God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

The First Cause is defined simply as the Cause that is not caused. The Cause that always was what It is; transcendent, independent and not contingent upon anything but Itself.

All of metaphysics; things like life, intellect, will, truth, virtue, consciousness, etc. etc.

A not-very-clever rhetorical dodge. We all know that the "peer review" system is a propagation tool for your ideology. Anything not convenient to your ideology will not be published by the "Establishment" publicity machine.

There are lots of things we know exist without being able to physically "see" them. You know they exist by what they do.

So your "First Cause" is nothing more than a convoluted way of saying "I don't know". Why not just say "I don't know" rather than inventing properties for a hypothetical non-physical entity?

All of metaphysics; things like life, intellect, will, truth, virtue, consciousness, etc. etc.

These are all aspects of physical reality.

A not-very-clever rhetorical dodge. We all know that the "peer review" system is a propagation tool for your ideology. Anything not convenient to your ideology will not be published by the "Establishment" publicity machine.

Why would one dodge an unsubstantiated assertion? One need do no more than swat it aside. I'd be fascinated to hear more about my "ideology". If anything, skepticism is the opposite of an ideology.

A common trait in ideologues is that they cannot conceive that others are not similarly dedicated to their dogma, and this certainly seems the case with yourself.

Another trait common to ideologues is that they tend not to ask any questions, yet make a great many pronouncements. Can you guess what your ratio of questions asked to assertions made has been in this thread?

And of course, there are the attempted provocations, such as clumsy attempts to patronise in a bid to preemptively shut down or derail opposition - which brings us to:

Not deserving comment.

Then you will send me a little jar full of each so that I can do physical experiments on them?

You are not the least bit sceptical of atheist dogma... even though it will not stand any reasonable observational or logical scrutiny.

I am not proposing any dogma; just simple facts of observation and logic available to anyone.

Oh? What questions should I ask?

Yes please! All of the above.

I get the impression that you are trying to convince me that you are.

Nope! I am claiming that objective observations and logic are the "incontrovertible authority".

I get the impression that you are trying to convince me that you are.

Nope! I am claiming that objective observations and logic are the "incontrovertible authority".

None at all.

I cannot answer any questions on behalf of atheists who are upset by statements of belief in the existence of divine beings.

As for myself, I find belief to be a thoroughly fascinating subject. I am intrigued by many facets of belief, including the ubiquitous inability of believers to provide a logical rationale behind those things they claim belief in.

Another observation is that there are some believers who follow an ideology which apparently outright commands them to actively seek converts to their cause, yet who respond defensively or condescendingly to questions by genuinely open-minded skeptics. There's appears to be an internal conflict which I am convinced is caused by their own doubt in the strength of their faith.

I am intrigued by many facets of belief, including the ubiquitous inability of believers to provide a logical rationale behind those things they claim belief in.

Face it - God exists. Stop living in denial, and accept what is real. I understand that atheists, and secularists in general, don't really like the idea of God for personal, emotional reasons, but there is no getting away from something that is as obvious as the ground beneath your feet.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and also the Bahá'í Faith) see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal, unchangeable and unaffected by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.

In the Abrahamic traditions, there are many differences in how these properties are expressed[citation needed]. The importance placed upon those properties is often debated by each group. In the past, as well as in modern times, people[vague] have suggested each group is speaking of a different god, or that each individual human has his own personal conception of god; thus god can only be approximately known.

I mean, it's bad enough that we now have people trying to, in all seriousness, tell us that something can come from literally nothing (S. Hawking, L. Krauss),

and next they will be telling us that they don't believe we even have minds,

but those people are clearly biased and have an agenda of their own. People should stop spouting Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and their ilk, and actually learn to think for themselves for a change.

Isn't it strange how atheists will accuse others of being emotional, but will - when it suits their purposes - indulge in it themselves?

Never mind, moving on. The (highly emotional) outburst wasn't addressed to me, but maybe I can be of assistance. Ahem!

a) Our physical reality, which we call ‘the universe’, is contingent (i.e. it could have had other properties and constants, or not existed at all). The ‘multiverse hypothesis’ not only has no evidence in its favour whatsoever, but actually does not address the issue of ultimate causes, for one has to then ask why there is a multiverse rather than nothing, and if one then postulates in order to account for this level of reality yet another level of (physical) reality, then one will never actually reach the ultimate source for all there is (see ‘infinite regression’, below).

b) Contingent entities are generally recognised to have causes, whether the cause is efficient or material, contingent or necessary, temporal or atemporal (W. L. Craig). A ‘cause’ can either precede the ‘effect’, or be temporally co-existent (atemporal causality).

The common objection that causality itself is an aspect of the physical reality we know, and that because of this there was no time ‘before’ the universe began, and therefore the universe did not ‘begin’ in that sense, does not take into account the fact that an effect need not follow in a temporal sequence the cause that brought it into existence; the two - the cause and the effect - can be simultaneous. For example, the very table that I am now currently sitting next to sustains the objects that rest upon it in a relationship that places those objects a certain distance above the ground. If the table in question were to somehow magically pop out of existence, all that rests upon it would instantaneously fall to the ground due to the force of gravity. We can say, therefore, that the table is the contingent, atemporal cause of the current configuration of the objects that rest upon it, the simultaneity of both the cause and the effect demonstrating that time, in this specific example and as we understand it, is not required for such a situation to be. In the very same way it is said by theologians that God ‘sustains in existence’ the physical reality that, in its absence, would simply not exist. All that is physical is also contingent; physical entities, processes and phenomena are of limited duration and extent, are explicable, and required (or requires) the existence of something else external to it that one can consider to be its cause.

c) Entities, whether physical or non-physical (ex. consciousness), are never responsible for their own existence, for this would require they have some form of existence prior to their actually coming into existence, which is impossible. Any entity, process or phenomenon that had somehow created itself, would also have violated the principles of both temporal and atemporal causality.

d) That which exists, however one defines ‘existence’, requires an explanation for its existence, whether the explanation in question is contained within that which is being explained (i.e. it exists necessarily), or whether there is an exterior one that provides a context within which the entity in question can be accounted for (i.e. it exists contingently). An example of an aspect of reality that is necessary and therefore self-explanatory, is the mathematical entity known as the triangle. A triangle, by definition, is a polygon that only ever has three sides and interior angles that sum to 180 degrees in Euclidean space. The explanation for what a triangle is and why it is so, is found not in anything external to it, but within the entity itself. It matters not whether the triangle is isosceles, equilateral, right or scalene, the above requirements still apply, the definition still holds. So it is with other mathematical concepts, and with God too. They exist necessarily, because they simply could not fail to exist in the manner they do.

e) Any ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing must be necessary, if only because the postulation of yet another contingent explanation for what there is and why, would inevitably lead to the absurdity of an infinite regression of causes (J. P. Moreland). Can an infinity of moments actually be crossed? The answer according to theologians such as J. P. Moreland and others, is that no, they cannot.

The past, as something that is said to exist in a real and meaningful way, has at least one boundary that we are all aware of (i.e. the present), and however one decides to define exactly what is meant by a ‘moment in time’, it is generally agreed that such moments, however brief in duration they may be, cannot be infinite in number for the simple reason that the past would have no lower bound; that is, it would have taken an unlimited amount of time to reach what we call the present, and the problem arises when one considers the fact that one of the defining characteristics of the infinite, as a concept, is that no number, however large, that is added to or subtracted from it, can alter its basic, boundless nature. The past, being infinite in extent, would have ensured that we could never have reached the moment in time where we are now.

Just read your comment about multiple universes. No no one is or should have claimed it's existence. It's hypothesized along with others as possible states of our universe. Unlike with God, we have the ability to say that it is a possibility as the math and current models don't rule it out. And again unlike God, we actually have a universe that we can actually see. So, the possibility of others isn't clear, but it is mathematically possible. We even are looking at ways we could measure whether it's true. We can't yet and may not ever be able to, but time will tell. On the other hand, short of God coming down and 'proving' he's God, we have and never have had evidence of any kind that there is a God...

I don't. You won't find one single Dawkins,Hitchens or Harris reference or quote in any of my posts. I don't look to famous atheists for my beliefs because what I have is a lack of belief. You don't need to look to anybody else to not believe something. Thinking for myself also means not just agreeing with somebody who says "it's obvious I'm right". I need evidence. "It's obvious" is not evidence.

a lack of belief.

You know, you try to simply overwhelm people with deep sounding verbiage and make claims that would take a book to answer. Then when people don't rise to your bait, you claim they are out of their comfort zone. Consider evolution. The first comprehensive understanding of it took a textbook to explain. Then people like you make claims without the underlying foundations in place. You then want what you call proof. Take a damn course before you start spouting off about things for which you have little knowledge...

So through your utter refusal to answer any challenges of mine, your concession is pretty clear. All we have in this paragraph of yours is a series of cop-outs, and pretty clumsy ones considering the "book" you've already written in this thread with all of the material you've contributed. We can see all kinds of claims about my motives, and other fallacies, but never yet have you demonstrated in this thread a direct response to my arguments. My "little knowledge" and "take a damn course" are quite humorous observations of yours, given that Socrates would have laughed heartily at your sophistry in this thread, what with your constant genetic fallacies.

It seems to me that you're not sure how to do anything other than ridicule your interlocutor.Surely it doesn't take a book, or any kind of comprehensive effort to at least own up to the challenge that you've been responding with basically nothing ad homs and appeals to ridicule.

Yeah, go with that...

Atheism is a belief system that is every bit as much a superstitious religion as voodoo. It has its own esoterica, prophets and high priests along with a plethora of irrational prejudices that have become unassailable dogma needing no justification other than that they suit the ideology.

atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.