The Magical Universe Of Atheists
1] Universe is by self.2] Worlds are by self.3 Stars are by self. 4] Planets are by self.5] Sun and moon are by self. 6] Time and space are by self .7] Matter is by self. 8] Energy is by self. 9] Atom is by self. 10] Evolution is by self.11] Air is by self 12] Life is by self. 13] Cell is by self 14] Genetic code is by self.15] Plants are by self. 16] Animals are by self 17] Human beings are by self 18] Ego is by self 19] Reason is by self 20] Conscious is by self 21] Conscience is by self 22] Knowledge is by self 23] Art is by self 24] Justice is by self 25] Morality is by self 26] Every thing is by self but creator can never be allowed to be by self , it will be ''illogical'' 27] The whole universe may be magical but one ''magical'' God is impossible . Therefore, atheists have built a magical universe for avoiding a ''magical'' creator.
Self = Natural?
No wonder your religion causes so many fights and arguments.
Edit - Oh Wait! I get what you are saying at last!
It is not possible for anything to exist without being created.
Except one special thing.
Why didn't you say so?Is there a point to this thread other than to do to atheists what you have accused atheists of doing to you.. mocking? I would think that your faith and Allah would have taught you to rise above that sort of thing.At least that's what I remember when I read the q'uran
I don't think you are going to get much sense out of this one. But he is a good example of why religion usually causes conflicts:
1. Propose an unprovable, untestable, irrational premise.
2. Any one who does not agree with it is ignorant/blind/illogical/rebelling against a superior/without morals/insert attack here.
Trouble is - you don't need to learn anything at all to propose this premise. Nothing. All you have to do is attack anything that disagrees with it. No logic, rationality or reason involved.On this point I very much agree with you. Just as long as you are not tarring all those with a faith with the same brush.
Disappearinghead, This is not faith my dear, this is how such kind of magical universe may be proved by logic?.
Magical. As in violating the natural laws of the universe?
That would seem to be the province of a god, not the natural actions we see around us every day and are sloowly coming to understand.Wilderness, What is nature ? A biological process or law of working of things ,it has no conscious of working , how it existed by self and performed an impossible work of infinite universe ?, If nature having no conscious of even it self,has build this infinite universe by self,then ,this is magical world .
It only seems magical to those who do not understand it, so they attribute what they don't understand to a God.
A tree do not make it self, it's a result of random causes as is everything in the universe including the universe itself.Rad Man, problem is not when you say there is a process of law working in the universe, problem is there when you claim that only a blind and unconscious law emerging itself can do all that great work of universe by self. Law it self logically requires a Law Giver.
Get an education and quit asking stupid questions.
Paul Wingert, I will continue to raise'' stupid'' questions until ''great logicians'' like you and others do not reply for the same.
Why call me 'my dear'? I don't know you and you are not an old lady.
Disappearinghead, if ''my dear'', has a problem with you,I am sorry ,I will not repeat it.
No - you seem to be one of those who rejects everything in the bible. Well - except the few bits you want to be true.
Not exactly. I take a pragmatic approach to the bible and do not hold to the illogical idea that one either believes in all of it or none of it. The fact that it was collected together piecemeal by various committees over hundreds of years demonstrates that each book and chapter can be assessed as an individual item.
Illogical? Like the idea of a god non-thing?
You simply lost the right to use words like "illogical," when you stated your belief in a God. Sorry.Well there's no pleasing you anyway Mark.
Aw, c'mon. How can you even think of saying that other people's view of the bible is "illogical," when yours is "logical."? Nothing to do with pleasing me.
Thought I'd give it a try anyway.. I know I'm gonna hate myself for asking
Well.. **Shrugs**. In this particular case, I can't disagree with you
I'm afraid you are unable to understand.
The universe was not made by itself, it occurred as a result of something. Following that logic, everything occurs as a result of something. No magic required. We are the result of evolution. A God would need to be the result of something as well.Rad Man, What is evolution and some thing ? simply, a biological process of genetic variations having no conscious of it self even,how a simple law or process has been existed and how it automatically built an infinite universe ? How this universe may exist and be built with out a supreme conscious ? it is impossible to say that this great work has been designed by unconscious biological process ? You may drive your car with blind eyes ? How you expect that a blind law has designed and worked this universe ?
What has evolution got to do with that quote from Rad Man?
It would help if you could stay in the same topic for at least two consecutive posts.
We get that you think God did it and can't even imagine any other possibility. Could you please try and accept that we can? News flash: some people are different from you and see the world differently. possibly, in some cases, because we read research and are acquainted with the correct use of logical syllogism.psycheskinner,I am interested to know the'' logic'' behind your ideas , I will accept your ideas if these are logical and according to reason ,therefore, I am asking is it possible that an unconscious and blind law of nature and evolution has designed this great work of universe and maintaining the same from destruction ? A blind law can do it ? if it is possible ,I will handover my car to a blind driver for driving ? My point this time is not God has created universe, my point is that evolution and nature may do all that unconsciously ?such kind of a great work not of making a table only .
Evolution did not create the universe. I'm sorry you can't follow the process, but as psycheskinner says some of us can. It appears your indoctrination prevents you from understanding the process.
Rad Man, it is not indoctrination, it is reason preventing me to accept that unconscious and blind law of nature and evolution how may design this infinite universe and even maintaining this project from destruction ? It is more interesting that these biological process and laws even are unaware of their existence, how these laws can do all that as this is not a simple work of making a table, this is the the work of evolution of infinite universe . This evolution may work unconsciously and blindly with out support of a supreme conscious ?
Perhaps not a deliberate attempt to avoid but a subconsciously arising one that is largely dominated by left brain thinkers? Who it seems prefer to use logic and reason to describe our world and every thing in it.
Every word you have used in your post are concepts conceived of and created to appease the logic. Otherwise we would still be communicating in various other different ways.What other ways would we be communicating in?
Short of going back to ancestral ways of communicating, we might never know the other ways? Ever since the concepts of words were introduced and have been around for a long time we have never ever sought other ways to communicate except via the logic and it's language. Like most habits they are very hard to break... sometimes useful...sometimes not.
So - you have no idea what other ways? You are probably not aware of body language? Music? Art? Sculpture? Mythology? Symbology? Physical touch?
Or - do these not count as ways to communicate?Why not? They're as good as ways as any. Those are ancestral ways are they not?
They are ways we communicate today. And "language" is also ancestral. You said we no longer use other ways to communicate. Turns out we do - yes?
Indeed they are ways in which some choose to communicate today. They are creative ways of communicating for most who are largely dominated by the right brain, however, the flow of creativity can be impeded because the logic by default may decide out of habit to enter into the creative process.
Rarely, will you find someone who is dominated by the logic to communicate in such ways wholly and completely and without the use of language to describe the essence of the message.So - yes - your original statement was false. Thank you. The reason we developed language is to avoid the sort of miscommunications that result from trying to communicate the way you just tried to do.
"the flow of creativity can be impeded because the logic by default may decide out of habit to enter into the creative process." is just word salad, because you are incapable of properly communicating when trying to use your left brain only. Thus we end up burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy.In your mind perhaps it was false. Our dialogue has proven otherwise. Your logical mind has failed to comprehend the whole message. Instead it only took what it understood and/or chose to and left the rest to the wayside.
Oh well... as usual with our dialogues you always seem to go off on a tangent of your own.Aww - so you didn't say that we no longer communicate in other ways?
All my fault huh? Not your inability to communicate clearly. Usually that is the way with believers.
ciao.Try reading my first reply to the OP. It might make more sense if you read carefully. If not no worries, we have been here before. Old habits die hard.
I did read carefully. I guess I just missed the unspoken bit in the Bongo Drums.
But - I got it. All me.
pennyofheaven, Thanks for comments,I have tried to unveil the ''rationality'' behind the ''logic'' of atheists.
if you have neither, unveiling it in others becomes extremely difficult.
All of the arguments you're using are common CHRISTIAN apologetics tactic, and they've all been thoroughly debunked, as I tried to demonstrate on another thread - which you ignored and continued to repeat the same nonsense regardless of what anyone else was saying. Standing there repeating yourself regardless of what other people contribute is NOT a conversation. You're a sidewalk preacher. Nothing more. You aren't interested in a discussion, and when faced with one, you retreat to your original position and mistakenly think that stubbornly repeating yourself constitutes a conversation. Your loss.JMcFarland,no rational and reasonable replies have been submitted in response of my arguments,wilderness and riddle666,have tried their best efforts to response my point of view,no doubt,their knowledge,their certain view and their rational and logical stance inspired me and surprised me and I have no hesitation in admiring their logic but it is my sincere opinion,you may disagree,that replies were not complete satisfactory and still my firm opinion is that God may be logically proved and there is reasonable possibility of creator,Mr,Don W and pennyofheaven also have understood my logical point of view,I appreciate their deep thinking.
No, the reposes have been submitted. Instead of responding to their rebuttals in kind, you ignore them and repeat the same thing that you started with. That is not the way a debate works. All that you have are assertions, and no proof
You started out by saying that you could prove logically or explain rationally the presence of a creator. Now your only "reason" is that you don't understand, so it turns out that you were lying. Isn't there something against lying in your book?
riddle666, who is lying?, we are not here for personal allegations of lying,we are here for discovering truth by the possible efforts,I still have the opinion that we have undeniable evidences for presence of creator but I am in search of the argument that is the most convincing for you and all other atheists,you rightly stated that there is some thing against the lying in our book.
You are lying because you first said you can show god with reason but is now saying that god is beyond reason. As both are contradictory (I hope you understand what contradictory means) only one statement is true the other is false and uttering falsehood is called lying.
You only have the opinion, you failed to show any evidence. I am not going to repeat.
I'm not sure, but I think the argument you are making is:
If atheists accept that things (e.g. the universe) can exist in and of themselves, i.e. do not require a "creator" whatever that is, then they cannot argue that god cannot also exist in and of itself without need of a "creator". In other words, although allowing for such a phenomena removes the theist need for a creator, it also removes the atheist objection to the idea of something existing without cause in and of itself, which is exactly how some religions describe god.
Is that your point? If it is I think it's a good one, and I don't think anyone has addressed it. If it's not, apologies for muddying the water.Not exactly. God is supposed to be a thinking being like human while universe is a collection of things separated by space with no ability to think.
If something can exist of itself then the nature of the thing is irrelevant. Whether it's an entire universe, the god of Abraham, Hindu Brahman, or a button, the point is that if you allow that things can exist without prior cause, then you can no longer sensibly argue that god cannot exist because god has no prior cause.
I think that's what sibtain means when he says "Every thing is by self but creator can never be allowed to be by self , it will be ''illogical''". I think he means that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the universe can exist of itself, but god can't exist of itself.Don W, Thanks for understanding my point of view, you have described very well but I can only pray for others for having sincere thinking .
Except that god is an explanation put forward to explain the presence of the universe. Nobody has any doubt, universe exists. To propose a creator one has to suppose that some time in the past(a video analogy) universe suddenly went missing but this god somehow escaped that fate.
riddle,what nonsense, space never allows God to think ? or thinking God can never create or manage space? He can create'' things'' and He can manage ''nothing'' between the things , Why are you confining Him by your limited reason? this is problem of our limited reason this is not the problem of creator,never mind pl.
?? Where did I say that?
Space cannot be created for "space" is not a thing but our conceptualisation of nothing.
To create he has to exist first, do you understand "exist"?
No I am confining you by reason. Why did you reject mirza ahamad or sai baba? Just like them, you also cannot explain your claim about god rationally. Then how do you know? What made you believe Muhammed, a fellow whom you have never seen, a fellow who didn't know about computer or viruses, other than that you were born to parents or born in a society that believed him?riddle666, you mean a ''nothing'' can never be created and space is'' nothing''? if so, then'' nothing'' is not required to be created it is required to be manged between'' things'', God never created nothing ,God manged ''space'' or'' nothing''between ''things'' and it is possible for God ,[ here I am supposing that your definition of'' space'' is correct],you want to say that indoctrination is foundation of my belief,it is separate debate,but no doubt indoctrination is an obstacle in the way of truth and Quran has declared so,but it does not mean one can never study history,the message and his conscience,one can find truth using his all sources of knowledge,and practically, he has conscientious for making difference between right and wrong and justice and cruelty,and he can practice the same, Quran has presented this universal criteria for truth almost on its every page.
No Don, we are trying to eliminate all Magic and understand the universe without inventing magic to explain it.
Rad Man, and doing so you have created ''magical universe'',you have ''eliminated'' magic in very good way.
And just how is eliminating magic creating magic?
All you are doing is creating a magical being that makes no sense and defies all logic magically create the universe to answer your question about how we go here when you have no evidence for said being. It's like finding water drops on leaves in the morning and claiming it's fairy pee.Rad Man, No magical being, but absolute reason that maintains the working of the universe by His scientific laws,it is just finding water drops on leaves in the morning and discovering the reasons for the same.
The question is not if or how. The question is why. Why from a perspective outside causality.
Mark, Self= natural=by self, and Deepes, this is pointless because because this is by self .::::::::::::::::
What are you attempting to do here exactly? We know how all the things on your list came to exist. We can prove most of them and it wasn't "self."
Mark, I am just trying to present the concept of universe proposed by atheism and its magical system, how in an attempt to exclude ''magical'' creator they did with universe ''logically'' ,Is it possible such kind of universe in your opinion ?
I already answered that question several times. As have several other people. And we have explained the logic, reasoning and scientific facts. You have ignored everything and repeated your ridiculous claims. We can explain the existence of just about everything on your list. The fact that you choose to remain ignorant of these explanations is your problem.
This is why your religion causes so many arguments and fights. It thrives on ignorance.Mark, you never answered how such kind of magical universe may be built by logic ?
It is natural, therefore not majikal. And I have explained it several times. as have others. The fact that you ignore everything is your problem.
Mark, What is nature, a simple biological law or process that has no even conscious of its own ,you say this unconscious law has designed this infinite universe and is still moving it ,even this nature never knows that how it has been existing?, you can operate this computer with closed eyes ? if not, then how you expect that a blind law not knowing itself may design this universe and operate it ?
Yes. Sorry that is not good enough for you. My eyes are shut, yet still I Know where the keys are.
Mark,can you read what I am writing ? ,I f not, then your blind'' nature'' not knowing even it self,how can give you a capability of seeing,reading and writing ?
What a silly argument. Nature is indeed blind. At last you seem to see that. Well done - we seem to at last be educating you. This is why most of nature has become extinct or otherwise died out. The Universe is a tough place, unless you know where your towel is.
Do you know where your towel is?Mark, by these words nature can never become capable to do the great work by self , you must prove that blind nature and blind evolution having no conscious can do that work you have assigned him.
What great work?
self
/self/
Noun
A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.
Pronoun
Oneself, in particular.
Adjective
(of a trimming or cover) Of the same material and color as the rest of the item: "a dress with self belt".
Verb
Self-pollinate; self-fertilize.
Synonyms
noun. ego - person
pronoun. oneself - itself - himself - myself - yourself - herself
adjective. uniform
Mark assigned work to nature, wow!No - you must prove that evolution and nature do not work as we understand them to work, thereby disproving all current science. Evolution and nature seem to work without divine interference. You are the one claiming this is not the case.
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.Okay, what conscious mind would invent the guinea worm? Once can certainly understand how the evolution process brought it about, but why would a loving conscious mind who made the entire universe for us also make the guinea worm to torture the poorest among us?
This might help,
http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/
www.learnenglish.deThank you riddle666. I LOL'd......hard.
People speak different languages, get over it. I wish there were more people willing to cross the language barrier and engage those with different beliefs and ideas. Notwithstanding your rude and silly comment, I hope sibtain continues in his efforts to engage.
That wont help, the woman pictured on the British Council website is not wearing a veil, therefore she is a harlot.
I was right, I hate myself..
But I gotta ask, if there is no point, then why post it (other than to be mocking and insulting to others)?
Is the point of the OP to get us step by step, little by little to a place where we cry out with ecstatic joy "Allah is great and Muhammad PBUH is his one true prophet"?
It's one thing trying to prove a creator but a whole new ball game trying to prove the Quran is the divine revealed word of Allah with less than zero evidence to go on.Isn't Mirza Gulam Ahamd(pbuh) a true prophet and the last one?
Disappearinghead,riddle666, Can you operate your computer with closed eyes ?, if not , then, how do you expect that unconscious and blind biological process of law named as nature or evolution ,not knowing even its existence, may design and operate this infinite universe ? this is my point.
"Law" and "evolution" are not two people who "design" and "operate" universe. Laws are a description of how the nature behaves and evolution is the description of a process by which all the present living beings came into life. If you have ever bothered to study what evolution is, you wouldn't have asked such silly questions.
Exactly, evolutionary process and natural law are not the designer or operator of the universe, these are the resulting mechanisms or modus operandi. Since in your estimation it is beyond knowledge to ever know who or what originated the laws and processes, you say that the result (the laws and processes) is the origin. That is where you lose the logic; result is NOT origin. Logically, the only explanation is God. “Nothing” is not credible, and laws and processes cannot be deemed as originators. In our own example and experience in life, we ‘determine’ what laws and process that will generate and produce positively.
Btw, evolution is never defined as “description of a process by which all present living beings came to life”. This is utterly wrong and mistaken. Evolution is “change in inherited characteristics of biological organisms from generation to generation”.Care to share the logic with us? Because this is just nonsense unless you can show us the logic behind your claims.
Your first claim seems to be that there is a who or what that originated these processes. Please prove it. If you are going to make outlandish claims - telling us it is logical without offering up the logic is intellectually dishonest.Kindly lookup definitions of ‘Logic’ and ‘Knowledge’. I know we have a battle of psychologies here but that doesn’t mean we twist and turn on commonly understood language which renders even having an argument useless.
By ‘knowledge’ you seem to be saying observable proof. We are speaking of ‘logic’ and I would extend to say ‘inference’ and ‘deduction’. For example, you see smoke coming from behind a mountain. It is logical to say there has to be a fire, and incendiary material, and probably wind to fan it—that is by inference, deduction and it is a logical conclusion but you have not seen the fire. To say that productive law and process exists, and yet without originator, is not logical and breaks down known principles of thought-validation and credibility.No I simply asked you to share your logical deductions. Simply stating that something "logically," is the default without offering the logic behind it is intellectually dishonest. I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I said. Thanks.
Please do share your logic and not offer any more smokescreens. Thanks. Also - please don't cast any more aspersions on my understanding of the English language. Feel free to look that word up in a dictionary. I realize it is easier to do that than offer your logical reasoning, plus - as I understand it - being dishonest in order to convert people to your ridiculous belief system is acceptable given your lack of moral compass, but - still - it is somewhat offensive.I have repeatedly stated the logic and the inference. If we don’t agree on it, or on what is logic, then let’s leave it at that.
You don’t have to insult the people who convert to the belief system I prescribe to. They are entitled to their own intelligent choice. I respect your position in that I don’t compel you to anything. And if I ever gain power over you, I pray that I will remain faithful to the command of The Quran that you can never compel anyone in matters of faith and freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right.No insult was offered. I know that lying is acceptable to you. My moral code prevents me from lying.
Sorry if you find that offensive. I know you have no moral code to guide you. You will never gain power over me.
Also - stating - as you do - that something is "logically" true without offering the logic is - at best - dishonest.
No wonder your religion is so despised.
It's also not logical to think that everything needs a creator except the creator.
In the case of smoke that you mentioned, it's also not logical to assume that someone created the fire when something could have started it. The same logic applies to the universe. It's not logical to assume someone created it when something could have.'Something' is totally fine. We are in agreement! A miracle?
The "creator must have a creator" argument has a fundamental problem. It is an infinite loop that has no end. You can never circle back. Hence, the considerable option is ... <Creation and Creator > that's it, we close the loop there. It works. My two cents.You admit that there is a major flaw with your logic and are good with it rather than looking for something without the flaw that answers all the question?
The mind is a terrible thing to waste. You see, if you take the creator out of the picture we have no fundamental flaw.
1. Someone created the universe. Fundamentally flawed.
2. Something created the universe. No fundamental flaws.'Something' is better than 'nothing'. I take that as progress. You said . . . something 'created' the universe--- that makes the 'something' a creator. We may have radically different notions of the Creator, but let's take this as agreement I say!
Something is nothing at all like someone. Something certainly started the big bang and that something was started by something. Much like a seed making a tree, no someone needed in the process. As soon as you introduce the someone you've got flaws that can't be explained.
Who sowed the seed? Someone sowing the seed becomes flaw? Inexplicable? illogical? irrational?
Oh well, suit yourself.
Why is "Nothing" not credible?
Acknowledging that the vast majority of people deal only with Newtonian physics in their daily lives (the rock fell because the wind blew it) that does not seem to be a reason to declare that under all conditions and environments there has to be a cause (origin).
So why is "nothing" not credible in the world of quantum mechanics or even the environment of a singularity? Neither are Newtonian in nature, neither are familiar to most people and neither is the environment in which we always see a cause for every action. Why then insist that our Newtonian experience is valid?You still have to have an un-caused cause.
Now you sound like sibtain. Or is that uncalled for?
Pretty sure it is uncalled for.
His premise still requires an uncaused cause to start the ball rolling.Universe does not roll. God still has lips over opening, blowing it up. Only when He has finished that can he roll it down the alley.
People undergo Newtonian physical discourse daily and may be only sub-consciously aware of it. However, those same people may not offer the 1, 2 step Newtonian explanation and nothing beyond if they are asked to reflect on how they validate their existence.
Whether the environment is Newtonian or not, ‘nothing’ is not credible because it discards the principles of discovery and validation rooted in deduction, inference, and logic.
The reason that scientists termed the discovery of Higgs-Boson as ‘The God Particle’ is because it dispenses law to all other particles with their critical attribute and value of mass. This is pointing to a unified authority that is conducting over the universe. That is why they have termed it as such. And the person whose scientific work lead to the discovery said that he followed guidance in The Holy Quran. As was Newton known to be deeply religious."Whether the environment is Newtonian or not, ‘nothing’ is not credible because it discards the principles of discovery and validation rooted in deduction, inference, and logic."
The exact same concept would seem to apply to gods; they are not credible because it discards the principles of discovery (nothing to discover) and validation through logic (no logic can offer proof of a god).
But it's not a reasonable statement. Because there is nothing to discover, or because (using false premises) logic does not validate it does not make it wrong. After all, logic itself cannot validate anything; only a correct premiss in conjunction with a correctly drawn conclusion can do that.
Higgs-Boson does not "dispense law to all other particles", and the nickname "God Particle" has nothing to do with any god. No more than mentioning that a person working on believes in the myth is evidence the myth is true.
Lots of people are and have been deeply religious - your point? That a great many people voluntarily delude themselves in rationalizing whatever they want to be true? We all recognize that!“The exact same concept would seem to apply to gods; they are not credible because it discards the principles of discovery (nothing to discover)” > there is a God to discover, with ‘nothingness’ there is nothing to discover.
“and validation through logic (no logic can offer proof of a god)” > subjective statement, the logic does not exist for you, it does for me.
“After all, logic itself cannot validate anything; only a correct premise in conjunction with a correctly drawn conclusion” > even premise is challenged and oft rejected, comes back to what you find acceptable
“Higgs-Boson does not "dispense law to all other particles", and the nickname "God Particle" has nothing to do with any god” > That is not what the terminology is suggesting. Can you tell us then why the term was coined as such?
“That a great many people voluntarily delude themselves in rationalizing whatever they want to be true? We all recognize that!” > Subjective ridicule . . . best avoided. It is counterproductive, denotes insincerity. And emanates from a position of weakness.Find the ball in the cup game; when you find nothing you have found the most important fact of all.
I understand that, but then subjective logic is useful ONLY to the "logician".
True. Some are willing to accept subjective imagination as fact, some are not.
Because it was being promoted as being the key to understanding. A key part of the holy grail of physicists; a unified field theory. And, of course, (and probably more importantly) it made very good press in the media.
I did ask your point in mentioning the two people that were strong theists - that seemed the only possibility. And yes, it also ridicules the idea that a respected man, believing in a god, is evidence a god exists. Unless you had some other reason?Finding our truths (or the ball if you will) involves many more dimensions than logic and rationality, including deeply personal experiences and what are deemed as spiritual attributes. You find nothing. I find my Lord, Master, Creator, and Sustainer.
Premise can be subjective but a valid logical chain should have wider appeal. Logic demands explanation be offered, whether accepted or not. To say that the life and cosmos exist yet nothing originated it nor sustains it is offering no explanation. Natural laws and processes are not a logical explanation because they themselves are following rules and instructions. I know we are locked in our positions, so it is up to readers searching for an answer to judge between us.
It is not just popular science culture and newsworthy stuff. It makes sense and it is logical to search for a common source when you observe a wide spectrum energies and bodies under cohesion and in concert.
I will concede that my mentioning the theist-scientists is open to criticism. I sought to buttress my position. I’ll add that Stephen Hawkins, a great scientist, is certainly no theist. But he did write in ‘A Brief History of Time’ that “human beings are the greatest inconsistency in the discourse of the cosmos and can only be explained as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us”. I know, I am opening myself to criticism again, I’ll take it.We have very different concepts of logic, evidence and proof.
None of those can have subjective concepts or ideas. All must be 100% transferable to anyone that understands them (if you're limited to arithmetic the mathematics from Einstein will not be understood). Any and all premisses must be independently verifiable by anyone, and the logical steps to any valid conclusion are true for anyone and everyone and, to the best of our knowledge (knowledge, not opinion or belief) true in any circumstance/environment - belief, desire and opinion are irrelevant. That is my concept.
Your concept is very different, as can be seen in your first two paragraphs. The truth of the premiss in almost irrelevant; rather it must agree with present opinions and must make the logician "feel good". It needs to be personal, not particularly transferable or recognizable to others. Conclusions must confirm strong belief and emotional desires and must offer more than truth. It must also possess that "feel good" thing before it is of any use.
Very, very different concepts of both truth and logic.
No need to criticize the offering of single persons as believers. From the Pope to Genghis Kahn to Hawking, what individuals believe (or claim to believe) is irrelevant. Not a person but carries some irrational belief or another; the greats (good and bad) from our history are no different. But you know that.
The problem that might be apparent there is in distinguishing between fact or truth and belief or opinion. When one defines logic and truth as subjective and both apparent and useful to only one person I do have to wonder.wilderness,amir786, interesting discussion, the man has three sources of knowledge,intellect, senses, and intuition, as Quran emphasizes , the result of first is ''concepts'', the result of second is ''perception'' and result of third is ''experience'', all are traveling towards'' Absolute reality'' but concepts of reality for all are different ,concepts are reality for intellect, perception is reality for senses and experience is reality for intuition, but reality is not truth,truth may be discovered by the use of all the three sources of knowledge and not by confining through one of the sources as wilderness,is of opinion and this is his problem,my question is that why we must close our eyes from other sources in search of truth?
Any and all of the three can give false-to-fact "knowledge". All three thus require confirmation and that confirmation is best received from the other two and not from strangers.
For instance, intellect may find or create the concept of "god", but that concept needs confirmation to become truth. Senses do not provide that, and intuition has nothing to intuit as it has never experienced a "god". The concept should either be declared false or, at best, assumed to be unproven. Care must now be taken that the false source (intellect in this case) does not override the other two in it's insistence that it is correct.
So absolutely, all three need used to collect knowledge, but only when all three agree does knowledge emerge. Without that agreement all that can be found is "opinion" and "belief", things that are regrettable mistaken for knowledge all too often.wilderness, thanks for being agreed for the collective use of the three sources,and it is also correct that the three must agree that knowledge gets emerged,but who will decide this ? obviously, the person using all the three and the same be tested by many not by all because it will not be purely objective and scientific knowledge wholly relying upon the only inductive reason .
Who decides? If using the scientific method, the entire group of peers. Any "knowledge" found by an individual must be corroborated by the group before being accepted as true.
An individual may corroborate their own conclusion with a different source (out of the three) but the process will always be suspect as subjectivity must always be eliminated and that isn't easy.
An individual might, for instance, declare that god exists because they intuit that it is so. Two sources of information. They can also say that they "feel" god - the third source, and all three sources agree. Unfortunately two of the three are false; the individual is fooling themselves by using subjective desires to produce the conclusion they want to see. Objectively, one cannot intuit something with no experience in doing so, and cannot "sense" god without physical senses to do so. They have allowed the intellect to override the other two sources with false information. The intellect, using false logic, has declared that sensing a tree shows god because the tree cannot exist without a god, but of course it does nothing of the kind. The intellect has also declared that an emotional feeling of god shows god, but that is also false as emotions are not senses and nothing has been sensed at all.
So science uses the scientific method, including peer review and independent testing. In that manner subjectivity is reduced to as near zero as possible.
wilderness, at first you admitted the three sources and now you are declaring the two as false in one breath,what position is correct? ,further you are trying to apply your own standards for the other two sources and without understanding and examining the experience of God are presupposing it is false ,moreover,you even never bothered to find out the problems and limitations of reason especially in respect of creator,even knowledge under scientific method is not certain and has element of probability and is subject to space and time,and may change after further research.
I didn't expect you to understand the post; anyone that thinks an opinion is proven because no one can disprove it won't understand that their own opinions can be false.
So work on it. Try hard to become objective and thus understand that your every opinion is not necessarily true. That your desire for it to be true doesn't make it so and that others will not take your opinion as factual. Understand that your "experience" with your "god" is just as likely to be you talking to yourself as with a god. Understand that "intellect" very seldom produces true knowledge (that requires observation and testing to verify that it isn't merely desire).
Try to understand that the limitations of your imagination include, as the #1 potential problem, that it is only imagination and not knowledge. Understand that just because you wish to believe in something does NOT make it real.
wilderness,my opinion is that all the three sources are required to be exercised sincerely for search of truth without presumptions of including or excluding creator,and you easily find the truth as it is subject to sincerity for truth and if you are already extremely preoccupied by hatred or love for your ideals,it is impossible to find the truth.
Indeed we differ on what we will admit as proof and evidence. But the domain of Logic does not require that kind of proof and evidence. A logical conclusion or a logical theory are just that. Oft, as in scientific process, it is used as guide and can turn out to be wrong. It is one domain or dimension and can be used in conjunction with other factors to arrive at certainty or to improve the chances.
Let me ask you, what are you willing to admit as evidence?That would be incorrect; for a logically derived conclusion to be considered as true it must have both true premisses and correct logic. The GIGO principle always applies to logic with a false premiss or one that is not known to be true. Use of even a correctly applied logical sentence does NOT produce certainty if the truth of the premiss is unknown.
Evidence can be many things. It can be a witnessed action, it can be words in a book. It is very seldom "proof", however, as evidence must always be weight for not only truth but validity.Well,, one need to start gathering the evidence, and its various forms like you mentioned. Evidence can guide one to the proof. Would you agree?
I agree. At last we are on the same page. Do you have some evidence?
Agreed. The largest single problem seems to be in using evidence that is only a very tiny indication that the conclusion might be true as definitive proof.
Example: Darwin find a species of finch that seems to promote the idea of evolution. It is not proof, so he finds 100 other species with similar characteristics. That still isn't proof, although the body of evidence is growing. Add in DNA evidence, tens of thousands of fossils, growing knowledge about genetics and biology in general and you're getting close to proof. Now add in genetics and proven examples of mutations and it becomes a near certainty that the overall concept of species evolving into different species is true. Proof completed.
Example: Joe claims a god created the universe and as evidence offers his opinion that it is so. No corroborating evidence can be found, except other people offering their opinion as well. The god cannot be found, it's universe/dimension cannot be found, no observed actions are ever shown to be definitively the result of the proposed god. Several holy books of scripture are found, but none of the supernatural actions can be verified; the writings are nothing more than additional opinion. While the evidence has grown from the opinion of one man to the opinion of millions it is still in the position of providing only a tiny indication that the claim of a god might be true. Proof incomplete.
@Wilderness, those are certainly some good thoughts. I would like to propose some criteria on the kinds of evidences and get feedback. If we can get enough agreement may be we can move forward. I have started a new Discussion on this as it is getting very busy here. Please look for this and allow me to post an opening post with some criteria suggestions.
These are not 'mechanisms' but human description or explanation of how it all occurred or occurring.
Nobody "originated", heard 'eternal'?
By god you mean "I don't know"? Universe eternal, life has origin, know the difference?
Try to understand what is written before copying.
riddle666, very good,this is my point, what status you are assigning nature and evolution, this is correct position but when you will treat these laws as originator and designers of universe and as only principle cause for shaping the universe essentially and logically excluding an absolute conscious, you commit false premises and conclusions .
About as false as trying to logically require an absolute conscious. You should know that by now; you have repeatedly tried to prove that necessity but have only succeeded in making claims you cannot back up.
You mean without your "absolute conscious" there is no logic or you don't accept any logic without "absolute conscious" as a premise?
What is this absolute conscious? If your premise is "consciousness need creator", then how will you exempt your "absolute conscious" from your premise?
Haven't you noticed that in spite of your repeated assertions you have not provided the true premises for your conclusion of a creator.
Or do you think that by repeatedly saying the same nonsense again and again everyone is going to accept that the nonsense you purport as true?riddle666, wilderness, My, question was very clear,the nature and evolution are only biological process and laws describing how universe works ? Or the same act as originator and operator of universe ? if answer is that these laws are not originator and operator of universe ,then who is originator and operator in your opinion?
Why do you need an originator and operator? Why do you assume there has to be one?
+1
It is an assumption based on faith. Why not just let it be that rather than dressing it up in borrowed robes of empiricism and logic.
In my (unproven) opinion there was no originator and there is no operator.
I understand that your stance is that that is impossible, that there has to be an originator and that you can prove it through logic. Unfortunately, your logic is faulty - mostly because you begin such proof with the premiss that what you are trying to prove is true.
I base that opinion, just as others have said, on the fact that for thousands of years mankind has tried to find a god. They have designed various gods, all with differing attributes, but not a one has ever been show to be true. All are only imaginary, and after those thousands of years of effort and thousands of claims, that there is no god to be found seems to indicate that indeed there is no god there.wilderness,'' 'In my (unproven) opinion there was no originator and there is no operator''. interesting,you have been preaching throughout discussion that logical statement is required to be made and now you yourself are making not only unproven statement but also false statement because logically and scientifically it is impossible, it means your all ideas are based over a false and nonsense statement? Game is over,your ideas being based over a nonsense have been proved illogical and irrational.
You asked for an opinion and got it - why are you surprised that it is unproven? Had you asked for factual statements about the presence of a god I would have been unable to provide any.
I begin to think that you do not know the difference between fact and belief or opinion. Certainly you have continually presented your personal opinions as fact - do you actually believe that anything is true simply because you say it is? When you make sweeping statements and then declare that they are true until proven otherwise, it sure sounds like it...wilderness, I am surprise for the reason that firstly I was expecting that you will build your ideas upon the basis of proven fact but you did not do the same,secondly that your opinion must be at least possible by logically but you are not even in position to prove the possibility of the same,it means you are not going to rule out the possibility of existence of creator? Is it correct ? or you will insist for non existence?
Assuming you accept the possibility of a creator - you must accept that there is an infinite number of possible creators - yes?
I have said it before, but will repeat here:
There is zero evidence for the existence of a creator god, just as there is zero evidence for the non-existence of same. Therefore such a creature may exist and may have created our universe.
Weighing the two, however, I assign an extremely low probability to the existence side. After thousands of years of trying and tens of thousands or even millions of claims of proof, there is still not a single shred of even evidence, let alone proof. Given that, it seems highly unlikely that the creature exists. Technically possible, but highly unlikely.
And I will give you an additional opinion; anyone claiming knowledge of either existence OR non-existence is either a liar or is badly deluding themselves.wilderness, I appreciate your impartial opinion to some extent and welcome you for at least recognizing the possibility of creator, but I have two points to say, how you believe that there is zero evidence for existence of creator ? How may you rule out existence of universe as evidence for creator? you may argue that it is not complete evidence but over viewing the same by declaring the zero evidence is an extreme view against God and logic,it requires to be reviewed ,further, your view that ''since thousands of years there is no single sherd of evidence ''is also extreme point of view and who will declare it as reasonable? lastly, if knowledge means objective knowledge ,your statement ,perhaps,correct but as regard to personal knowledge your statement is wrong .
The universe is not evidence of a creator. It is evidence of the universe. You first have to make the assumption that the universe is a creation, then you assume a creator to create it. I cash assume that a picture in my house is the creation of Bigfoot and therefore Bigfoot must exist. But I doubt you would believe it just because I said it. You would need evidence, would you not?
sibstain is saying that allowing that the universe can exist in and of itself not only removes the requirement for a creator, but also removes one of the main objections to the existence of god, i.e. that god lacks a creator. If the universe does not need a creator, then neither does god. If god needs a creator, then so does the universe. Anything else is special pleading.
But god doesn't appear to exist, whereas the Universe does. If everything needs a creator, then god needs a creator and if things can exist without a creator, then the universe does not need one. Ssistain was the one making the assertion that everything needs a creator. Well - except one thing.
Has sistain - as you are now speaking for him - changed his opinion? Does he now say that not everything needs a creator?
Perhaps you could also tell me - as you now speak for him - whether or not he accepts the possibility that there is no creator.
Thanks. You are awesome for translating for us. Much appreciated.
The argument that god needs a creator is a traditional objection to theism. What's relatively new is the idea that there may be some scientific foundation to the notion that something can exist in and of itself. Allowing that something can exist in and of itself, also allows that one of the properties attributed to god by some religions could be an actual thing, namely self-existence. This makes the assertion that everything needs a creator except god, fundamentally the same as the assertion that everything does not need a creator except god. If one is problematic so is the other. If one is allowed then so must be the other. I don't expect you (or sibtain) to agree with that, because it means you are either both wrong or both be right. In short there is no net gain in either assertion.
I don't think a willingness to understand someone's argument and clarify it for others constitutes speaking for them. I think it constitutes trying to be inclusive. I hope it didn't seem patronising. That wasn't the intention. I think being inclusive is a good thing. Do you think it isn't?
I also think getting people's name right is a common courtesy, as is giving people the benefit of the doubt. So I'll simply point out that you accidentally misspelled sibtain's name in your comment, twice. I'm sure you were not being deliberately rude, and you'll be glad I brought it to your intention.I rarely do anything accidentally. Common courtesy doesn't mean you need to spell it correctly though? I am sure you will also be glad I bought it to your attention that you did not spell his name correctly.
I am not the one making the assertion that everything needs a creator except god. Mr. bukhari is the one making this assertion. He then attacks anyone and everyone who does not agree with this assertion as being illogical and believing nonsense. He also refuses to answer any questions or address any rebuttals other than to repeat his claim.
I have never seen anyone ever make the argument that god cannot exist because he needs a creator, so I think you must be mistaken that this is a traditional objection to theism. The only time I hear it is in the face of "everything needs a creator, therefore there is a god." If everything needs a creator, then god needs a creator. So - this is actually an objection to that particular line of reasoning rather than an objection to theism per se.
But Mr. bukhari has now changed his stance on this (I think) and is of the opinion that god lives in it's own space and time which is a different one than the one we currently perceive and self created, and is not logically provable, because logic doesn't apply to god, because us humans cannot grasp the magnificence/wonderfulness/different rules/whatever. Except those of us that believe - they grasp it just fine.
Thank you for your clarification of what Mr. bhukari was saying, but I don't think his intention is to exchange any views other than his own, and - speaking for myself - I was not having a problem understanding what he means. "A Universe that exists without a Super Natural Creator is magic and therefore impossible," seems to be about the crux of it.Did you deliberately misspell his name then? If so for what purpose? I'm genuinely interested. And if telling someone their assertion is illogical and their belief is nonsense constitutes attacking someone, then you and others are also responsible for such attacks on those in the forum who disagree with your assertions. Why criticise someone else for behaving the same way you do? If you are not the instigator of such behaviour, then why follow suit if you consider it to be wrong? If you are the instigator, then you're on shaky ground as far as criticising others goes.
"Everything needs a creator" is a common misstatement of the Kalam cosmological argument developed by Muslim thinkers in the early middle ages (adopted by Christian theologians in the late middle ages). The actual argument is: "everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause". Current scientific theory suggests the observable universe is likely to have had a beginning, and speculation suggests the cause was some kind of quantum activity. Based on the above argument (which is just the principle of causality expressed in philosophical terms) if that quantum activity itself had a beginning, then it too had a cause, and that had a cause, and so on ad infinitum. That leads to an infinite regress. One way to address that is to assume that at some point something (call it X) did not have a beginning, and therefore does not have a cause. But that's the equivalent of saying X is eternal, which is exactly what theists are asserting. The only difference is that theists assign a load of other attributes to X and call it god. The choice is concede that something can be eternal (a major concession to theists who have been asserting that for the last few thousand years) or face the problems of infinite regress. Which do you choose and why?
You appear to scoff at the notion of a deity existing in a manner we don't understand. I don't think it's such an outlandish notion. Scientific hypotheses speculate about the breakdown of space-time below planck length, parallel universes, multi-dimensional branes that exist outside of the observable universe, digital physics etc. Is the notion of such a deity really that much of a stretch by comparison? Just as the educated guesses of speculative science can hold grains of truth that become the stepping stones of understanding, I think it's possible that the intuitive emotional guesses of theism can contain grains of truth that we slowly discover as our scientific understanding grows.
If you think the argument put forward was "A Universe that exists without a Super Natural Creator is magic and therefore impossible" then clearly you have not understood the argument. The impossible is not the issue. Selective acceptance is the issue. Atheists and anti-theists accept things that are mysterious, but only selectively. For most ordinary, rational people quantum entanglement is mysterious. Einstein called it "spooky". Yet we acknowledge that the mysteriousness is the result of not fully understanding it. We don't dismiss the idea out of hand because we can't explain it. M-theory is not currently provable and may never be, but again we don't dismiss it out of hand because of that. However, when a theist suggests that the mysteriousness of god is the result of a lack of understanding about how god works, and that the notion of a deity should not be dismissed because we don't fully understand it, suddenly that's not a logical argument. If the notion of a deity must be dismissed out of hand, then so must M-theory and all other speculative scientific theories which are not currently falsifiable, including theories about what happened at the beginning of the universe.Guess you didn't bother actually reading anything Mr. bukhari wrote after all.
But - I know you well enough to guess that you would attack me for not spelling the name correctly when you had not bothered to do so.
And of course, Mr. bukhari's complete lack of engagement and unwillingness to address anything at all does not encourage me to hold any respect for him. He will simply repeat his argument that a Creator is needed for everything - with one exception - and anyone who does not agree is being illogical.I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed that misspelling was accidental. You implied it wasn't. Asking if that's the case, and if so why, does not constitute an "attack" by any stretch of the imagination. I am still curious to know whether you deliberately spelt his name wrong, and if so for what purpose? Are you saying it was to show a lack of respect? I guess my confusion stems from a reluctance to believe discussion on the forum has stooped so low.
To be fair, he could level all the same charges at you, that you have at him, including the charge that you will repeat the argument that things don't need a creator - except god, who does - and anyone who does not agree is being illogical.Guess you have not bothered reading any of the foeum then.
Oh well. Do I Need to spell it out? Maybe I do huh? U can understand teh Muslim that can barely speak English, yet cannot understand what I am saying? K . lol Does that mean allah wants you to stone women caught in a room with a man?Guess you have not bothered reading any of the forum then.
Oh well. Do I Need to spell it out? Maybe I do huh? U can understand teh Muslim that can barely speak English, yet cannot understand what I am saying? K . lol Does that mean allah wants you to stone women caught in a room with a man?I understand it, just reluctant to believe it. It's almost like you're saying someone believed something you don't, and refused to change his mind just because you told him to, so you spelt his name wrong. Can't be true. If it were it might prompt someone to tell you that such a thing is petty and pathetic, and prompt them to direct you to the HubPages forum rule that says: "Respect: Please maintain respect for other Hubbers, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them." Thankfully you would never do such a thing, so none of those things need be mentioned.
So - you couldn't be bothered to spell his name correctly, but felt compelled to tell me I hadn't because?
Can you think of any reason any measure of courtesy or respect should be extended to an individual who spelt someone's name wrong to deliberately disrespect them, just because they believe something different? And can you imagine that individual then stooping as low as accusing others of the same rudeness they have displayed, in a transparent attempt to deflect criticism? Such behaviour would be appalling don't you agree?
I think we have all seen worse. I don't think I'd call it appalling.
I have great difficulty using the word "appalling," to describe such a thing, so - no. Annoying - perhaps - yes. Irritating - certainly. But - lets be blunt - you are an anonymous Internet user who tends to take the contrary view regardless and Mr. bukhari has been particularly lacking in the pleasantries, so I am not too worried on that score either. I was more interested to see if I had judged you correctly and estimated your reaction than anything else. But - I am sorry I have managed to appall you. Having said that - if you are so easily appalled, I can certainly recommend avoiding Internet discussion forums - for your health.
If being deliberately rude and disrespectful to people on a web forum is your shtick, so be it, whatever floats your boat. But at least have the good grace not to try to justify it with complaints that people are "lacking the pleasantries" towards you. You can't have it both ways. You can't be rude and abrasive, but then expect to receive "pleasantries" in return.
The fact is - and yes let's be blunt - many of your comments are rude, abrasive and disrespectful and deliberately so. 3 years ago you told me you don't believe meaningful dialogue with religious people is possible, so your intention is to help eradicate religion by ridiculing people (I remember because I wrote a hub in response exploring the alternatives).. So I'm not in the least bit impressed with your "...he started it" routine. You started it when you decided that ridicule is the only way to meaningfully engage with people who don't share your opinions (an ill-conceived notion if ever there was one). So let me offer some advice in exchange for the advice you've offered me. Don't cry foul when someone is rude to you, or when you get criticised for your behaviour, and don't try to justify it with "...but he started it". In light of your stated intention to be deliberately rude to people, that's just dishonest. Some might say appallingly so. And no, for me comments that are intended to antagonise are not so much annoying, as they are ill conceived and misplaced. If that constitutes being a contrarian, then I'm gladly so.Don W ... I admire the way your gentle heart when stretched to its limits, maintained its calmness when expressing an honest heart felt emotion.
And Mark, ,,, I have never seen you show respect to any individual no matter how restectful they are to you WHEN they express any kind of belief in anything outside of your understanding.
BUT Maybe you have shown me some respect by not jumping all over every comment that I make in these forums. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it when you restrain yourself so.
I don't think you understand the difference in believing "IN" a creator (of sorts) and believing "IN" religion. The creator never did tell anyone to believe in religion. On this I agree with you.
Religiousity is a beast which rose up out of the sea of mankind.
I think you can tell the quality of a man by what comes out of his heart through his mouth.Outside my understanding huh? Why should I respect some one who thinks they have a greater understanding than me because they believe in majick?
I understand just fine thank you. I simply don't agree with you. Claiming greater understanding than others when they don't agree with you is why your religion causes so many conflicts - and - yes - you have a religion. As does Mr bukhari.
Exactly what can I learn about your "heart," from the fact that your mouth tells me you think the reason I argue against the existence of a god is because I don't understand?
I didn't cry foul. I pointed out the hypocrisy of preaching at me while not following the "moral," guidelines being preached. My interactions with Mr buhkhari certainly did not start out ridiculing - as you would have seen if you had bothered to look at anything. But - he certainly proves my point that it is not possible to have meaningful dialog with many religious people, and if you had bothered to follow the interactions, you will see that I almost always reflect the person I am speaking to. Including your good self.
Of course you are not impressed with my "he started it," routine because you did not bother reading anything and are not interested in what I have to say other than to shove your self righteous anonymous opinion at me once again. Because that works when seeking meaningful dialogue.
I would also prefer it if you showed me the respect of actually having listened to what I say instead of doctoring it to suit your self righteous approach. Sadly - you don't. Which rather makes you like the religionists. Preaching tolerance and not showing it.
And yes - I read the hub you wrote. I found it rather empty and you did not really address the crux of the matter, or my reasoning. Take Mr bukhari for example - go through all the threads he has started and see how many people have tried to reason with him (including myself). He consistently ignored everything said to him and repeated exactly the same thing over and over and over. He refuses to answer any questions posed, ignores basic courtesies and logical reasoning in favor of repeating the self same thing, which was not actually what you "translated," for him. Why? Because he is on a mission from Allah and he knows what he knows and any one who does not agree is being irrational or willfully rebellious against the Higher Power.Saying you mostly "reflect" the person you are speaking to is a way of using other people's behaviour as an excuse for your own. I assume there is a way you'd like to see people engage, that does involve meaningful dialogue. When reflecting behaviour you perceive as contrary to that, you are deliberately being hypocritical. That's your choice, but no one else is responsible for that choice, just you. I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim your behaviour on the forum is determined by the behaviour of others because you mostly reflect people. No one is forcing you to reflect the perceived rudeness of others. That is a choice you make. No one, no matter how they choose to engage, is responsible for the way you choose to engage.
You would prefer I show "the respect of actually having listened to what I say". This is a genuine question - why should I? If I were reflecting how you engage, I would be making silly words out of your name to show everyone how little respect I have for you. By your standards I would not be responsible for that behaviour, which would be excusable on the grounds that I'm only reflecting you.
Your litany of complaints against one individual are that he is: ignoring what people say, repeating an argument over and over, refusing to answer questions, ignoring courtesy and logical reasoning in favour of repetition, etc. So presumably you think people should not do those things when engaging with others. Yet you do them. The fact you are doing them as some kind of caricature of the person you are engaging with (to achieve only you know what) doesn't change the fact that you are doing them. You also say you are pointing out the hypocrisy of someone "preaching at me while not following the 'moral' guidelines being preached". Your own 'moral guidelines' for engaging with people can be inferred from your list of complaints. The fact that you choose not to follow those guidelines, while criticising others makes you just as hypocritical, and not a reflection of hypocritical, just hypocritical.I made no complaints, I merely observed and commented. LAWL
Presumably because you don't approve of them, which is a complaint. Does that mean you do approve of them?
I make no judgement, I just respond in kind. Generally - that does not go down well.
Case in point..........Whether you make judgement or not, you do have preferences, and it's likely they are the same as most people's, e.g. preferring that someone shows you respect by listening to you. If you then deliberately act in a way that doesn't show respect, you are acting in a way that you yourself prefer not to be treated, and the person you are talking to likely prefers not to be treated. Saying you are only "reflecting" them or responding "in kind" doesn't change that because you don't have to do it. You choose to. Choosing to reflect someone who is rude is the same as choosing to be rude. So to all intents an purposes you are being hypocritical, and based on what you've said, I gather you have a preference for people not being hypocritical.
OK, well - I "choose," to be condescending an patronizing towards you in that case. Take it as you will Mr Anonymous. Are you once again "appalled"?
I don't think what I said was condescending and patronising (I assume that's what you are trying to reflect/respond to in kind). If so that wasn't the intention. But I am puzzled though as to why, if you do think that, you wouldn't just say "I think that was a bit condescending and patronising".
Excellent Post Don W.
The miscommunication I see is not "how God works" but what is the true nature of a prime mover.
The arguments being presented are missing necessity and contingency, mostly necessity.
JMcFarland, existence of universe is evidence not ''presupposed creation'' as existence logically and essentially requires a creator for its being,how may we close our eyes from this logical conclusion and suppose that ''existence ''is only ''existence '', but this means you are presupposing existence by self and falsely defining it as ''only existence'',these are two different things.you are presupposing Big foot.
No, the existence of the universe does NOT automatically pre-suppose a creator. It only does so if you presuppose that life on earth and the entire universe is a CREATION. You're using the argument from ignorance and incredulity in spades here. You can't imagine how the universe could come into being without a god creating it, therefore a god must exist. These are logical fallacies.
If I am not mistaken, the scientific community agrees that everything is relative, and that everything has a cause and affect. ... I think it safe to say that something caused me to wake up this morning,
There are many things involved that causes my car motor to start running when I turn the ignition key.
When I turn the key, this causes a chain of events to begin unfolding. I might say that I created this particular chain of events to occur.
Something caused me to desire to set this chain of events into motion. And something caused that thing which caused me to desire it. We could, If we wanted to, follow this chain of events way back to the beginning of time. We would have to cross over our concept of time (which we can not do!) in order to even begin to attempt to understand the nature of whatever it was that "FIRST" affected this chain of events which we are a very small part of.
Is anyone wise enough to figure it "ALL" out. I don't know anyone that can fully comprehend what is happening within their own little environment.
Whatever it was that first caused the original chain of events to come into motion, I choose to label it CREATOR. This is as good of a name as any to call it. IT IS. And if it could speak ?? I am pretty sure it would say “I AM”+1
Great post. I would add that it does not matter if their was a beginning, "Always" needs a why, too, although "always causality" is not a necessity. Why always does require necessity.
causality
causality needs a reason
the reason is causality
is circular
always causality
always causality needs a reason
the reason is always causality
is also circular
JMcFarland, you have quoted a wrong example.you are supposing wrongly,you must say that existence of this pic. is impossible to be by self,therefore,it requires creator for its being,this is correct and logical conclusion and this is what we are doing .Here,Big foot is not required to be supposed .
Mark, try to understand, if you make the statement that creator requires creator,then universe also requires creator,and if you make the statement that universe requires no creator, then creator also never requires creator ,therefore,your statements are self contradictory, further, every thing requires creator for its being,except creator who is not a'' thing'',nor'' nothing'', but ''Absolute ego'',therefore he is not subject to physical and biological laws,nor laws of our space and time.
I made no such statement. You did. You are the one claiming that everything needs a creator - are you not?
Or do you no longer think that everything needs a creator?
Do you accept the possibility that no creator exists?
Maybe we should wait for Don to explain what you mean........What if we instead admit that we don't know exactly how the universe began and we should look into it before we invent a being that somehow had the time to create it before time existed that needs no creator. To explain an unknown with an even bigger unknown is a waste of thought and evolution.
Don W,and Mark Knowles, First of all I will say thanks to Don W for reminding Mark of his moral responsibility in respect of correct spelling of my name, it represents the emotional thinking of the'' logicians'' and their extreme view regarding their beliefs. Further,it is the problem of the self existence of universe and self existence of creator,atheists tried to resolve the problem by defining the ''existence'' as'' self existence'' or'' existence by self'' or ''eternal existence'',their argument was that ''existence is only existence'' and nothing more,therefore ,it is the evidence for it self and not for creator, this argument was not more than ''deception'', they closed their eyes from the'' existence''presupposing the same as ''eternal'' with out any proof to the effect of the same and declared that it never requires logically creator for its being as it is'' only existence'',hence they tried to'' deceive''themselves for excluding creator,second ally, they argued that creator will further require the creator and this will continue,hence supposing a self existence creator is logically impossibly as it will be self conflicting and destroy the law of cause and effect that was supposed as base for concluding creator, they never considered that infinite series of creators or creations without supposing a self existing creator was logically impossible as this series of creators logically requires a principal creator and here reason can never suppose infinity ,further, they believed that creator is a'' thing'',therefore, subject to His own laws and therefore He may be ''captured'' and finally'' killed''by His own laws of cause and effect,in this way their imagination was a ''confined creator'' ,'' thing'',how He could survive by their ''cruel logic'' ,this was the problem of this argument.
Odd - you feel no moral responsibility to respond to any of my questions or comments, yet you feel compelled to remind me of mine?
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Don W and Mark Knowles, [continued] ,This was the problem of this argument,therefore, we will have to review the concept of confinement of creator within thing,actually, this is the concept of creation not creator,''confined creator'' or ''captured creator'' or'' thing creator'' is nothing but a ''creation'' and we are supposing that as creator without discovering the limitations of our reason,it is the problem of our reason to think creator as'' thing'' or as'' nothing'' for resolving the problem of understanding the creator and doing so even we never understand that we are ''arresting'' Him by His own laws,then what is the solution of the problem ?,only that the creator is within every thing but every thing is not a creator,He is ''Absolute Conscious'',or ''Absolute Reason'' or'' Absolute Ego'' and not confined to His laws or our space and time ,therefore,all presumptions of application of laws of our space and time upon him will be false as if same are applicable to Him then He is creation not creator . Consequently, we are with in Him and confined but He is with in us but not confined within us,therefore we are not creators,ultimately if existence of universe is proved self existing, this will be proof of self existing of creator also who is within universe,therefore,what will happen with atheists? Who have been encircled by creator from all sides.
Please respond to any or all of my questions before simply repeating your arguments. Thanks. You have a moral responsibility to be polite to me. Thus far you have not answered any of my questions or responded to anything I have said. This is rude. Yet you expect courtesy in return. Why?
We could start with - do you accept the possibility that there is no creator?It would arguably serve better to "brandish" your -Absolute Reason- phrase Mr. Sibtain Bukhari, as opposed to absolute ego or absolute conscious, because "brandishing" Absolute Necessity or as you called it Absolute Reason would provide for a better duel from a deductive logic standpoint, terms such as Necessity and Reason are integral components of a syllogism.
PhoenixV, Thanks for appreciating , you are right, ''Absolute Necessity'' or ''Absolute Reason'' are more suitable with reference to deductive logic,however, I ,personally, consider'' Absolute Ego'' as the most comprehensive reference for the creator comprising all aspects of power.
Mark Knowles,No, I do not accept the possibility for absence of creator for the reason I consider the ''existence of universe'' as the most tangible evidence for creator,evidence may be destroyed by the evidence and not by opinion ,therefore, if you have the evidence of ''self existence of universe'' you may destroy the same.
Understood. No possibility you are wrong. Thanks. Existence of Universe proves existence of Universe. We have evidence that you choose to ignore.
Don will explain it to you.I guess we can prove big foot exists because by the evidence of a forest?
And we can prove the abominable snowman because there's snow.
And unicorns because there are virgins. Somewhere. I think, anyway.
And Nessie because there sits Lock Ness.
And Martians (preparing to attack) because we can see Mars.
And The Force because my grandkid has a light saber.
And Wonderland because there are rabbits, queens and cats.
The list is endless and wondrous - all it needs is imagination and a willingness to suspend reason.
To deny the possibility for the absence of a creator is a denial of a possible reality (Yes, Mark, I said it and I understand it)I understand wanting to live as according to what you believe, but you must also live as according to what could also possibly be as well. We cannot live with our heads in the sand willfully blind to what's going on around us.
Well, Mr bukhari is of the opinion that anyone who denies the "possibility" of something is being irrational. As usual - his pronouncements do not apply to himself.
And - as I Mentioned to him (and was ignored) assuming you accept the possibility of a creator - you must accept the fact that there are an infinite number of possible creators.
So to deny the possibility that the "creator," is actually a grad school research team from the cultural physics department of a low level university the in 37th dimension is some what irrational. In fact - the FSM (PBUH) is just as likely as Allah. Which is where Pascal resides too often
Or any God for that matter, I know I knowLOL. Yup - infinitely improbable are the words you are looking for.
PhoenixV, Agreed, reason may be contested by reason .
Nature is another term for universe and evolution is the term for a biological process. Where is the "originator" here? Universe do not need an operator(nor originator), it just is. You have no idea what logic and reason is and this prove that. If you want to believe any one who is out there to control you and get your money, feel free, but don't preach nonsense if you do not want to be ridiculed.
Check dictionary for "description".riddle666, ''universe do not need an operator[nor originator]'', pl. prove this nonsense logically.
Logically, a creator god is not needed. This is self evident.
Mark,''Logically, a creator god is not needed'', you have been claiming yourself a'' great logician'', now prove this nonsense.
I already did. Logically. You need to prove otherwise now. Simply claiming it is nonsense without offering any logic will not work. You lose.
Mark, you have made the claim that logically a creator is not required,now why are you hesitating to prove your claim/statement or you presuppose the same as correct.
I though that was how we do it now. I make a claim and it is up to you to disprove it. Isn't it?
Not ever talking about the fact that I and several others have shown you the logic time and time again. No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
Mark, why are you now escaping from your claim and statement you made? I was supposing you a'' great logician ''.
Cannot disprove my claim huh? Didn't think you would be able to defeat my logic. You lose.
The logic is very simple.
Before our universe existed time did not exist therefore a God would not have had the time to create the universe.Rad Man , laws of our space and time are not applicable to the creator because he can never be confined in our space and time, He has his own space and time .
Ahhhh. Does he exist in his own little bubble of space-time that he created to give him the time to create the universe? That's a new one... did you just make that up?
One cannot exist in it's own creation before the creation occurs. Even a god must exist somewhere, even if the god itself is the entire universe. Ergo; there is another universe that god existed in before ours was created and he may or may not still occupy that universe.
That does not, however, say anything about whether god can be "captured" and held in our universe against its will.wilderness, Laws of our space and time can never apply to creator and He can never be confined to the same,it will be ridicule to understand creator without finding out the limitations of our reason and space and time.
How do you know this exactly? Really - I mean - I agree we do not really know the limits of our own space time, yet you claim to know things about another one?
Mark, it is very rational, I am observing that the scope of intellect of ''great logicians'' over this thread is very narrow and they try to confine the creator by their limited reason and make ridicule statements about Him with out feeling The limitations of reason and laws of their space and time .
Sorry - that is not rational at all. You haven't observed anything. You have simply repeated your irrational claim to understand and know things about another space time outside our own. Yet you choose not to explain how you know this majick.
And of course make attacks on anyone who does not believe your claims. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
wilderness,God is not required to exist somewhere,it will confine Him and God can never be confined,you are conceptualizing creation not God ,God is not anywhere,He is every where,
There seems to be a number of small universes going on in my back yard. I can be standing over an ant bed, watching all the activity going on. They are unaware that I am watching. Even if one of them did see me, even if I let it walk around in my hand, it could not PROVE to the rest of them that I exist. And if they did believe me to exist, they would most probably conjecture all kind of things that are not true, and when those things are proven to be false, that does not prove I wasn't standing there watching.
So, using your logic we must assume someone is always watching because they may be watching. Should I assume I have a tiger in my back yard because it's possible?
Rad Man ,it is difficult for ''children'' to understand this logic .
Actually it appears to be only children that need to believe such nonsense.
Disagree. My 5 year old grandson uses the same type of logic all the time. "I said it, I want it to be true; ergo it is true". Although I have a little trouble following his thought processes, he has no more trouble believing his own statements than you do.
Okay, I'll ignore your insult and leave you to the question I asked.
Inside space-time = needs a creator
Outside space-time = no time to create the universe
Which one is it?Rad Man, I have already stated our concept of space and time is relative and can never apply to creator and can never confine Him,therefore, your proposition will be '' our space and time requires a creator of His time and space ''.
How do you propose to prove that your god/creator has his own space and time? Or is it just an assertion that you happen to believe?
Your entire premise is "I can't imagine a universe without the need for a creator, therefore, until someone can prove how a creator.was not necessary, my assertion must be true"
Is that correct? Not only is it an argument from ignorance (which is a logical fallacy, and therefore your logic premise fails) but the burden of proof doesn't work that way.
I'll give you an example. If I tell you that I can't imagine a world without unicorns, and therefore unicorns must exist until you can demonstrate that they don't, would you accept that unicorns exist?
I'm not seeing you respond to any of my posts. Ignoring me on purpose, or is it repeated coincidence?JMc Farland, sorry for not viewing your earlier posts, my premises is that ''existence of universe logically and essentially requires a creator for its being as existence can never exist by self,'' existence of universe is the evidence of creator,if you want to disprove the creator ,you must prove the self existence or existence by self of the universe. Creator can never be confined in our space and time nor our laws are applicable to Him,we can never conceive Him as a creation .
I have already done so. Logically - a creator cannot exist. We have proven this. Please prove other wise.
And how did you come to the conclusion that a universe a) cannot exist by itself and b) that therefore a creator was required to create it. From there, how did you come to the conclusion that c) this posited creator exists outside of known space and time and d) has its own space and time? Can you prove ANY of those statements? The burden of proof is on you. You are making the positive claim that a creator was required and therefore exists. You cannot shift the burden of proof onto us. We're not necessarily claiming the opposite to be true. We're rejecting your premise until you can prove it to be true.
Time to get your story straight.
A while back you stated that the creator doesn't need a creator because he exist outside our space-time.
Now you insist he exists in his own space-time.
If he exists in his own space-time he needs a creator, if he exists outside space-time he doesn't have the time to create the universe.
Which is it?
riddle666, like wilderness,you have also made a false and logically impossible statement ,the rationality and logic of you people have been disclosed,by this nonsense,your game of the logic has been over.
psycheskinner, user is here for discovering reality and conveying you , Can you operate your computer with closed eyes ?, if not , then, how do you expect that unconscious and blind biological process of law named as nature or evolution ,not knowing even its existence, may design and operate this infinite universe ? this is my point.
Logic does not prove things. It takes proven things and generate corollaries.
Logic cannot prove God did or did not do anything because that is frankly unknowable.
Ergo the need for faith to believe God does anything, or exists at all.
(That was an example of logic, for those playing at home).I've always held that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer. What are the odds that absolutely everything required for human life came together in just the right way -- and by accident?
And what makes one think the entire universe is built for them? The earth is not technically in the perfect position for a planet to support life, but as it turned out the atmosphere made it possible for life and after a few billion years here we are. If Mars was a little larger it could have held onto it's atmosphere and may have been in a better position than Earth.
Maintaining that the billions of stars in our own galaxy and the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and billions of planets was made for us is nothing but arrogance.Unfortunately, it seems a necessary corollary to a god that loves us. He wants us and has designed the universe in order that we could be here. So belief in a god requires the belief that everything was created in order that mankind exist.
Egotistical and arrogant in the extreme but necessary to believe in a god. Or at least in one that cares about humanity.One would think one solar system would have done the job, perhaps even one galaxy, but billions of galaxies all moving away from each other seems unnecessary and a tad bit wasteful.
Egotistical and arrogant in the extreme... indeed.Of course a single solar system would have worked. Or a single planet with the indirect lighting He created before the stars existed.
But that isn't what is out there, so reality must be rationalized to conform to our egocentricity.
wilderness, if I close my eyes even then I can feel the evidences of of love of God for me, it is observations of these great blessings and self conscious that led the man towards God, and therefore, man always inclined towards God since more than 5000, years and even presently majority of world recognizes its creator except some atheists adamant for non believing , a blind man can feel the blessings of God and signs of his love in the shape of his perfect being,having the conscious of knowledge and justice,availability of water, air and food for his growth and existence, having dominance over other beings and nature,having ego for recognizing his creator,having the beauties of greenery, flowers, animals,birds etc,having the great canvas of universe for his research and knowledge,in the shape of stars,planets.,but surprisingly,you are deprived of all these great feelings.
Of course you feel something, and of course you will attribute those feelings to god. Just as you will term everything around you as being a "blessing" and declare that man is led to God and that the majority of the world recognizes Him.
Thus speaks the emotional side of the intellect as you allow it to override the senses and intuition. Which is what I said, after all. You sense the same things I do; the stars, birds and greenery - you just allow intellect to assign a god to it without need of actually sensing god.wilderness,I have reasons to believe God as I have great evidences in the shape of existence of universe, and even if I close my eyes I will find him in my self , ego ,conscious, and conscience , but I am interested to know the reasons that led you this misconception of imaginary God, as you have nothing to disbelief God and even you have admitted that you can never prove absence of God and simply believe or opine that universe has no originator as it does not need, and even you have no reason to say that why universe must only exist? and why it never needs God ? you have even no equal or better explanation for universe than a a creator like absolute conscious or absolute reason but you are insisting that your opinion is correct and God never exists but you know it is not proven and possibility of creator can never be over ruled in light of even your unproven opinion,then why you disbelief God strongly to the extent of hatred degree without logical proof for His absence ?
Two fallacies: the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity.
You decide to attribute your "feelings" to god. Someone else may decide to attribute similar feelings to Bigfoot. Does that then (by your logic) mean that Bigfoot necessarily exists, or no because not ENOUGH people believe in it?JMc Farland, these feelings are facts,if not in your opinion give reasons for the same,big foot has not made available all these things for me,further I never decided to attribute my feelings to God, I simply noticed these material and spiritual blessings that are not a dream and just recognized the same,but you can suppose that these blessings are from big foot for avoiding God for which you have decided .
Your feelings do not automatically get to be facts while you simultaneously disregard the feelings of other people as mere opinions. Feelings are feelings. In order for you to claim that your feelings are somehow special and that your feelings alone get to be facts, you would have to demonstrate that they're actually factual.- which you have not done, nor can you.
No question that your feelings are factual. In that they exist.
But whatever makes you think they come from a god? What makes you think your feelings, and the conclusions you draw from them, have a basis in reality?
Because your intellect (emotions) tell you so, without need for the senses to corroborate? I do believe that that's what I already told you; that you are making decisions and conclusions without ever requiring the three sources to agree.wilderness,,No,I have come to the conclusion after long discussion with you and especially,finding your last ''opinion'' upon irrationally impossible premises that there is no originator or operator of the universe,that you have decided not to admit any logical and rational conclusion to God, I do not know reasons for the same,this will be the rational conclusion for creator after observing and experiencing these blessings/facts and not presupposed or emotional feeling foe the same, as emotions are not requiring some thing for belief but from these observations you are concluding that God is not required to admit because you have formed an opinion about excluding God and that allows you to overview these all observations and to find out other reasons for the same,your rejection may be acceptable and convincing if you become successful for giving other reasonable justification for these blessing but you can never do and will take the deference of absence of knowledge is no proof.
Don't be ridiculous; you came to the conclusion that an imaginary god exists long before you ever hit these forums, let alone after ignoring everything I and everyone else has had to say to you.
Such an obvious lie is beneath you and does absolutely nothing for your credibility. It is bad enough to pretend not to understand basic logical sequences, but this one is over the top.
I wish you well in your future relationship with your myth.wilderness, answer my question plz. [if you have answer], the possibility of creator may be ruled out upon the basis of unproven presumption or opinion for His absence ? if answer is'' no'', then atheism is required to review its beliefs . I am supposing that your presumption that I have failed to prove God is correct [which is not correct in my opinion] ,even then you have nothing logically proven to believe absence of creator,then why you have it ? Why you not give the statement that in the absence of proven opinion logically there is possibility of conclusion of creator if proved ? and why you are confined inside a non proven opinion or belief ?
A creator is ruled out because creation is self contradictory. To say the universe was created one has to make so many nonsensical assumptions, 1) Universe has a beginning 2) Time is a thing 3) A "nothing" exists that somehow manage to keep its being 4) That nothing is a thinking "super human" that always exists(at the same time making an assumption that even simple things cannot exists eternally). It is also illogical by giving an exception to the first premise - special pleading.
A belief is the trust or confidence in another person. You believe Muhammad was telling the truth but at the same time do not believe Mirza Gulam Ahmad. Atheists neither believe you, nor your Muhammad nor Ahmad because none of you talk sense, that is you all contradict yourself while explaining your position, that is, what you say is nonsense. So atheism is not "holding" any beliefs but rejecting nonsense because it is nonsense.riddle666, ''Atheists neither believe you, nor your Muhammad nor Ahmad because none of you talk sense, that is you all contradict yourself while explaining your position, that is, what you say is nonsense. So atheism is not "holding" any beliefs but rejecting nonsense because it is nonsense''. I f your statement is true ,then why you believe absence of creator upon the basis of unproven premise? your must say there is possibility of presence and absence of creator as we have no proven statement in this respect , therefore, you have a belief of absence of creator ,this is proved by your statement .
We don't hold a belief of absence of creator. We simply don't believe your claim of existence of creator. You are the one making the claim. You have the burden of proof.
Prove it.Mark, very good,you mean you never believe in our claim of creator and you never believe in absence of creator,therefore, you can never rule out the possibility of creator ,All atheists must review their beliefs in light of your statement .
Why? Atheism speaks to belief, not knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a claim to knowledge. You are the one making the claims to knowledge.
Does that mean you accept the possibility that there is no creator?Mirza Gulam Ahamad (PBUH) is the last prophet, why don't you believe him?
Or jesus is the son of god, why not?
Mark,riddle666, looking your answers and avoidance of you from even possibility of creator [not proven of creator] ,a logical statement you must give in the absence of proof for absence of creator,confirms that how you are presenting the belief of absence of creator as lack of belief ,it is surprising you always have been alleging me for false allegation of lying but you yourself are doing what? presenting a belief as a lack of belief is what? Non acceptance of my test of possibility of creator confirms your position of belief,if then you insist for lack of belief then you must not interested in belief of absence of God and must not rule out the possibility of Him in the absence of any proven statement of the absence, but as you are a strong believer of absence of creator therefore, it will not be possible for you come out of the same and to accept a logical statement like a true and sincere logician , absence of God has not proved your belief has been proved,go and live with the same ad do not make wrong claim of lack of belief,you have failed in the test . .
So - you don't accept the possibility that there is no creator? Seems a little irrational.
He thinks convoluted, mostly meaningless argument is the best argument. From where, all these guys show up?
Islam?
I was actually hoping for a reasonable discussion with the other Muslim troll, as he seems to be able to string a sentence together. But - no.
If you can understand read and understand this, I can't make it more simple.
Saying there is a creator is just like saying the child is the father of himself - nonsense. Only dumb asses believe such nonsense.
And to believe is to consider what the other person say is true. If you cannot understand this much kindly go back and study instead of saying nonsense which make me question your intention and intelligence.
riddle.Perhaps,your stance is that creator and creation are illogical and irrational for self contradiction as if creator is a ''thing'' He is creation and if He is ''nothing'' then how nothing can create from nothing? upon the basis of this nonsense you even rule out the possibility of creator being self contradiction and for not being observed . Remember ,riddle,what I stated in beginning ? I stated ''try to discover limitations of your reason for finding out your creator'', creator is not illogical creator is not confined to your reason,these contradictions are of your reason and not of creation or creator,you are declaring creator as illogical who is out of scope of your reason, your position is like a child who never knows his father just for limitation of his reason and believes there is no father, God is not a ''thing nor ''nothing'', it is confinement of your reason to think so, He is ''Absolute self ''or ''Absolute ego'', and''self ''or ''ego'' is not a'' biological being'' as you think nor''biological existence'','' existence'' is manifestation of the ''Absolute ego'', further , Absolute ego is not subject to laws of our space and time nor confined to the same,He is self existing and eternal, He has no beginning no ending,He is not required to be created because He is not creation, His space and time are different from our space and time therefore,He has no problem of nonsense of'' no time'' or ''nothing'', He is capable of creating things from nothings, these all nonsense contradictions are of our confinement of reason when we try to'' capture'' him by reasons we make such sillies as you have committed.
Where on earth did you learn (and I use that term loosely) English?
You somehow seem to evade my question and continue to ask people the same questions that have all ready been answered.
So I'll try one more time.
If as you once claimed your God is outside space-time then he logically can't be inside space-time and if he's outside he can't have had the TIME to create the universe as outside space-time no TIME exists.
If as you again once claimed God makes his own space-time outside of our space-time then he is in time and time passes for him therefor he himself needs to have been created.
Which of your stories is it?And you forgot that god was an explanation put forward by you! A nonsense, idiotic explanation it is and you want me to accept that explanation as true (which you concede is beyond reason) because you said it. Who the hell are you for me to accept whatever you say?
That is what I am asking. You said god is not a thing. So if he is not a thing he is nothing and then you say this nothing created, understood your fallacy?
And what is the rationale for saying 'things are creation'?So he was capable of creating himself from nothing?
That makes you a liar for you are the one who came here saying you can prove rationally and logically. Well, what else to be expected from people who believe nonsense and consider women as properties?
Rad Man, God is not confined to our space and time,it means,we are within God,you suppose a circle within the other circle,large circle is not out of the small circle but small circle is within large circle, therefore, you have not supposed correct ally,further,this time and space can never be applicable upon Him,He created universe in his time not in our time,time and space are relevant terms and therefore,our related time can never confine his creativity,''no time'' is not applicable to God,why He has to be created ? time is relevant to Him,He is not relevant to time,therefore,He is not in time time is with Him.
Why does God have to be created? Why does the universe have to be created? As with your premiss of a creator the universe was once outside space and time therefor it needs no creation. Time did not being the moment the big bang started therefore the universe needed no creation which means it needs no creator. Spend some time thinking about this before you reply.
Those are some hellacious assumptions. Funny how both sides feel comfortable throwing out unprovable ideas. Time is simply a concept. We function within the parameters we have agreed to an understanding of. How could anyone honestly argue on the moment of its inception?
Whether or not God exists one has to accept the possibility that there was a first cause to the inception of reality we function within; natural or supernatural (by our understanding).
A closed mind colliding with a closed mind creates a black hole between the two. Sucking in any attempts at rationale in support of either argument.Cause:Noun
A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
An un-caused cause? What happened to "time is simply a concept"?Not surprising you don't understand. I'm not inclined to give cause for you to post multiple asinine comments. Two should suffice. Proceed with the next.
More surprising is your inability to understand your own comments!
Learn to speaka de English. Learn to accept you aren't the pinnacle of knowledge within the universe. Heck, learn anything. It might broaden your perspective. Or not. I don't know if you fall into the category of an old dog or not.
Either way, enjoy your day.Better you seek professional help, if you see yourself in everyone else!
Well, since I don't see myself as close minded and unable to rationalize....I don't see me in you. You are part of the group of 'everyone else' so, by your suggestion, it appears I don't need to waste the money. Maybe you would benefit from psychiatric evaluation.
I think his English is pretty darn good and I would be willing to bet he has an even better ability to speak one or two more languages. Makes me feel pathetic I struggle with just my English, how about you?
I'm bi lingual. Meow
I'm afraid his constant attempts to belittle me have given rise to a tit for tat scenario. I am nothing, if not imperfect. However, if truth be told, his understanding of the English language does give cause for miscommunication on his part.
Study where time doesn't exist and you'll understand. Take a black hole for example, the closer one get the slower time gets until until time stops. When time stops nothing moves. The concept of the big bang is like a black hole only much more compressed and the entire universe was compress into something sub-atomic. No time existed therefor no TIME to create the universe. How it happened we don't know, but things at the sub-atomic level do come in and out of existence all the time and nothing that existed without TIME would not have had the TIME to think about our existence.
**bangs head against wall **
Can we prove the theory? Do you understand the difference between provable fact and a damn good theory? Somehow, this tidbit is lost to both sides of the argument.
Please study english instead of writing nonsense.
اذا كان الله هو شيء وفقا لحجتك الله لابد من خلق. إذا كان الله ليس شيئا، فهو لا شيء، وأنت تقول هراء عندما تقول شيئا خلق الكون.
الوقت هو مفهوم، فقط الحمقى يقول "خارج" من الزمن.
Here is the arabic, I used the google translate and hence I do not know whether it is the exact one.
RIDDLE666,''A creator is ruled out because creation is self contradictory.'' How ? Prove your statement.
He already did. Why not address the logical contradictions he posted instead of ignoring them?
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.Weren't you reading the previous posts or are you incapable of understanding it?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/115832? … ost2462198
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/115353? … ost2455286
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/115353? … ost2454596
Are you aware of the sheer number of logical fallacies you've committed since starting this forum?
1. Argument from ignorance
2. Argument from incredulity
3. Special pleading
4. Moving the goalposts
5. Appeal to authority
6. Argument from popularity
And that's just a handful. If you're going to begin debates claiming logic, you may want to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies and avoid them. I mean, really - this is debate 101 stuff that I learned in high school, let alone college.Sometimes when I close my eyes I have feelings that I'm still 25 years old, 6'4" with a full head of hair, but when I open my eyes I find my feelings were wrong.
But all feelings are facts! Isn't that what we're supposed to believe now?
No.. Feelings are facts is not a belief, that's a fact.No, to him it's a fact.. So like JM said, you're still 25, 6'4 with a full head of hair because you feel you are
Great, can you relay that to my wife and my kids, all of which are taller, younger and with great heads of hair?
Gladly.. In the meantime, you are a grephic designer.. change the pictures in the house..LOL
I see.
You can't come up with a real rebuke so you resort to making fun of typos and spelling errors.
What a big big girl.Thank you, Jane. But no offense was taken. I did make a typo. It's not a big deal, really. It takes a lot more than laughing about a mistake that I legitimately made to hurt me. No need to turn it into a monument.
I got your point. I would rather you not use anything involving me to take shots at another person (especially one that I consider one of my closest friends here). Despite our differences of belief (or non belief), JM and I have a lot of respect for one another and we needle one another on a consistent basis. Then again it also serves as an example and a reminder that I must stay on my toes and cognizant of what I post here because someone is always watching and waiting to jump on any errors.
I still thank you for your concern though
JM, be careful.. I'll get ya back.. non't ya worry (well on second thought, you should be)I will use whatever ammo I can, as I have no respect for eother you OR JmCFarland.
No, he can take care of his own.
I am fighting for the victims of bullies.Ah - you see yourself as a victim? And anyone who makes fun of religious beliefs is a bully? And this includes the 2 people you have no respect for - plus myself presumably.
So does these victims you are fighting for include the people you are insulting and bullying? because the fact is that you have leveled insults on several different forums. and have now turned your bullying on me when I did nothing to you but appreciate you coming to my aid but I wasn't being bullied by JM.
Sorry you feel that you have no respect for me.. I have shown you nothing but respect up to this point, but I'll tell you what, I'll store my concern about your lack of care for me in the same place I stored the turds I let out of my butt this morning
dude, Deepes and I are FRIENDS. We actually talk all the time, and we pick on each other equally. I love him, and think of him like a brother despite the fact that we believe different things. Why don't you ask for information before making silly assumptions. kthanx.
did you also miss the part where I said "I think of him like a brother"?
Convenient, no?Ha ha ha ha. That one killed me. He's in the "like a brother zone" which is way worse than the "friend zone".
Not if one understands the person making the comment
In that case, I FEEL as though I'm going to acquire a million dollars and that the weekend starts tomorrow.
It is fact that you have these feelings.. Your feelings do not make facts. If this is true, then by your own logic the Flying Spagetti Monster is real because Rad Man has felt one of his noodly appendages. JMcFarland has Felt the invisible purple dragon that lives in her Attic, etc.. Because atheists have claimed these feelings, does that make them facts or real? If your answer to this is no then you will have disproven your own logic as according to your point I quoted. If your answer is yes, then you will have made each of their "felt" entities as valid as Allah or any other deity that has been "felt"
(Yes, atheists, I see the irony in me making this comment)
JMcFarland, I have put a question for wilderness and I repeat the same for you and for all disbelievers '',I have reasons to believe God as I have great evidences in the shape of existence of universe, and even if I close my eyes I will find him in my self , ego ,conscious, and conscience , but I am interested to know the reasons that led you this misconception of imaginary God, as you have nothing to disbelief God and even you have admitted that you can never prove absence of God and simply believe or opine that universe has no originator as it does not need, and even you have no reason to say that why universe must only exist? and why it never needs God ? you have even no equal or better explanation for universe than a a creator like absolute conscious or absolute reason but you are insisting that your opinion is correct and God never exists but you know it is not proven and possibility of creator can never be over ruled in light of even your unproven opinion,then why you disbelief God strongly to the extent of hatred degree without logical proof for the same? ''
What you're asking isn't rational. It is not possible to disprove the existence of something - anything. I would ask you if you could disprove the existence of unicorns or Bigfoot or aliens. You can't. You're shifting the burden of proof onto atheists and expecting them to do all of your work for you, when really all that you've accomplished are blind, baseless assertions with NO evidence except for your FEELING (which you mistakenly claim as fact) and instead of actually responding to the arguments that are presented to you, you repeat yourself over and over again and build up a straw man argument that you conveniently tear apart. You aren't having a debate. You're just typing for the sake of typing.
I would recommend that you do several things:
1) read a book or take a class in debate tactics/fallacies/standards
2) read a book on basic apologetic principles. You're not following them, and you're NOT making the points that you think you're making
3) understand and differentiate between feelings, beliefs, opinions and actual fact and evidence. You don't seem to have a clue about these definitions, and until you get a handle on what you're talking about, I'm sorry but we're not going to take you seriously, and you're not going to gain any respect or credibility.
So - faith is a bad thing then? I agree with you. The odds are 100% in your favor. You are here aren't you? After all - truth really is stranger than fiction.
I disagree. It takes wayyy more faith to believe than not. The reason for this is that there is so much that has not been discovered yet and as such a lot of believers ascribe the unknown and not-yet known to God with confidence until there is more information provided. As more information becomes available, then some still hold God as the cause of the information and continue to question the origins until someone runs out of answers then claim victory.
It takes far less faith to say "I don't know" and to also look at current information for the answers that are currently available
God lives in my aquarium, that is His magical universe. The Angel fish told me so.
If I am understanding the OP correctly, you make an excellent point.
I think it is always a good idea to go with what we actually observe and know to be true, as well as logic and reason, to help lead to the things that we don't know of completely. The OP post points to what we all know is inherently true, that the amazing bodies we have and universe we live in are things that never just happen, nor could they.
Even with all of our cumulative knowledge over our history and applying the best minds to the task, we cannot begin to create a similar world, or cells, or information we observe. Again, with the BEST INTELLIGENCE applied, AND with all the STUFF, or ingredients already at our fingertips. We cannot begin to touch it all.
To personally believe it could be possible, then assert it as truth doesn't make much sense in light of the facts. It is a very unscientific way to be and think. Also, ruling out in advance what isn't even allowed to be an explanation isn't scientific, yet we see that lack of logic applied daily by supposedly brilliant minds everywhere. Not much makes sense of it, except one thing does make sense of it all. The very thing that the OP points out as being dodged. My way of putting it would be, the the "uncaused Cause..." which ironically is the way a possible God that could get the job done, is revealed to humanity!
One other unintended but observable response that would be the case if this were true, would be exactly what we are observing in humanity over history and now. We are not left with nothing to point us to the thing that COULD be responsible for all we see. Do people care if or when they let their personally held beliefs get in the way of thinking such things through reasonably or logically?
It is a miracle, all of this is. It is somewhat magical, or outright magical lol, for the best of the best intellects cannot begin to have a grasp on it or answer it. This is meant to point them toward the thing that could get what we see, accomplished. Sent with love and with my opinion on the matter, because I care about people and truth. My apologies for the length.It does have to be something that could get all we see and know of in our universe, accomplished.
The discussion about Allah or any other God is another discussion and this one seems to be plenty for now. You may be on to something though! A "uncaused" God would fit the bill for being an "uncaused Cause for all we see."Yes indeed. Sadly - if there is no need for a cause, um - we don't need a cause. Oh wait..........
I am going with the idea that an infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. We are going for possible here...what is possible to explain our universe and intelligence?
If a beginning is possible, wouldnt no beginning also be possible?
It would depend on what exactly you meant by "beginning" then. I was going with the beginning of this universe, the beginning of all we can possibly know of and have experienced until now. From the first cell and first event until now.
Based on what we know, a beginning seems necessary and not just possible. In that light, a "no beginning" would not be possible. My thoughts and opinion though, what do you think?Um - based on what we know, a beginning seems unnecessary. As well as impossible. Where do you get the idea that a beginning is necessary?
Why would a beginning seem impossible?
explaining how "nothing happened" is difficult to convey.
explaining how "something happened" is a lot easier.
Would you agree?
Why is that?Is the beginning of existence the same as never existed?
If not, there is a reason.
What is that reason?
Is always existed the same as never existed?
If not, there is a reason.
What is that reason?Whether an explanation is easy or hard to convey does not make the explanation true or false. If the explanation that "nothing happened" makes more sense than the other, it should be considered.
I would agree. There is no reason to convey to someone how nothing happened, it sounds illogical. Nothing I mean in the sense we are talking about it.
What sense are you talking about? Why is it illogical?
So - you reject the idea that it has always existed?
Do you believe the universe has always existed? If so, what are your reasons for thinking so?
I have no reason to think it didn't .
Do you?Lack of evidence that it didn't exist? Unless you have some compelling reason to think it didn't. Do you?
There is good evidence that it hasn't always existed as there is a point (13.798 billion years) to which we can't see back farther in time than. It's the word always that's the problem with the question because always refers to time. Time has not always existed, but what the universe was before time we don't know. It may have just been there frozen without time.
Ok. How do know this? You don't. What you are saying is, without change, time is irrelevant. Yes? Because time doesn't exist.
That to the side. If everything simply was, without change, there would have to be an impetus. Something to cause change to begin. A body at rest. Law of motion.All I know is that at the sub-atomic level particles come in and out of existence, where they go or where they came from is not yet understood. But science does know when time began because we can't see farther back in time than that.
95% of the ocean remains unseen and unexplored. Does this portion of the ocean exist?
hmmm. you are not understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space … _microwave
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space … t_UniverseLooked at your links. Setting aside the fact that they state physics, as understood presently,.cannot explain peculiarities observed, the question remains. Maybe, you don't understand.
Does lack of knowledge, or the lack of the ability to see, negate anything? Why would you assume it does? All it implies is that you are momentarily blocked from obtaining more data.You are understanding a little better now. It tells us when time started, the next step is understanding time and what happens without time. We can find out what that's like by looking at what happens inside a black hole where time doesn't exist. The fact is, without time one has no TIME to do anything and yet matter still exist inside a black hole.
- The amusing part is that you are oblivious to your assumptions. We don't know jack beyond our speculations on what we see. You can't state that time did not exist.
Think about it this way. I'm blind, deaf and mute. I can't feel anything either. I know I exist, yet I am not aware of anything beyond that knowledge. I can't fathom anything beyond what I am aware of. Does this imply that nothing exists? Does it imply time was at a stand still prior to my awareness? Will time cease to move forward after I cease to be aware?
You cannot, honestly, make the claims you make.It's funny that you think I'm just making this up. Didn't you read the websites I linked to you? Clearly I'm not educated or smart enough to come up with the concept of the big bang and time by my self. You may want to read Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design, or watch the TV special.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
"It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."I didn't say you were making anything up. What I'm saying is that you weave together fact and speculation, yet present the whole as fact.
It is little different than invoking God. You are adding and assuming.Oh I see, I can't restate what Steven Hawking's states about time and the universe? You may not understand the concept, but that doesn't mean others don't. I'm stating that we don't know what existed before time, at the very least I'm not making up a being that started the entire thing as an explanation for the unknown.
So, since you are not assuming a magical being it's ok to assume?
If you say so.That you think you can state anything as unequivocal fact. If 95% of the cosmos consists of what we describe as dark matter and dark energy (meaning we are completely in the dark, at the moment, as to an understanding of it) and you are, admittedly, a layman (which means you are in the dark as to the math behind the assumptions you are making (on the scale of, probably, more than 95%)).....you are speculating on at least the same scale as the average religious person. And you want your opinion on the matter to be viewed as fact. Like the average religious person. I'm having trouble distinguishing the difference.
You didn't answer my question. What have I assumed?
I'm sorry. It appears you aren't reading my posts. Never mind.
As usual, Emile being vague and unable to address your own accusations. What have I assumed?
Am I vague or are you obtuse? Saying time didn't exist is wrong on several levels. Yet, you can't understand that. You put up links that don't support your statements. I assume because you don't know what you are talking about. We make assumptions on data we have. These aren't written in stone. They are best guesses. But you post them as if they are fact. You can't claim there was a time when time didn't exist. You can state that we think we are closer to pin pointing the age of the universe, but no more.
As I stated. With 95% of it still a head scratcher for science your claims, as if they are proven fact, are a mystery.I have, for some time now, had a sneaking suspicion that cyberspace and Hilbert space have somehow become entangled. I do believe that here, on these forums, we are communicating with people from parallel universes. It explains the complete inability to understand where in the devil someone is coming from. You are are prime example.
I agree it would be an unscientific way to think. You're missing one important thing though, which happens to be the primary factor between our lack of ability to "create a similar world, or cells, or information we observe" and the fact that our bodies and the universe came about, is time. Scientists don't have the luxury of carrying on experiments over millions and millions of years., which explains how our bodies could have come about.
I can't imagine scientists would not allow any explanations. That seems very odd?
But, that wasn't revealed to humanity, it was supposedly revealed to a few men who wrote it down a very long time ago.
Exactly, that is why we don't reject anything reasonable or logical, which includes things like how our bodies came about.I wanted to remind that part of my point is that we are looking to a time when there was no intelligence applied. That is part of the equation for the time frame we are speaking of. So its not just a problem of not enough time and chance falling into place possibly, but also of volitional will being applied, an intelligence.
As for origins, there are very critical problems for some of the ideas out there. Some may be persuaded that the addition of enough time could get the job done, but I am not so persuaded. I do know it is an idea tossed about. Origins, stuff, molecules.... that isn't accounted for in the "enough time and chance" idea, as far as I see it. Taking out intelligence, it becomes even more unlikely to me.I'm not aware that evolution was driven by intelligence or chance? Where in the theory does it say that?
Please let me know what critical problems you're talking about.
Related Discussions
- 101
Atheists vs religionists
by jerami 13 years ago
Atheists pick and choose those verses in the bible that leans in the direction that proves the bible is false Religionists pick and choose those verses that lean to proving the bible to be true. WHAT is UP with that? Proving that religion has ran rampant, or NOT...
- 565
Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?
by Pam Ryan 8 years ago
Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems. All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the...
- 35
For atheists and agnotic only : where you ever in religion?
by pisean282311 14 years ago
where you ever in any religion and what made you become atheist or agnostic?
- 58
Is Atheism a "neurological" disorder?
by paarsurrey 13 years ago
One sees a computer with all the systems in it; one thinks it has been manufactured by some factory; one does not think even for a moment that it has existed always and has not been made by anybody.If an Atheist Skeptic Agnostic sees Sun in the skies above and thinks it existed always and was not...
- 674
Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of...
- 17
Difference between Spiritual & Religion (Sagan)
by Castlepaloma 4 years ago
Most greatest number of famous men, I've studied throughout history. Claim they are spiritual, not so much Religious. Some had to pretend a Religion for survival. That is why I think, someone like Einstein seems to be living in both camps.Carl SaganScience is not only compatible with spirituality;...