Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Jan 2013 15:25:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2013 15:47:49 GMT
K. Hoyles says:

Spin - not just a leap of faith, but tangible evidence. How can you deny gravity exists?

Spin says:

K I do not deny gravity exists. But even science does not know what it is. Science adopts the model which closely supports its other theories. The scientist is involved in just as much as an unjustified "leap of faith", a belief in an unproven proposition, in an idea, as the theist is.

Spin says:

Just as theists do not question what they read in the bible, so empiricists do not question what they read in scientific journals (or, in most cases on these threads, on Wikipedia). Genuine science, in todays community, questions the scientific attitude ie: a dogmatic attitude similar to that it condemns in theism.

Spin says:

Why do the people who vote that my post does not contribute to the discussion, even though it directly answers the question, never reply with an argument? Thier ignorance is thier sheild, I guess.

(Apologies Karen & Spin...
but I thought it best if we stick with the original title of this forum).

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:35:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2013 15:36:26 GMT
Spin says:
Paul: Thank God. For a minute I thought the Tequilas were affecting my eyesight...=) (Edit: not that they affect my reasoning, of course...)

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:40:08 GMT
Spin says:
Uh Oh! a choice between two threads offering the same discussion....Which one will prevail? =) I guess I shall have to get used to posting the same response on two threads...One initiated by a secularist and the other by a theist. Aah, life..ain't it grand? =)

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 15:43:24 GMT
Hi Stephen

A little while ago you wrote:

.1. UNICORNS EXISTS BECAUSE...
The universe requires an Almighty Unicorn... If not why not?
.2. Atheists exist... Agreed?
.3. And atheists are not their own cause... Agreed?
.4. Nor is anything in the universe... Agreed?
.5. But everything in the universe has a cause... Agreed?
.6. And the cause for everything in the intelligible universe, including its intelligible matter or energy, its intelligible laws, and its intelligible evolution, must be an Almighty Intelligent Uncaused Cause... Agreed?
.7. So Unicorns exists. ... If not why not?

What drivel... it's just nonsense circle logic -.-

I replied:

Hi Stephen
If you call Almighty God, or an atheist for that matter, a unicorn, that's up to you. It is not a question of logic but simply `quirky terminology.'

But, getting back to the logic in hand:
Atheists exist... Agreed?
And atheists are not their own cause... Agreed?
Nor is anything in the universe... Agreed?
But everything in the universe has a cause... Agreed?
And the cause for everything in the intelligible universe, including its intelligible matter or energy, its intelligible laws, and its intelligible evolution, must be an Almighty Intelligent Uncaused Cause... Agreed?
So God exists.

No sign of your circle nonsense there...

I note that you have not yet replied.

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 15:50:21 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 16:03:02 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:05:04 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul,

"but I thought it best if we stick with the original title of this forum"

This is a thread - the forum's title is Religion.

So how about staying on topic and letting the rest of know what reasons you have come up with for God's non-existence.

Let me start you off:

God does not exist because...

Now take it from there. You can give more than four reasons if you like.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:30:24 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Paul says:- "And the cause for everything in the intelligible universe, including its intelligible matter or energy, its intelligible laws, and its intelligible evolution, must be an Almighty Intelligent Uncaused Cause... Agreed?
So God exists.
No sign of your circle nonsense there..."

Oh yes there is"
Those two little lines ".........*must* be (a God)", and "So God Exists".
Why is it "must" Paul.
How can you state categorically that God *must* exist.
What system of logical reasoning leads you to such a conclusion.
Ignore the tripe you used in this example and get down and dirty - give us the stone foundations upon which you state - "God *must* exist".
Cheers
Peter

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:52:17 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Paul says:- "OK... but again... following the intelligible laws of the universe."

Right Paul, once more to try to get through to you.
"The intelligible Laws of the Universe" that you seem willing to accept as right and proper are :-
Self contained by everything in the Universe as part of their own, individual identitiy.
There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
And that, Paul, is the foundation of all that followed - including us.

Cheers
Peter

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 16:55:19 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Paul asks:- "An infinite entity could create a finite system, could it not?"

I doubt it Paul.
It wouldn't understand "finite".
Cheers
Peter

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 17:09:49 GMT
Bellatori says:
All you have done is cut and pasted the same old garbage from a previous thread. You have had a coherent explanation of
Fields->Heisenberg->Big Bang->Weak Anthropic Principle->Us already. No God involved

Please spare us your cut and paste rehash of things already dealt with. If you have anything NEW to say then fine. Just try not to take up space with tedious remixes of whines about points not answered that have been answered several times. Go look at the previous thread and save yourself and ourselves much pain and wasted effort.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 17:25:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2013 17:38:06 GMT
"but, for some strange reason, he cannot either find it or remember it."

A simple lie. I told you the reason.

ETA Permalink; http://tinyurl.com/b2sse7p

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 20:34:43 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Peter:- >>> .10. The reason any one is "here" is "because we're here" - the lottery of reproduction, chance, and opportunity.

Paul's answer:- "Sorry Peter, that statement is neither rational nor coherent. It is an absurd statement to make "

Why don't you explain this "irrationality" and "absurdity" you keep accusing me of?
Why is my answer irrational?
Why is it absurd?
I'd really like to understand how you came to your point of view.
How do *you* explain your own presence on the planet for instance?
How likely is your explanation to be more rational, less absurd, or more "coherent" than the one I gave you.
Are you a deliberately, and specifically aquired little person with all the specified attributes that Mum and Dad ordered from the celestial catalogue?
Are you a holy child as prophesied somewhere in the OT or NT?
Or are you like everyone else Paul, - pot luck, a **one in (roughly) 120 million opportunity**(see below), a lottery chance, and here purely because you're here?
What's more it can be demonstrated to be true.
Take as long as you like to answer (you usually do) but do try to keep to the point.
The **......** bit by the way is really nowhere near the real odds.
The lottery of birth extends over the fertile lifetime of the prospective parents and works out to be quite a complicated and involved equation. The results are more "astronomical" in range, with unbelievable odds against a 'specific self' being you by design or wish, as far as natural procreation is concerned.
Which can only leave "chance" as the deciding factor for any specific individual.
And that's the "reason" behind your birth too.
Explain the absurdity of this if you can.
Cheers
Peter

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 20:36:11 GMT
Doubt it, P. Smith. On Thursdays Paul has his Bores Anonymous meetings.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 20:53:21 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"Go look at the previous thread and save yourself and ourselves much pain and wasted effort."

The fact that there are 3 previous threads should give you a clue as to how effective your advice will be.

Posted on 10 Jan 2013 21:55:13 GMT
Tim Tuck Boo says:
methinks... existence of God is a leap of faith but so is the non-existence of God. Atheism is therefore a religion of a kind. First, and most difficult, is to say what we mean by "God". There seem to be many different ideas attached to this word.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2013 22:27:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2013 22:28:58 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"methinks... existence of God is a leap of faith but so is the non-existence of God."

Not really. The probability of your particular brand of deity existing is the same for every other deity ever conceived or believed. A theist takes on the burden of proof as to why one particular conception at any period in time is more likely than any other. To me they are equally improbable conceptions. Some are in fact impossible.

-"Atheism is therefore a religion of a kind."

Is Theism a religion? No it isn't. Neither is Atheism.

-"First, and most difficult, is to say what we mean by "God". There seem to be many different ideas attached to this word."

I find it hard to hold a belief about something unknown. To me it is unknown, therefore we cannot and should not apply attributes. That would be nothing more than a random shot in the dark.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 03:38:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 04:21:20 GMT
light says:
Hi K.

You said on the previous thread, God does not exist because... (3), "Light - we don't know all the answers and the universe is indeed a mystery. However, finding out about its origins and what is happening to our cosmos and beyond is an ongoing process, and many new exciting discoveries have been made, new galaxies have been found which give a better understanding of our origins, for example. Knowledge is also used for good."

I agree, I think that finding out about the past and the origins of the universe can be interesting but I think that it is more important to use the money we have at hand to fix the present and work on the future because the past can't be changed.

K. Hoyles says:
Light - your line 'science hasn't proven God yet' has just sunk into my early morning fuzzy head, and to that I can only reply that maybe science will discover god whilst on the journey to understand the origins of the cosmos ;)

Yes indeed ;o) take care light

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 03:47:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 03:54:59 GMT
light says:
Peter, You said on the previous thread, God does not exist because...(3)

Light says:-"science hasn't proven God yet so God's secrets remain hidden."

Peter says, It's not science's job to prove God - it's yours if it's anyone's!

I say, There is nothing that I can say that would prove anything to you, you must expereince it for yourself. God's energy is witnessed through creation and the laws of nature.

Light asks:- "What would happen if people could unlock the mysteries of the universe?"

Peter says, Don't you think that's exactly what we have been doing by looking at it, Light?

I say, Yes I do, but then what? All the money that has been used to unlock the mysteries of the universe could have been used for feeding and housing the poor.

Light asks:- "Would the power be used to create or destroy?"

Peter says, A bit of both I reckon. It's humanity we're referring to.

I say, If the power of the Big Bang could be harnessed and used for destruction there would be no room left to use it for good.

take care light

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 04:18:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 04:20:20 GMT
light says:
Spin, You said on the previous thread, God does not exist because...(3)

"I believe that religion is adopted because of experience, not belief. One believes because of experience, one does not experience because of belief. The religious have not experienced those things which counter thier belief and the non-religious have not experienced those things which favour religious belief."

I agree, However there have been many times I have thought to stop believing in any type of Higher Power because of something that has happened but then something always happens to keep me on the same track. I guess I have a one track mind ;o)

take care light

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 06:30:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 08:00:59 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 06:38:22 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 08:06:40 GMT
Spin says:

Why do the people who vote that my post does not contribute to the discussion, even though it directly answers the question, never reply with an argument? Thier ignorance is thier sheild, I guess.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 08:08:59 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 08:12:18 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 128 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  64
Total posts:  3185
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  27 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions