There is no God

[Strider]

TySixtus:

This is nonsense.

Am I required to provide proof that leprechauns don’t exist? No, of course not. Your god is no different. Give me some characteristics of your god and I’ll disprove them, and easily.

You can’t prove the non-existence of anything. You maintain a lack of belief when sufficient evidence hasn’t been provided. You do this in almost every facet of your life, except your theology. Your theology gets a pass.

Ty

The self-contradiction of your first and last paragraphs struck me.
“You’ll disprove them easily,” and “You can’t prove the non-existence of anything,” are essentially the opposties of the same statement. If I give you characteristics of God, you’ll disprove them easily, but you can’t prove the non-existence of anything, which is exactly what you would try to do if I give you charachteristics of God.

Try this one: God is the Uncaused cause. Now disprove that, easily or not.
Oh, and given that you were a Roman Catholic altar boy, lector and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion and have presumably been taught the basics of dogma and doctrine, if you’re wrong, the ramifications may be much more serious than you being magnanimous enough to admit it.
I will pray for you. You may not believe in Him, but He believes in you.

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

I am curious - is this your first stab at this?

Any chance you’d answer the questions I posed?

Tell me, if your so good at it. How is this statement logical:

Theist: God exists
Atheist: Prove it!
Theist: Well god made you, that’s how!

The theist is presupposing the existence of god to prove the existence of god.

This is ignorant and illogical.

So you tell me. Is this your first stab at this? My six year old wouldn’t use this obvious of a logical fallacy. But it helps your argument to insinuate I’m stupid, or new at this, fine. I’ll take it as a sign of your defeat.

Ty

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

Of course. If I believe first, then I suppose everything will be hunky-dory. Right?

Wait, wait, wait. So I’m to assume that you’ve got the scoop on what the one true god is, and what he wants from mankind?

In case you didn’t know, the 35,000 denominations of christianity all claim the same thing. As do the hundreds of denominations of Islam, and the Jews.

So can you give me any reason why I should trust you over everyone else? I mean, only one can be right, right?

Ty

If you have reduced youself to a simple natural proof for God you will not find one.

Well, let’s take this step by step. If one were to believe in some form of truth he would naturally eventually work his way up to the experts. Say you are interested in Math. There can be many Math guys that have some of the Math basics down pat and they all would be true. But some have more Math facts at their disposal. You would want to align yourself with the one that has the most facts, correct?

 

[Ahimsa]

TySixtus:

Hogwash. Prove that this god is responsible for my existence.

You’re assuming too much. All I’ve said so far is that one characteristic of “god” is that which is ultimately responsible for your existence. Whatever “that” is, “that” is what I’m defining as “god”.

Perhaps you’re denying that there is any “ultimate” anything responsible for your existence?

Furthermore, you’ve simply equivocated “god” with “that which creates life”.

Or “that which is the ultimate reason for life’s existence”.

As far as I’m concerned, my mom and dad are responsible for my existence. Last I heard, sex leads to babies. And my mom and dad aren’t gods.

Your mom and dad would perhaps be “semi-gods,” because they are not “ultimately” responsible for your existence – since they themselves had parents, and their parents had parents, and so forth.

You’re getting close.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

Strider:

The self-contradiction of your first and last paragraphs struck me.
“You’ll disprove them easily,” and “You can’t prove the non-existence of anything,” are essentially the opposties of the same statement. If I give you characteristics of God, you’ll disprove them easily, but you can’t prove the non-existence of anything, which is exactly what you would try to do if I give you charachteristics of God.

It’s “impossible” to “prove the non-existence of anything” because you can’t prove or disprove that which doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, it is outside the realm of logical classification.

However, when I say “god doesn’t exist” I am saying that I’ve weighed all available evidence and it’s logically “impossible” for the Catholic god (or any other god) to exist.

Since the idea of impossible introduces a whole spectrum of philosophical problems for some people, I try not to use it. But I say god is impossible in the same way I say a square circle is impossible. The idea of a god is logically contradictory, just like a square circle.

Try this one: God is the Uncaused cause. Now disprove that, easily or not.

Again, this sentence is nonsense. There is no such thing as an uncaused cause. This is classic Catholic doublespeak. Are there square circles? Married bachelors?

And even if god is the cause of the universe, you are no closer to proving that this god is the one described in Catholicism.

Oh, and given that you were a Roman Catholic altar boy, lector and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion and have presumably been taught the basics of dogma and doctrine, if you’re wrong, the ramifications may be much more serious than you being magnanimous enough to admit it.

And you wouldn’t be a Catholic without the threats of hell. Thanks so much for the Christian love.

Ty

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

And you wouldn’t be a Catholic without the threats of hell.

Is this what you were taught? Where are from?

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

If you have reduced youself to a simple natural proof for God you will not find one.

Why not? If this god of yours is so painfully obvious and transcendant, wouldn’t a simple natural proof work? It would certainly save a lot of people from hell, would it not? What does god gain from remaining hidden?

Well, let’s take this step by step. If one were to believe in some form of truth he would naturally eventually work his way up to the experts. Say you are interested in Math. There can be many Math guys that have some of the Math basics down pat and they all would be true. But some have more Math facts at their disposal. You would want to align yourself with the one that has the most facts, correct?

Fair enough. Yes, I would “align” myself with the person who, as far as I could tell, knew more about math.

TY

 

[Verbum_Caro]

TySixtus:

Again, this sentence is nonsense. There is no such thing as an uncaused cause. This is classic Catholic doublespeak. Are there square circles? Married bachelors?

Hi Ty,

It looks like you have a good discussion going. I hope you don’t get fatigued, because you might be fielding questions and arguments from all quarters since your views are somewhat of a minority on the forum.

I’m not sure that I quite understand your above statement. Why is there no such thing as an uncaused cause, or why can there not be? Surely it would be a contradiction to posit an “uncausing cause” but why would you say that every cause must be caused by something else? I’m not sure what internal contridiction is evident from the language of the phrase “uncaused cause”. Can you help us understand why you object to that?

Thanks,
VC

 

[TySixtus]

Ahimsa:

You’re getting close.

With all due respect, I can recognize where you’re going with this. If you want to posit your god as the creator of the universe, fine. I’ll sit quietly while you prove it.

Ty

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

Why not? If this god of yours is so painfully obvious and transcendant, wouldn’t a simple natural proof work? It would certainly save a lot of people from hell, would it not? What does god gain from remaining hidden?

Fair enough. Yes, I would “align” myself with the person who, as far as I could tell, knew more about math.

TY

So let’s dispense with the issue of 35,000 denominations. We can save time. Since you were educated Catholic you know full well the Catholic Church posseses the “fullness of truth” and why She claims it. Right?.

 

[tommyt_520]

Prove that God does not exist.

 

[mikew262]

I’ve found that atheists live in a very material and concrete world. If they can’t see, touch, or smell something, it doesn’t exist. What a narrow view of the universe you all have.

Look at the complexity of the world you live in. You think all this just happened by chance? I don’t mean to be condescending, but you are young (I’m assuming) and in a stage where you probably feel you don’t need anybody. However, as you get older and get into the twilight of your life, the idea of death will start weighing on your mind. What a scary thought, soon my life may be over and there is nothing else? Sorry, thats not now how I’m going out. I know there is life after death, and I hope it will be with God.

Christ anticipated how you feel, when he stated " Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe."

The vast majority of people in this country believe in God. What makes you think we are wrong and you are right? Pretty arrogant thinking!

One last thought. If you happen to be right, and us believers wrong, then when we die, there will be nothingness. However, you’d better be right, because if the opposite is true, you have so much to lose.

 

[Ahimsa]

TySixtus:

With all due respect, I can recognize where you’re going with this. If you want to posit your god as the creator of the universe, fine. I’ll sit quietly while you prove it.

Ty

All I’m saying right now is this:

(1) the universe has a cause

(2) let’s call this cause “god”; we could equally call it “bambam” or “mixlpyk”.

Would you agree with these statements?

 

[Strider]

TySixtus:

It’s “impossible” to “prove the non-existence of anything” because you can’t prove or disprove that which doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, it is outside the realm of logical However, when I say “god doesn’t exist” I am saying that I’ve weighed all available evidence and it’s logically “impossible” for the Catholic god (or any other god) to exist.

So, if you don’t understand it or see the evidence for it, it doesn’t exist? You don’t mind if I disagree?

TySixtus:

Since the idea of impossible introduces a whole spectrum of philosophical problems for some people, I try not to use it. But I say god is impossible in the same way I say a square circle is impossible. The idea of a god is logically contradictory, just like a square circle.

To unilaterally declare the existence of God impossible is incredibly egotistical. Many millions, maybe even a few smarter than me, or even smarter than you, have seen clear, logical evidence for the existence of God. Exctly how is the existence of God a contradiction, like a square circle is?

TySixtus:

Again, this sentence is nonsense. There is no such thing as an uncaused cause. This is classic Catholic doublespeak. Are there square circles? Married bachelors?

Again, you misstate the case because an uncaused cause is not a contradiction, but, just for you, I’ll back up one step and challenge you to explain, scientifically, the origin of matter and the origin of life

TySixtus:

And even if god is the cause of the universe, you are no closer to proving that this god is the one described in Catholicism.

I’m not here to prove anything. I thought you were going to disprove all charachteristics of God easily. Now you’re down to “even if…”

TySixtus:

And you wouldn’t be a Catholic without the threats of hell. Thanks so much for the Christian love.

Ty

You can’t find the word “hell” in my post because I didn’t use it. I merely pointed out that there are consequences to actions. I believe God exists, but I am not him. I wouldn’t dream of consigning anyone to hell.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

quote=Ahimsa let’s call this cause “god”; we could equally call it “bambam” or “mixlpyk”.

[/quote]

Ahimsa,
To be really consistent you should have said "we could equally call it “bambam” or "Gazoo**"


VC

 

[TySixtus]

Verbum Caro:

Hi Ty,

It looks like you have a good discussion going. I hope you don’t get fatigued, because you might be fielding questions and arguments from all quarters since your views are somewhat of a minority on the forum.

Heh. I hang out at www.iidb.org a lot (with the same screen name), but I like to actually engage people with opposing viewpoints. It makes me think, and it educates me.

I’m not sure that I quite understand your above statement. Why is there no such thing as an uncaused cause, or why can there not be? Surely it would be a contradiction to posit an “uncausing cause” but why would you say that every cause must be caused by something else? I’m not sure what internal contridiction is evident from the language of the phrase “uncaused cause”. Can you help us understand why you object to that?

Cause:
(1)

a The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.

b The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.

Cause, when used in this discussion, is generally taken as far back as we can allow. In other words, if you are going to claim that everything needs a cause, so does god. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

If, however, we can state that not everything needs a cause, the same can be said of the universe. Ergo, our need for the universe to have a cause no longer exists, and the universe as it stands answers the question of where we come from.

To claim that there is an uncaused cause is to break the chain of causality, thereby rendering causality meaningless. For if god doesn’t need a cause, neither does the universe.

We have two possible choices. Either the universe exists and always has, or god has created it. Since the idea of an uncaused cause is contradictory (as I stated above, the idea breaks the chain of causality, thereby rendering causality false in at least once instance) and since the idea of god creating the universe requires more explanation and raises more questions than it answers, Occams Razor tells us that the existence of the universe as is makes more logical sense.

There is no reason to posit the existence of a creator. What makes more sense is that the universe has always existed.

Ty

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

I am curious - is this your first stab at this?

no, he’s just 24…but he’ll get over that

Ty,

I understand where you’re coming from but don’t expect materialist rationalistic (and perhaps not even by your standards rational) answers.

there is no material proof for the supernatural so don’t expect one

People usually come to God when searching for meaning.

Forgive me, I wasn’t trying to be snide with the above remark about your age. My point was that there are recognizable stages in human development and we old(er) guys know all about how existence can be explained by biochemistry…it just leaves us cold. Or me at least.

I know that given enough time hydrogen will turn into stars and flowers and Catherine Bell. I understand the probability of life but I am amazed by the improbability of me (and you and all those others). And the thought that the only logical, purely materialistic rational measure of success is how much genetic material I pass on is unsatisfying. I like to think there is something else…I can’t prove it but I like to think it.

You might claim that I’m using God to salve my inadequacies or merely to comfort myself…perhaps…perhaps not. But, whether you consider it Marx’s opiate or the Angels’ Glad Tidings, one of the function of religion is to ease men’s burden
It might drive the Traditionalist around here crazy but at your stage it is a start.

I don’t think all your questions can be answered in one post but the fact that you are here at all indicates that you might not be to sure yourself.

So think about meaning a purpose in you life…think about the purpose in your son’s life…and think about Pascal’s wager

like I said…it’s a start

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

So let’s dispense with the issue of 35,000 denominations. We can save time. Since you were educated Catholic you know full well the Catholic Church posseses the “fullness of truth” and why She claims it. Right?.

I know why the RCC claims to be right. They claim to have the scoop, to have the unbroken succcession from Peter. I ain’t buying it. And even if they did have an unbroken succession, this doesn’t prove they “have the path to god”. It merely proves that their organization has had an unbroken chain for 2,000 years. While impressive, it doesn’t prove a thing about god, or Jesus, or sin, or salvation.

Correlation people, correlation! The catholic church claims to have teachings passed down for two thousand years. Even if this is true, by what criterion are we to assume that these teachings originate, or in some way correlate, to god?

Ty

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks, Ty, for your response.

A follow up if you please:

TySixtus:

If, however, we can state that not everything needs a cause, the same can be said of the universe. Ergo, our need for the universe to have a cause no longer exists, and the universe as it stands answers the question of where we come from.

Are you then positing that the universe is an uncaused cause? But if so then you would run afoul of:

TySixtus:

To claim that there is an uncaused cause is to break the chain of causality, thereby rendering causality meaningless. For if god doesn’t need a cause, neither does the universe.

So in your following dichotomy

TySixtus:

We have two possible choices. Either the universe exists and always has, or god has created it.

I would assume you hold the former: that the universe exists and always has. Does that mean the universe is uncaused?

Thanks for you continued discussion on this matter.
VC

 

[TySixtus]

tommyt_520:

Prove that God does not exist.

I’ve already gone over this. Please read the thread next time.

Ty