necessary.

You’ve failed to show why it’s unnecessary. You prefer to not deal with the “problem” of “ultimate beginning” whatsoever.

You proclaim that since no one can “show” how “it all began”, that that proves that God doesn’t exist. That is your leap of faith.

We proclaim that God, as the omnipotent, created “it all”, and that the fact that we are here shows that “we got here by God’s ways”. That is our leap of faith.

You’re welcome to your view, and we’re quite happy with ours.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *Incorrect. You actively dislike your conception of God, aka your “god” (small “g”), whom you mistake for God, and battle against as a “hazard”. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here doing that very thing.*I am here for many reasons, few of which concern your or your God.

Tells us about a few, then.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *If you’d rather not have me hope the best for you, that’s fine, but that would diminish you as a person in my eyes, so I’ll not assume that you’d turn away my good wishes.*You can wish whatever you want, it concerns me not.

I’ll let your attitude speak for itself. Have a great one, Suat.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
*

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You don’t know that God does not exist, yet you believe that the universe’s entire existence, can be explained through naturalistic explainations. It hasn’t been proven that the cause of the “universe”, as a whole, is a naturalistic one; there for the statement “i am an athiest” is a statement of faith, not a statement of Science. You believe in what you cannot prove; that is faith. Saying that your an athiest, is not the same as saying that one is agnostic. As far as emprical evidence is concerend, we are all “agnostic” about the question of God, but we can have “faith” based on the “probabilities” of one of either side being true.

There is more to my being an atheist than simply my opinion that the universe was caused by non-supernatural means.

Tell us about it, Merry…!

I’m sure there are some lovely politico-sociological idealisms involved…

So what’s the scoop…?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The universe had a beginning, and time began with it

This is the logical consequence of that statement: If there was no time before the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Hence the universe has always existed.

That is indeed true…!

But the “time” we’re talking about is a quality of the universe, not the maker of the universe, who since He existed before our time began (with the creation of the universe) must have His own type of “time”,… which is precisely what the Church professes.

So, what’s your problem with that?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

The question of time is much like the question of the tree falling in the wood.

If time passed and there was no one to perceive it, did any time pass at all?

Yes,… time passed,… just like the tree (unperceived by people) still makes noise in the forest.

Care to explain how you meant your explanation, Servus?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
As far as emprical evidence is concerend, we are all “agnostic” about the question of God, but we can have “faith” based on the “probabilities” of one of either side being true.

I just stumbled upon this post. I must have missed it before, but you seem to be saying here that science does not, in fact, prove the existence of God.

In addition, you place faith as the primary means of knowing God. Something I have been saying for pages and pages…

This stuns me, since you have been so strident in your assertions to the contrary.

All I can say is, welcome to the club! Your Atheist Membership Card is in the mail…

Heh. Heh.

You ninnie… have you simply not been paying attention?

No, science does not “prove God”.

Yes, faith in God is required before knowledge of God can be had.

If you believe this, as you seem to imply, then your “Theist Card” is in the mail.

Just how, exactly, do these beliefs make one an atheist?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
There can be no natural cause; if there is a cause, then it must be one that is timeless, immaterial, and with out quantity or space.

I have two issues with your line of reasoning.

1. The statement “there can be no natural cause” is self evident if by “natural” you mean within the laws of physics of our universe. Obviously if our universe did not yet exist, any cause would, by definition, be non-natural in the sense of “outside our universe”.

**But that does not rule out some other *“natural cause” ***that operates outside the bounds of this universe, utilizing some other laws of physics unknown to us.

Your “bigger natural cause” would still have needed to have been created.

Once again, we recurse right back into infinity again, unless we stop that with an “omnipotent” original Creator.

Since we cannot observe anything beyond this universe, clearly we shouldn’t be so quick to make absolute statements about what can and cannot occur.

You’ll have to propose a solution to the “infinity recursive god” problem before your non-commital-ness to ANY solution will be taken seriously, as your “solution” solves nothing while ours does.

1. How can anything exist that is timeless, immaterial, without quantity or space, and how is that different from “nothing at all”?

“Nothing at all” is just that,… nothing.

ANYTHING outside of our time, matter-inventory, space (aka our universe) is timeless, immaterial and without quantity or space.

Got more nifty questions?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
There cannot be a natural cause, because in order for there to be a “natural cause”, one needs “time” existing prior to the existences of the universe. You seem to over look that fact in your post.

We disagree as to whether or not there needs to be a cause or even a beginning, and whether or not your God qualifies as said cause or beginning. I doubt that will ever change.

We attempt to answer a very simple question: How did everything come to be?

You (apparently) have no need to ask that question.

Who is the more inquisitive party here? Who shows more intellectual adverture?

We have an answer to the question that satisfies the present knowledge of the situation.

You choose to not bother with the question, and deride those who deal with the question, not based on any data, but on the prejudice that “these 'God” people are evil, or at least foolish, and need to be taken down a peg or two".

All atheistic thought is inherently anti-God (not non-commitally-God) and political in nature.

An atheist is an atheist because he dislikes God’s people, not because he dislikes God.

They couldn’t care less about God. They care tremendously about their enemies, in a negative way of course, who are God’s people.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
My point above was that unless one understands the terms of the subject in question, one tends to sound a bit “under-educated” in the subject in question.

Keiliolu you’ll like this link I promise, if it doesn’t raise a smile at least nothing will. I’m sure you’ll guys will love this if you haven’t seen it before.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2…iers_reply.php

That was funny…!!

Thanks bunches…!

 

[Keikiolu]

Freesoulhope,

Your arguments from cosmology don’t work and here is why.

I will outline the argument and then state my objections.

The new and improved cosmological argument is presented as such:

1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
**Therefore, the universe had a cause. **

Theists like to tack on at the end “Oh and that cause is the Judeo-Christian God.” wait a minute…you are not allowed to just tack on stuff at the end in a formal argument.

God is not “tacked on” to the statement that “The Creator created the universe”.

Your “formulation” that:

1. Everything that begins (has a beginning) to exist had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (had a beginning).
3. Therefore: the universe had a beginning which necessitates a cause.
   …simply replaces “God” with “cause”. God IS the cause. There is no “tacking on” involved.

The nature of the cause is not proved by this argument in any way because the nature of the cause is not even mentioned in this argument. If you want to prove the nature of the cause, you must make another argument proving that the cause has the characteristics of a creator like the Judeo-Christian God.

The characteristic of the Creator is that He is “The Creator”. That IS God (the Judeo-Christian revealed recognition of the Creator who is the only God regardless of whom it is that recognizes Him as such).

The “proof” that God created the universe is that only God could create the universe. That proof won’t fly with you, no doubt, but that’s as good as it gets. Thus,… once again,… “faith before reason in one matter alone”.

Secondly, this argument still does not evade the regress objection as it was meant to. This argument was formulated in this way so you could reply “Ah ha! but God did not begin to exist!” Then you must accept that it is possible for things to be eternal and thus you must accept the possibility that the universe could be eternal.

It IS possible that “the universe” could be eternal. But if it is eternal (though fluctuating between “informational” and erasure) in a purely mechanical way, and is indeed “the universe” such that nothing exists outside of it, would you like it?

Since, in my opinion, the “mechanical” solution offers me an inferior “gratification” than the “created” solution, I’ll choose the solution that best suits my needs, as will you, I’m sure.

Next. to evade the regress objection, you claim that since God did not begin to exist, the regress stops with him. Wait a sec, theres that unjustified assertion again. You can’t simply assert things whenever they are convenient, especially if you are using a logical argument. If you assert something, you have to have an argument that its possible for something to just exist without ever beginning.

That is simply the definition of God. It’s not an assertion to be supported,… it’s an axiom to be stated.

Lastly, it seems as if we do have evidence that there are things which can neither be created not destroyed…if you consider energy a thing. So far the best theory we have is that energy exists and the first law of thermodynamics is applicable without being bound by time (Noether’s Theorem). Thus we can see the beginning of the current universe as a change in the nature of energy irrespective of time and therefore this would be the creator and not anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

The universe would not be the creator. It would be the created. Under your theory there is no creator, as eternity is completely occupied by the (singular) universe in flux from one form to the other. The only thing coming close to being the “creator” would be the “laws” by which the transformation happens.

Your theory is plausible, but still doesn’t answer the question of the “beginning” other than to say there simply wasn’t one.

So, we’re left with a condition of FAITH again. Either you believe that the universe had an ultimate beginning, or not.

Both views are held on faith.

The only question is what your chosen faith does for you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[nucatholic]

Has anyone here ever heard of String theory, M Theory, the Inflationary Model or any other research being done? There are many, many different theories regarding the birth of the universe and almost all of them have something preceding the current universe. The truth is more than likely to be more than any of us ever imagined. For example, one theory with a strong mathematical foundation states that there is somethng called the multiverse and our universe is simply one part of the multiverse. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland will be finished by next May and then the really interesting stuff will begin because we will hopefully be able to see whether or not components of String Theory are able to be observed. Any argument from cosmology is simply naive as to the history of science and the current progress. I remember now why I stopped coming back to the forums and thats because its like arguing with an army of robots that simply throw out unjustified axioms and misunderstand the form and function of logic. Very frustrating. In the argument, cause is not just another name for God. The premise clearly states “The universe has a cause.” and YES you MUST argue that God is the only possible cause for this if you want to come to that conclusion. Itd be like me saying “This smooth rock has a cause” and you saying “That must have been a happy, intelligent, just and courageous human being!” no it doesn’t have to be a human being with arbitrarily inserted characteristics that have nothing to do with the creation of a smooth rock. It somply has to be something possible of making a smooth rock like the movement of water etc. If I wanted to, I could use your method and come up with some Star Trek-like entity that simply exists with the capability of creating universes but has no character, personality, agency or intentionality. Why? Its just the definition of my Star Trek-like entity!

 

[Keikiolu]

Has anyone here ever heard of String theory, M Theory, the Inflationary Model or any other research being done? There are many, many different theories regarding the birth of the universe and almost all of them have something preceding the current universe. The truth is more than likely to be more than any of us ever imagined. For example, one theory with a strong mathematical foundation states that there is somethng called the multiverse and our universe is simply one part of the multiverse. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland will be finished by next May and then the really interesting stuff will begin because we will hopefully be able to see whether or not components of String Theory are able to be observed. Any argument from cosmology is simply naive as to the history of science and the current progress. I remember now why I stopped coming back to the forums and thats because its like arguing with an army of robots that simply throw out unjustified axioms and misunderstand the form and function of logic. Very frustrating. In the argument, cause is not just another name for God. The premise clearly states “The universe has a cause.” and YES you MUST argue that God is the only possible cause for this if you want to come to that conclusion.

**Itd be like me saying “This smooth rock has a cause” and you saying “That must have been a happy, intelligent, just and courageous human being!” no it doesn’t have to be a human being with arbitrarily inserted characteristics that have nothing to do with the creation of a smooth rock. **

But we’re not talking about “smooth rocks”. We’re talking about all of everything,… the universe, which even if it (what we see as “the universe”) is only one of many multiverses, is ONE THING (everything) that either came into being or has always been.

God is merely the “code word” for the only possible single thing that could have created the ONE THING that is everything.

It somply has to be something possible of making a smooth rock like the movement of water etc. If I wanted to, I could use your method and come up with some Star Trek-like entity that simply exists with the capability of creating universes but has no character, personality, agency or intentionality. Why? Its just the definition of my Star Trek-like entity!

Your right. You could invent such a being. What would your creation mean to you and how you exist in the world?

You can create “gods” as much as you like, and humans do that all the time. The question is what the difference is between these “gods” and God?

If you choose to not believe that God could exist, then you’re free to do so, but you need to realize that you do that on faith, just as we choose to believe that He does exist, on faith.

No cosmology can explain the actual beginning of everything, because there is no real way to know what was before there was that which was. How this whatever it was before there was anything became something.

 

[john_doran]

Has anyone here ever heard of String theory, M Theory, the Inflationary Model or any other research being done?

m-theory is string theory; it unifies all of the various, mathematically equivalent string theories.

nucatholic:

There are many, many different theories regarding the birth of the universe and almost all of them have something preceding the current universe.

…and almost all of them entail an initial singularity at some point in the past.

nucatholic:

The truth is more than likely to be more than any of us ever imagined. For example, one theory with a strong mathematical foundation states that there is somethng called the multiverse and our universe is simply one part of the multiverse.

sure…and what’s your point? it seems to me that you and other agnostics/atheists on this board point to the vanishingly-small-but-non-zero-possibility of the most speculative of physical theories as a good reason for disbelieving in the existence of god, but then turn around and deny that very same reasoning when applied to things you believe in (other minds, existence of an extra-mental reality, the past, etc.)…

nucatholic:

The Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland will be finished by next May and then the really interesting stuff will begin because we will hopefully be able to see whether or not components of String Theory are able to be observed.

have you ever heard of lee smolin? he’s one of the originators of loop quantum gravity. you should read his book on string theory, the trouble with physics, for a good argument concerning the viability of string theory.

but the LHC’s coming online certainly is exciting.

nucatholic:

Any argument from cosmology is simply naive as to the history of science and the current progress.

…and the same goes for any use of cosmology you might make as a reason for atheism.

right?

nucatholic:

I remember now why I stopped coming back to the forums and thats because its like arguing with an army of robots that simply throw out unjustified axioms and misunderstand the form and function of logic.

that’s funny: that’s the same reason i take time off from coming here and engaging in discussions with you and the other non-believers on these boards…

nucatholic:

Very frustrating.

indeed…

nucatholic:

In the argument, cause is not just another name for God. The premise clearly states “The universe has a cause.” and YES you MUST argue that God is the only possible cause for this if you want to come to that conclusion. Itd be like me saying “This smooth rock has a cause” and you saying “That must have been a happy, intelligent, just and courageous human being!” no it doesn’t have to be a human being with arbitrarily inserted characteristics that have nothing to do with the creation of a smooth rock.

but the point of the cosmological argument is simply to establish that the universe was created by something, a proposition which atheists necessarily deny…

the other characteristics of that first cause are established by ancillary arguments.

 

[freesoulhope]

Has anyone here ever heard of String theory, M Theory, the Inflationary Model or any other research being done? There are many, many different theories regarding the birth of the universe and almost all of them have something preceding the current universe.

I appreciate all these other “theories”(if that’s what they are yet); at the very least, they are entertaining contributions to the history of human thought, especially the unproven hypothesis, of the multiverse. But if you knew anything about the theories your self, you would know that none of them provide a naturalistic explanation of how “existence” “ultimately” came to be. You still have to provide a naturalistic explanation that posits a natural cause, being the beginning of all cause and effect. In any case, if time is not eternal, you have to posit a natural cause outside of the natural universe; which I and others have shown to be logically flawed. Your frustration comes from us not excepting your opinions. I think you would do better if you provided some logical proofs for being atheist; just like the theists on this thread have provided logical proofs for being theists.

Secondly; it does not matter how far you take time + cause and effect, back in to natural history; you still have to account for the existence of existence; and I think that I and others have reasonably proven that, in any case, the universe, or even the multiverse, can never give a logical explanation with out introducing logical flaws and contradictions; because ultimately we have to go out side of nature to explain it; existence cannot cause or explain its self.

Even if the multiverse theory is true, it does not follow that the multiverse infinitely regresses; this is still wishful thinking on the part of the atheist. Such an idea is logically flawed, as you would still have to explain why cause and effect was actualized in the first place; and if there is no reason for the effect, then this contradicts logic and the laws of cause and affect.

For something like the multiverse to work, every Universe would have to be very similar in respect of universal laws, if we are to assume that this universe is the end result of a previous chain of natural causes; since cause and effect is a product of other laws and entities that exist in our universe, such as the passing time; it is apart of a universal whole. Also; If there is another universe apart from ours, I’m not sure that it would be reasonable to assume that it exists “outside” of are universe as a “separated” entity; I feel that would some how interfere with the flow of time in relation to cause and affect. Rather, I would speculate that our universe exists within another universe, and that universe exits within another one, so on and so forth. That maybe incorrect, but in either case, the atheist still has to provide an ultimate “natural” cause, which cannot exist in an eternal natural universe, and neither can an eternal natural universe logically exist when one considers cause and effect with the passing of time.

This is not something I’m making up; these are the facts of life.
You want me to believe in an ultimate natural cause, a logical contradiction, for no other reason, other then, it is your faith. If you got a problem with logic, speak to God about it; I did not make reality.

Whether or not we agree, one fact has been made apparent: The Atheist has no scientific, empirical or evidential reason to be Atheist. It is a faith and a very unreasonable one at that.

If I wanted to, I could use your method and come up with some Star Trek-like entity that simply exists with the capability of creating universes but has no character, personality, agency or intentionality. Why? It’s just the definition of my Star Trek-like entity!

The Mere fact that something is created, and rational beings have arising out of the animal kingdom that can comprehend God, is one very strong possibility that the “ultimate cause” of our existence, is the God of the bible. In that possibility, I have faith. The star trek God you speak of is not reflective of the evidence.

You have faith in something that you can’t even logically prove; I would say that places me in a better and more intellectually responsible position then you.

I don’t think that your non-belief in God is a matter of evidence; rather I think it’s a matter of taste and fashion. Why would you not want to believe in God? Why would you not want God to exist in the first place, if in fact the ultimate existence of God provides “meaning” to your very being? That’s what bothers me. That’s the question that I ask myself.

 

[cpayne]

A lot of discussion over the past several posts has revolved around whether or not Christian belief is logical. I’d like to point out something about the charge of “illogicality” (if that’s a word). Just disagreeing with someone’s premises doesn’t make their argument illogical. In order to be illogical, it has to violate a logical inference rule. For example:

All contingent entities require a positively existing reason for their existence.
The universe is a contingent entity (even if it has existed forever).
Therefore, even if it has existed forever, the universe requires a positively existing reason for its existence.

This is a simple modus ponens. Now you might disagree with the premises, especially the first. (I don’t see how anyone could disagree with the second, but probably someone does.) My point is: Simple disagreement does not make the argument illogical. :twocents: