There is no God

[TySixtus]

mikew262:

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.

Ah, good ol’ Pascal’s Wager.

Ty

 

[TySixtus]

Ahimsa:

All I’m saying right now is this:

(1) the universe has a cause

Nope. This isn’t true. There’s plenty of dissention, both scientific and philosophical, in this area. I, for one, don’t believe this to be the case.

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

Once again, you are equivocating the creator of the universe with your god. What if the creator of the universe died last week?

But, for the sake of argument, I will concede that the creator of the universe could be called god. Is that the only attribute you require for god-hood?

Ty

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

This is nonsense.

Give me some characteristics of your god and I’ll disprove them, and easily.

ok disprove true love.

 

[TySixtus]

Strider:

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

That’s pretty much the stance. If it does exist, but exhibits no characteristic of existence, not only does it present a contradiction, but it’s existence is now irrelevant. I don’t need to see the evidence personally. The evidence needs to exist.

To unilaterally declare the existence of God impossible is incredibly egotistical.

Perhaps. To claim that you as a Catholic have a truth that no one else has is just as egotistical. Physician, heal thyself.

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?

God is, by definition, supernatural. Supernatural beings don’t exist. If it doesn’t exist in nature (ie, in the Universe) it doesn’t exist. This really is quite simple. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that your god exists.

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.

I already answered this question a few posts ago. In short, if you are going to claim that matter and life (everything) need a cause, but exempt god from that line of reasoning, you are guilty of special pleading. If everything needs a cause, fine. That includes your god. You’ve only succeded in moving the problem back one step. If the universe has always existed, it needs no cause.

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…”

I was trying continue the discussion. If you want me to be pigheaded, fine. I can do that. Provide some characteristics of your god, and I can disprove them. You’ve yet to do so.

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.

Oh I’m sorry. You merely reminded me that hell exists. Thanks. The petulance is refreshing.

Ty

 

[kev7]

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?

No there is not a natural proof of God. You will never find one either. That is part of Gods plan. He wants us all to have a REAL and true choice. If we had proof that he existed no one would belive in him. You can’t have faith in something you have proof of.

Only faith can save one from the absense of God.

 

[mikew262]

TySixtus:

Ah, good ol’ Pascal’s Wager.

Ty

I’m not sure who Pascal is, however, this forum has plenty of ex-atheists on it, who finally saw the light. Hopefully, once the light bulb comes on for you, you’ll join that group.

In the meantime, you’re making 'Ol Satan a happy guy.

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

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 damn 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

Is the Catholic Church the best one to know about God? If you won’t agree it is, which religion does it best in your mind?

 

[TySixtus]

Verbum Caro:

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

Yes, but you make one mistake. Causality is a property of the universe. The Universe itself is not subject to the primary cause idea, simply because it transcends cause itself. Cause itself springs from the universe.

Now, you can claim that your idea of god fits this definition. The problem you run into is that you’re left explaining the other characteristics people have made up (omni-benevolent, etc) which, according to Occams Razor, make your explanation more complex than it needs to be. Ergo, I’ve more reason to believe that that Universe has always existed.

Ty

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

That’s pretty much the stance. If it does exist, but exhibits no characteristic of existence, not only does it present a contradiction, but it’s existence is now irrelevant. I don’t need to see the evidence personally. The evidence needs to exist.

No evidence is required for Gods existance. But your faith is required to understand his truth.

Perhaps. To claim that you as a Catholic have a truth that no one else has is just as egotistical. Physician, heal thyself.

The difference is that we are not trying to prove or find god. We believe that our faith is an example of God reaching out to us. All we have to do is open up our hearts not our minds. Christ is the word that provides us with this message.

God is, by definition, supernatural. Supernatural beings don’t exist. If it doesn’t exist in nature (ie, in the Universe) it doesn’t exist. This really is quite simple. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that your god exists.

Again no proof is required for faith. Open your heart and you will find God. You will see him in the least of our brothers and sisters.

I already answered this question a few posts ago. In short, if you are going to claim that matter and life (everything) need a cause, but exempt god from that line of reasoning, you are guilty of special pleading. If everything needs a cause, fine. That includes your god. You’ve only succeded in moving the problem back one step. If the universe has always existed, it needs no cause.

Gods love has always existed. Even without the universe love can exists.

When it comes to proof for Gods existance there is only faith and love.

God is such that even the simple can understand him.

Christ would simply tell you to open your heart and not your mind.

 

[estesbob]

TySixtus:

There are two kinds of Atheism:

1. Strong atheists, such as myself, assert that no god exists. We are making a postive statement about the state of the universe, meaning that we believe there to be no god, of any kind, in existence.
2. Weak atheists express a lack of belief in god. In other words, a weak atheist will say that they don’t believe in god, but will not assert it is impossible for one to exist.

There are other differences, but these are the main two.

For example, it is possible for a person to be a Strong Atheist WRT to the Catholic god, but a Weak Atheist WRT to, say, Thomas Paine’s deist type god.

After all, everyone here is a Weak Atheist of some type. How many believe in Zeus, or Thor?

Ty

You claim to be an atheist but are hanging out in a Catholic Discussion group. Why?

I suspect that you have not been a atheist for long in that your defenses of your lack of belief in this thread are weak, to say the least.

 

[buffalo]

TySixtus:

Yes, but you make one mistake. Causality is a property of the universe. The Universe itself is not subject to the primary cause idea, simply because it transcends cause itself. Cause itself springs from the universe.

Now, you can claim that your idea of god fits this definition. The problem you run into is that you’re left explaining the other characteristics people have made up (omni-benevolent, etc) which, according to Occams Razor, make your explanation more complex than it needs to be. Ergo, I’ve more reason to believe that that Universe has always existed.

Ty

What did they teach you about the attributes of God? Do you fully understand the word almighty?

There are things God cannot do.

1. He cannot sin
2. He cannot lie
3. He cannot change truth into falsehood

 

[Ahimsa]

TySixtus:

Nope. This isn’t true. There’s plenty of dissention, both scientific and philosophical, in this area. I, for one, don’t believe this to be the case.

So, you don’t believe in that the universe (e.g., the Big Bang) had a cause? It just popped out, due to no “reason” whatsoever?

Once again, you are equivocating the creator of the universe with your god. What if the creator of the universe died last week?

It’s possible that the cause of the universe died last week (assuming the cause was “alive” in the first place).

But, for the sake of argument, I will concede that the creator of the universe could be called god. Is that the only attribute you require for god-hood?

Another characteristic of “god” would be “that which sustains the universe at each moment”. Here, “god” does not merely cause the universe 14 billion years ago, but “god” sustains it at each moment.

In other words, that which makes your existence possible each split second, we can call that “god” also.

 

[kev7]

TySixtus:

Yes, but you make one mistake. Causality is a property of the universe. The Universe itself is not subject to the primary cause idea, simply because it transcends cause itself. Cause itself springs from the universe.

How can you prove that the universe transcends cause itself?

Can you show us the equation of the universe for this?

Sounds like you have too much faith in science - a science that hasn’t proven your conjecture. Perhaps you are capable of taking a leap of faith after all. Too bad you have faith in something so transient and void of love as science.

You are in fact no different then those that believe in God. Your faith is in science and in the logical mind of man (quite pathetic actually). Your own high priests state that we are simply “smart monkeys”. Well… If that is true I wouldn’t put to much faith in the mind of a monkey. I don’t care how smart he thinks he is.

I think that science will get to a point where it can’t predict much of anything and when that time comes science will die. It will serve no purpose to man. That is in fact already happening with quantum theory.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

TySixtus:

Yes, but you make one mistake. Causality is a property of the universe. The Universe itself is not subject to the primary cause idea, simply because it transcends cause itself. Cause itself springs from the universe.

Now, you can claim that your idea of god fits this definition. The problem you run into is that you’re left explaining the other characteristics people have made up (omni-benevolent, etc) which, according to Occams Razor, make your explanation more complex than it needs to be. Ergo, I’ve more reason to believe that that Universe has always existed.

Ty

Thanks for your response Ty, I’m glad you are still holding you head above the tidal wave of posts the have come your way.

I want to leave aside the the issue of Occams Razor, and focus only on this business of the universe being uncaused. If, as you say, “cause itself springs from the universe” and also, as you hold, the universe is uncaused would it be fair to say that the Universe is an “uncaused cause”, in your view?

I’m sure that you are not positing any type of intentionality to this uncaused Universe – we are speaking only of “cause and effect” here, right? Such that all the causes we observe “in” the universe have some prior cause, which also has a prior cause, which always has a prior cause, until you get to the very existence of the Universe itself, which is itself the FIRST cause, or at least the very FIRST cause was “in” the universe, but not caused by something else. Am I presenting your position fairly?

Thanks,
VC

 

[TySixtus]

kev7:

ok disprove true love.

God is true love?

So when he ordered Israelites to conquer nations and murder their babies, he was exhibiting true love? When he murdered the first born of Eqypt, or when he made a bet with Satan on how far he could push Job, or when he supposedly murdered the population of the world except for 8, or when he sent bears to murder 42 children for calling his prophet bald, or when he killed Ananias and Sapphira for not coughing up enough dough,* he was exhibiting true love*?

Are you kidding me? Do you even know what love is? Methinks perhaps you do not.

Ty

 

[buffalo]

Everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence,
The universe began to exist, it had a beginning. Therefore it has a cause, a reality who everyone calls God.

 

[TySixtus]

estesbob:

You claim to be an atheist but are hanging out in a Catholic Discussion group. Why?

I don’t “claim” to be an Atheist. I am an Atheist. Check here if don’t believe me.

I suspect that you have not been a atheist for long in that your defenses of your lack of belief in this thread are weak, to say the least.

I’ve been on for three years. And if my arguments are so weak, why aren’t you taking a shot at them instead of questioning my motives?

Bluntly, I’ll post at whatever message board I want.

Ty

 

[mikew262]

estesbob:

You claim to be an atheist but are hanging out in a Catholic Discussion group. Why?

I suspect that you have not been a atheist for long in that your defenses of your lack of belief in this thread are weak, to say the least.

I suspect Ty is not 100% convinced yet that God doesn’t exist. He’s running the standard “Atheist playbook” with all the same arguments atheists have always used, but I bet there is still a little doubt.

 

[TySixtus]

buffalo:

What did they teach you about the attributes of God? Do you fully understand the word almighty?

There are things God cannot do.

1. He cannot sin
2. He cannot lie
3. He cannot change truth into falsehood

Once again, you need to prove the existence of god before you can start spouting off his supposed attributes.

Ty

 

[steveandersen]

Ahimsa:

So, you don’t believe in that the universe (e.g., the Big Bang) had a cause? It just popped out, due to no “reason” whatsoever?..

he actually has a point there
quantum theory does allow for things to spontaneously arise
and since time didn’t start until there was a universe there was technically no “before” the Big Bang

However, while citing materialistic arguments might be the wrong track, citing the “reason” might be the way to go.

Ty, why?