Magical thinking.

Grugore said:
Then you belive in a Creator?
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
interesting.....then, as an atheist, who do you believe created everything out of nothing....
Click to expand...

Nope. You're assuming that you understand the nature of causality, and the universe. Neither of us know either. Atheists are ok saying, "I don't know." You aren't, so you invent some stupid shit to try to explain it.

The only thing required to be an atheist is that one lacks a positive belief in a god or gods. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Grugore said:
Bottom line. You believe in a Creator, or believe that the universe created itself. One is demonstrably false, since it contradicts the law of causality. Nothing physical can be self existent or eternal. That leaves you with just one possibility. A non physical being Who is eternal and exists outside of time and space.
Click to expand...

Fallacy of bifurcation. There are more than 2 options. Just because you're ignorant of other options, doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
It is easier to imagine matter has always existed than to give credence to an out of nothing creator who came out of nothing.

"The belief of God is not a matter of common sense, or logic, or argument, but of feeling. It is as impossible to prove the existence of God as to disprove it. I do not believe in God. I see no need of such an idea. It is incredible to me that there should be an after-life. I find the notion of future punishment outrageous and of future reward extravagant. I am convinced that when I die, I shall cease entirely to live; I shall return to the earth I came from. Yet I can imagine that at some future date I may believe in God; but it will be as now, when I don't believe in Him, not a matter of reasoning or of observation, but only of feeling." W. Somerset Maugham, A Writer's Notebook


 
Anarchon said:
Nope. You're assuming that you understand the nature of causality, and the universe. Neither of us know either. Atheists are ok saying, "I don't know." You aren't, so you invent some stupid shit to try to explain it.

The only thing required to be an atheist is that one lacks a positive belief in a god or gods. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or anything else.
Click to expand...
so the universe had no creator, but it did not have no no creator.......at least you are more lucid than you usually are......
 
Anarchon said:
Fallacy of bifurcation. There are more than 2 options. Just because you're ignorant of other options, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...

sorry, no......its a dichotomy......either there was a creator or there wasn't.....there is no third option which isn't merely a subset of the other two.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, no......its a dichotomy......either there was a creator or there wasn't.....there is no third option which isn't merely a subset of the other two.....
Click to expand...

To "know" that, you'd have to be omniscient. If you were omniscient, you'd be a god yourself.

You're neither.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you are confusing knowing the answer with knowing the question.....either - or......yes -no.....is - is not.......not complicated
Click to expand...

Forming the correct question is a very difficult thing to do in science. If you don't understand the nature of the universe to proper extent, you'll ask a nonsensical question. It's likely that's what you're doing here.

People used to ask what would happen when they sailed to the end of the earth. They didn't understand it was a nonsensical question.
 
Anarchon does not know the right questions to this problem because antiGodists have neither the logic, the symbols, or the language to prove that God does not exist.
 
Anarchon said:
Forming the correct question is a very difficult thing to do in science. If you don't understand the nature of the universe to proper extent, you'll ask a nonsensical question. It's likely that's what you're doing here.

People used to ask what would happen when they sailed to the end of the earth. They didn't understand it was a nonsensical question.
Click to expand...

either the earth had ends, or it did not......
 
Sad Pimp Rana does not understand holy scripture. This will help the two of them, both Sad Pimp and his guide Rana.

"Judge not, lest you be judged": Misinterpreted Bible ...
www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/...
It is, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgement.” It is simply this: We humans CANNOT, I repeat, it is impossible, to look upon any goings on around us without judging.

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged! - John and Ellen Duncan
johnandellenduncan.com/jd_judgenot.htm
Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged [do not judge others if you do not want to be judged by others; everyone will be judged by God]. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [if you judge others, they will judge you by the same measures].

JOHN 7:24 KJV "Judge not according to the appearance, but ...
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-7-24
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
either the earth had ends, or it did not......
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. They assumed that it did have an end when they formed their question of what happened when you reached the end. Some thought you'd fall off. Some thought there was a big monster that ate you. They were wrong to make that assumption, and their question became meaningless. As they learned more, they understood why. There was a paradigm shift.

You assume that the somethingness of the universe, as we perceive it, must have a cause, a beginning, and an end in ways that we completely understand. The paradigms in which we view time and causality, have changed relatively recently in modern physics. Given how little we understand of the universe, and the rate at which our understanding changes, you're very likely wrong in making your assumption.
 
jimmymccready said:
Anarchon does not know the right questions to this problem because antiGodists have neither the logic, the symbols, or the language to prove that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

The Universe of Discourse is the actual universe we exist in, U.
The relation, P, is defined where entity, e, has a physical effect on U.
∀(e,U), (e,U)∈P
The set of natural entities, N, and the set of supernatural entities, S, are defined thusly:
N={n: ∀n, nPU}
S={s: ∀s, s¬∈N}
In other words:
S=N^C
A god, g, is a supernatural entity:
∀g, g∈S
The relation, E, is defined where entity, e, has objective reality or being in U.
If an entity has objective reality or being, it has a physical effect on the universe.
eEU →∀e,e∈N
∴∀n,nEU
∀n,nEU → ∄s,sEU∎
Corollary: If god exists, it cannot be supernatural, and therefore cannot be a god.
 
Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement.

As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.
 
jimmymccready said:
Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement.

As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...


Don't you think its personal and spiritual? I mean there is no proof for the existence of God either.

I don't think taking the Bible stories literally as if the were science and/or history is helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top