If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong (1 Viewer)

[Armani]

Somehow I find those that believe in the concept of God more ignorant than those who don't. That is to say, the people, not the concept of God.

 

[hipPo3]

Somehow I find those that believe in the concept of God more ignorant than those who don't. That is to say, the people, not the concept of God.

the same can be said about poeple that believe in science..

ignorance is bliss..

 

[Sepulchres]

What's your point? If there is no evidence available then it doesn't mean we should believe it. No evidence means no evidence. You've got no evidence that there isn't an invisible flying pink elephant named Mervin who likes singing ballads undetactable to ours ears. It would be stupid asking for evidence because Mervin is invisible. Why don't you believe in him?

People believe in god's attributes, not in an old bearded man - most people anyway. If god's attribute is 'to create' then the creation is an evidence of said attribute.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

Okay my bad, I was assuming you're an atheist.

With respect, those arguments are so old and flawed it's laughable. See my above post for example, in regards to the first cause argument.

With respect, those counters show little understanding of the arguments put forth. Also, what's your counter to Spinoza's argument?

 

[Generator]

the same can be said about poeple that believe in science..

ignorance is bliss..

The point is that science isn't a belief, it's a method of inquiry that allows ideas to be tested and proved false.

 

[Sepulchres]

The point is that science isn't a belief as it is testable and capable of being proved false.

Science is a belief when one believes science can provide 'all' the answers. But yes generally speaking, people don't have 'faith' in scientific theories although a reasonable amount of intuition is needed to advance in science.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God's definition is "infinite", and infinite by definition does not have a start - therefore god, by definition, was not created. Now, if you have something against the concept of infinity you're welcome to try and prove that wrong.

Why not an infinite universe? or better yet, infinate void, from which our universe was created?

 

[Armani]

the same can be said about poeple that believe in science..

ignorance is bliss..

That is why it is best to keep an open mind. The concept of God has not be disproven and probably never will. As it stands, evolution is the most convincing argument, unlike the Big Bang theory, but then again, it is just a theory. Why has no one brought up the theory of God? At least create a theory dependent and independent of religion. Religion it seems, has more flaws than that of scientific theory.

 

[Generator]

Science is a belief when one believes science can provide 'all' the answers. But yes generally speaking, people don't have 'faith' in scientific theories although a reasonable amount of intuition is needed to advance in science.

Science doesn't claim to have 'all' the answers (both now and into the future), it just offers a way in which to test ideas so that one day we may know more than we currently do.

 

[Sepulchres]

Why not an infinite universe? or better yet, infinate void, from which our universe was created?

Something can't come from nothing.

"nothing" = lack of all attributes, including the ability to give rise to something.
"something" = something with attributes

Therefore it follows that 'something' (that would be the universe) cannot come from 'nothing' (infinite void).

 

[Sepulchres]

Science doesn't claim to have 'all' the answers (both now and into the future), it just offers a way in which to test ideas so that one day we may know more than we currently do.

I agree. However, there are people who believe science can unearth all the answers and those are the ones that have 'faith' in science.

That is why it is best to keep an open mind. The concept of God has not be disproven and probably never will. As it stands, evolution is the most convincing argument, unlike the Big Bang theory, but then again, it is just a theory. Why has no one brought up the theory of God? At least create a theory dependent and independent of religion. Religion it seems, has more flaws than that of scientific theory.

The big bang is a very sound scientific theory...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I worded the second part incorrectly.

Spinoza's beliefs are hardly proof of god... It is very possible to be an atheist and agree with spinoza's opinion on what "god" is, much as einstein did.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

[The bolded text is from my previous post. Anything in square brackets is mine.]

i. Everything has a cause.
ii. Nothing can cause itself.
iii. Everything is caused by another thing.
iv. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
v. There must be a first cause.
vi. God was the first cause.

1. If everything requires a cause, what created God? If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

God is, by definition, infinite. The universe is not infinite (see previous replies).

Why is the universe not infinite?

2. Premise 6 does not necessarily flow from premise 5. Who says that the first cause was God? (See also: Law of parsimony/Occam's razor - multiplying assumptions/entities unnecessarily.)

Logical disjunction. If the [alleged] first cause was finite, then it itself would need a cause, and therefore cease to be first cause; so on and so forth. Ultimately you'll require an infinte entity who's cause was itself.

That is exactly the problem with the argument.

1. Why can't the universe be infinite?

2. Your argument begs the question. You say that everything except God has a cause. You rely on that premise in support of your conclusion ("there is a God"). Circular reasoning.

3. According to this argument, there can be more than one first cause. Premises 1 and 2 state that there is at least one causal chain of events, premise 3 tells us that they have a first cause. In this argument, the first entity (God) cannot have a cause, since then it wouldn't be an uncaused cause of the chain. However it does not follow that all causal chains must have the same first cause. There may be many different causal chains with many first causes, one for each of the chains. So it is not necessarily true that there is one, first uncaused cause of everything.

See previous argument.

See my point in relation to your previous argument. Also, I do not see how your previous argument in any way goes against my point.

4. It is also not necessarily true that every event has a cause. Some things apparently do not have a cause, such as radioactive decay. (There are also theories such as infinitely oscillating universes that could mean the unvirse does not exist without a cause.)

No and no. I don't want to go over the basics of logic here, but if you really believe that something can indeed come (effect without cause) then I'll leave you to your ignorance.

You did not address my point. You also committed an ad hominem fallacy. Please try and direct your comments at the argument, not the proponent.

In relation to your comments, I would point out that when we talk about the universe we talk of everything that exists. Everything. If God exists, then God is part of the Universe. Why does the first cause have to be a supreme being? Why can't it be a natural cause?

The whole first cause argument is a classic God of the gaps. Saying that "God caused it" does not explain anything at all. As I said, you can substitute "God" for "all-powerful pink elephant" -- it is replacing one unknown (how the universe is what it is) with another unknown (some sort of deity). (Since you speak of logic, I assume you’re doing first year philosophy right? Are you aware of Occam’s razor? You’re increasing assumptions unnecessarily.)

 

[Sepulchres]

I worded the second part incorrectly.

Spinoza's beliefs are hardly proof of god... It is very possible to be an atheist and agree with spinoza's opinion on what "god" is, much as einstein did.

Einstein was an Atheist? I always thought he was a 'Deist'; someone who believed in a 'god' but not religion.

Also...how exactly are you equating Spinoza's god of infinite number of infinite attributes and atheism?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Einstein and Spinoza believed in a "god" but this god was the natural world, most atheists/agnostics see the world from a naturalistic / scientific perspective.

 

[Sepulchres]

Why can't the universe be infinite?

Infinite regression of time.

Your argument begs the question. You say that everything except God has a cause. You rely on that premise in support of your conclusion ("there is a God"). Circular reasoning.

That's not a premise - that's god's attribute. The premises are: "something" exists, and "something can't come from nothing". If I'm trying to prove that 'meat' exists to you, first we have to agree on the attributes of 'meat' - right? I can't prove something which has an abstract set/types of attributes; this is exactly the case here. An attribute of god is that it is 'infinite'. If you disagree with this then that is another topic.

Which begs the question, do you disagree that god's attribute is infinite?

You did not address my point. You also committed an ad hominem fallacy. Please try and direct your comments at the argument, not the proponent.

Hmm...I didn't mean it in an insulting manner. But yeah, sorry about that.

In relation to your comments, I would point out that when we talk about the universe we talk of everything that exists. Everything. If God exists, then God is part of the Universe. Why does the first cause have to be a supreme being? Why can't it be a natural cause?

I don't include god under the 'universe' because everything in the universe should be observable and nothing can be 'infinite' within a 'finite' universe, therefore god has to exist outside the folds of the 'universe', which is a collection of everything that we can observe.

The whole first cause argument is a classic God of the gaps. Saying that "God caused it" does not explain anything at all. As I said, you can substitute "God" for "all-powerful pink elephant" -- it is replacing one unknown (how the universe is what it is) with another unknown (some sort of deity). (Since you speak of logic, I assume you’re doing first year philosophy right? Are you aware of Occam’s razor? You’re increasing assumptions unnecessarily.)

I don't take philosophy courses because I think they are rather useless. But yes, I'm aware of Occam's razor and I'm also aware that I'm not increasing any assumptions here.

And yes sure you can substitute god for 'invisible elephant' but like I've said it's the attributes that matter, not the label. The (primary) attribute of god is 'eternal being' - what you use to refer to said attribute is entirely up to you. Historically it's been 'god', if you want to use 'pink elephant', that's fine. And I'm not replacing any unknown variables with 'god'; I'm saying something (i.e. finite) cannot logically come from nothing therefore god, a being that is eternal, necessarily exists (extremely condensed argument).

 

[Sepulchres]

Einstein and Spinoza believed in a "god" but this god was the natural world, most atheists/agnostics see the world from a naturalistic / scientific perspective.

The natural world has an infinite number of attributes?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If 'god' can be eternal, than certainly other substances also can.

 

[Sepulchres]

If 'god' can be eternal, than certainly other substances also can.

The concept of 'eternity' is at direct conflicts with the observable universe.

If said eternal substance exists outside of the universe, it is necessarily a part of god since god is infinite in its existence.

 

[Sepulchres]

Anyways, one must sleep. Night.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If said eternal substance exists outside of the universe, it is necessarily a part of god since god is infinite in its existence.

How is it necessarily a part of god?