Shop now Shop Clothing clo_fly_aw15_NA_shoes Shop All Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop Amazon Fire TV Shop now Shop Fire HD 6 Shop Kindle Voyage Shop Now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God does not exist (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 453 posts in this discussion
Posted on 11 Jan 2013 09:02:02 GMT
Paul Davidson says:

"I believe that human freedom is a fact and a mystery at one and the same time."

http://tinyurl.com/b4t2exn

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 09:11:13 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Wow, is Paul trying to copy over all the posts from this thread so his has a monopoly on the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 09:20:23 GMT
It would appear so.

I wonder if he will copy these ones.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 09:21:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 09:22:28 GMT
Drew Jones says:
I hope so otherwise we'd have wasted our time writing them and he'll look inconsistent.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 09:27:08 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Perhaps we should post only in this thread and let him carry on with his copying. He can stick to the other thread but all the replies go here.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 09:29:48 GMT
He could exist in "splendid isolation", on his own thread, posting poetry and cutting 'n' pasting his answers repeatedly.

Sounds like a plan.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 12:15:26 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul Davidson wrote:

'Hi Norm

'To your:

'>>> God does not exist because... Now take it from there. You can give more than four reasons if you like.

'I replied:
'"But surely, Norm, that is the job of atheists: 'God does not exist because...' ... And, after 30,000 posts... We are still waiting for their reasons... and their coherent reasoning."

'You now respond:

'>>> Do you, then, believe in all of the gods that have worshipped at one time or another?

'No. Just in Almighty God'

Thus ignoring the question. Which is "what reasons do you have for not believing in all of the other gods?"

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 12:45:24 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul Davidson wrote:

'Hi Norm

'You wrote:

'>>> Everything we see that has intelligence exists in the physical universe.

'Wrong'

Please give an example of something that we can see that is not in the physical universe but has intelligence.

'>>> God is intelligent.
'Right
'>>> Therefore, if God exists at all it must be in the physical universe.
'God is everywhere.'

Everywhere being the physical universe. So you agree.

'>>> Therefore God must have a cause.
'Wrong. Almighty God is the Intelligent Uncaused Cause and the cause of all the physical realities that we see in the universe (all of which require this Uncaused Cause for their existence).'

No. You are denying your own premise that everything in the physical universe must have a cause. The 'uncaused cause' cannot be God. This is reinforced by your introducing the idea that God is everywhere.

'>>> responsible for all the caused entities
'Right'
You have managed to copy and paste a line that was not in post in order to agree with it/ Odd.

Note that God is a 'caused entity' according to your premises.

'>>> Therefore God cannot be the final cause.[1]
'He not only can He Is.'

No. Your grasp of logic is getting ever more tenuous - God cannot be both caused and uncaused.

'>>> Therefore there is no necessity that God *must* exist.
'Indeed there is, otherwise nothing else would exist.'

Wrong again. Using your premises something must exist but it does not have to be God.

>>> [1] You have identified God with being the final cause (although you have not prov'ided any reasoning to support this) which cannot be true, so, according to you, God does not exist.
'You seriously need to read:
'`New Proofs for the Existence of God,' by Robert J. Spitzer.
'It's all explained clearly for you there.'

Does it use the same faulty reasoning that you do?

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:11:00 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul Davidson wrote.

'"What reasons do you have for not believing in all of the other gods?"

'There is only One Almighty Intelligent God, the One Uncaused Cause, Creator of the universe and everything in it. All other `gods' are false gods.
'This was clearly revealed to us by the Divine Jesus Christ.'

You do not believe other gods exist because of what Jesus is reported to have said and that is authoritative because Jesus was divine. Why do you think Jesus was divine?

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:16:28 GMT
Spin says:
Any man who turns water into alcohol is "divine" in my book...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:17:15 GMT
light,

Are you a scientist? I ask because I seem to remember you saying you believe God is some kind of energy but you don't know exactly how to define him because you're not sure. You have spent your life searching for something but you don't know what you're looking for - you're doing exactly what you're claiming scientists do. If it is a leap of faith for you why do you think scientists should not be allowed to use a leap of faith? Thats rather selfish don't you agree?

Incidently I do not believe it is a "leap of faith" for scientists. Dark matter is a hypothesis - if they don't find it they will need another hypothesis - maybe they'll find dark matter or maybe they'll find something else but it will all lead to a greater knowledge of whats out there.
When the first telescope was built and astroners looked into the sky they did not know what they were looking for but rather observed things then tried to explain them. How do you discover things if you do not try to observe them. You seem to be claiming we should not build machines to try to find out things - thats a very closed attitude.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:20:49 GMT
Spin says:
Building a machine to detect what you think exists is different from building a machine that detects what actually exists..

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:34:11 GMT
Spin,

"Before you can find out if, for instance, Dark matter exists, you must be able to define what it is you are looking for."

Why? Why can you not make an observation and then define what it is you have observed? Indeed, if you understood what science was you'd know thats what it does. Hypotheses are made eg dark matter, but they don't become accepted UNTIL the facts fit from observations. Atoms were hypothesised for a long time but nobody knew what they were, how they were made up, how small they were etc UNTIL they were observed (or thier effects were observed). It didn't stop people looking for atoms even though they weren't defined but they were eventually found.

"Dark matter is undefined so science does not know what to look for or how to look for it."

Dark matter IS defined. Science has ideas how to look for it. Science knows what its looking for even if it isn't dark matter. If it finds it - all well and good. If it doesn't, it'll have to look elsewhere. The simple fact that science admits there is something wrong with its view of the universe is intellectual honesty. Noone would know that "dark matter/energy" is required if science hadn't made observations which shows something is missing its understanding.

" Do not fool yourself into thinking science is infallible."

Is anything infallible (God excepted of course). I don't think scientists claim it is. If it was, there wouldn't be any scientists because we'd all take previous claims as gospel and not bother searching for greater knowledge.

"Science has no answers to the questions which it relies on answering to defend itself. "

Give some examples then.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:42:44 GMT
Spin,

In what way? If the machine gives an answer that doesn't fit your theory then your theory is wrong. Observations of what actually happens are the reality - our wishes and ideas are irrelevant if they don't fit. You cannot wish away what actually exists by thinking (or wishing) - that is the realm of theism.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 14:43:48 GMT
Spin says:
Rev: What do mean "Why?". Surely if one wishes to prove the existence of something, by words or experiment, one must first define what it is one is seeking to prove? What is the point of producing arguments and experiments concerning some undefined entity? "X" exists, so lets conduct arguments and experiments to see what "X" actually is if it in fact exists.....Weird...Dark matter = The God particle.... God and dark matter are hypthetical constructs formulated to save hypotheses about personal experience of reality. No more, no less. PS; God is not infallible; there a number of mistakes he has made in his creation...The most conspicous of which is that he felt the need to create..Lonely guy...

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:00:43 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul Davidson wrote:

'Hi Norm
'You wrote:
'>>> Everything we see that has intelligence exists in the physical universe.
'I replied
': Wrong

'You now ask:
'>>>Please give an example of something that we can see that is not in the physical universe but has intelligence.

'Thank you for pointing out my error.
'I was responding rapidly and ignored your "we see."
'If you extract the "we see" my reply stands as is.
'Otherwise, you are, of course correct.

You have failed to answer the question. Let me give you another chance, can you provide an example of anything that we can detect by any means that has intelligence but is not in the physical universe. This was echoing your contention that "everything we see in the physical universe is intelligible and has a cause". Do you now want to remove the "we see"?

'God is everywhere both in and out of the physical universe.
How would you know?

'He always Was, Is and always Will Be. So, obviously, He existed before the universe, which He alone created at the Big Bang. Its intelligible matter or energy evolved according to His wondrous intelligible laws.'

An unproven conjecture. The idea, remember was to show not only that the universe was a result of an act of creation but also that it *must* have been performed by your god. To do that you must show reasons (bot beliefs) why it could not have been Bob the Universe Builder.

'>>> Therefore God must have a cause.

'Wrong. Almighty God is the Intelligent Uncaused Cause and the cause of all the physical realities that we see in the universe (all of which require this Uncaused Cause for their existence).'

>>> No. You are denying your own premise that everything in the physical universe must have a cause.

'No. I stick with that
Then since God is everywhere in the universe, it must also have a cause.

'>>> The 'uncaused cause' cannot be God.

'God Is. God is the Almighty Intelligent Uncaused Cause.
That is an assertion. It cannot be used as an assumption since it is circular reasoning: God exists, therefore God exists.

'>>> This is reinforced by your introducing the idea that God is everywhere.

'God Is. God is everywhere.

'>>> Note that God is a 'caused entity' according to your premises.

'That is precisely what I am not saying.

That is what you are implying based on what you do say. You then try to deny the implications.

'>>> Therefore God cannot be the final cause.[1]

'He not only can He Is.'

>>> No. Your grasp of logic is getting ever more tenuous - God cannot be both caused and uncaused.

'God simply Is. He is the One and Only Almighty Intelligent Uncaused Cause, the only Necessary Being for anything to exist.
'All that we see in the physical universe is caused. It simply could not be without an Uncaused Cause.

More assertions. You are simply writing down what you want to be the conclusion even though it cannot be deduced from the premises.

'>>> Therefore there is no necessity that God *must* exist.

'Indeed there is, otherwise nothing else would exist.'

>>> Wrong again.

'Sorry, Right again.

Provide reasoning.

'>>> Using your premises something must exist but it does not have to be God.

'Then you are misunderstanding my premises.

Then you will be able to show how your premises, as stated, identify the uncaused first cause with God and nothing else.

'>>> [1] You have identified God with being the final cause (although you have not provided any reasoning to support this) which cannot be true, so, according to you, God does not exist.

'Then you are misunderstanding my premises.

See above. Show the chain of logical deductions step by step.
I am calling your bluff.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:04:50 GMT
Bellatori says:
No apology needed. I agree with everything you have put forward.

The only issue I have is the one with my own thought processes. Just because you and I agree on an abstract concept and can think of no alternative does that mean there is no alternative. That was where I was heading with the Greek example. They based their maths on Euclidean Geometry and not number line mathematics. These are equivalent but are they the same?
Again the final summary on the Yupno paper - ..do not spontaneously arise... The situations must still be the same so, logically (to abuse a much over used word) some 'non spontaneous group' must have an alternative strategy based on their internal contextual model. Fine, but what is it? Because of my upbringing in my society I lack the ability to conceptualise a possible alternative model. Is that because such a model does not exist or simply I am not clever enough to do so?
this is my only caveat on real numbers. You are saying that if another group uses real numbers, no matter how disguised, we would recognise it as real numbers. Fine, I accept that. It makes perfect sense. Do we know that there is no alternative to the real numbers for solving the problems that we use real numbers to solve.? Do we use real numbers because they are unique (as a concept) or because they work?

Thanks for your comments. Like all good science, in the event of a challenge to a hypothesis I need to go away and refine it on the basis of the available evidence...!

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:05:53 GMT
Bellatori says:
I can turn sugar into alcohol. Is that close enough?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:06:40 GMT
Bellatori says:
Absolutely. the first is science and the second is engineering...

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:12:40 GMT
Mr Paul Davidson says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:18:58 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori'; Light the drink so that it glows with a blue flame and serve it to me upon some very robust breasts, and you have my eternal devotion. =)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:21:05 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: I disagree. The engineer can only produce what is demanded of the scientist. If science seeks the Higgs boson, then a machine is built to find any aspect relating to the hypotheses of the Higgs. No more, no less.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:21:09 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Paul Davidson wrote:

". The intelligible universe is made up of things that are caused. Unless you have an Intelligent Uncaused Cause, nothing could or would exist. I don't suppose you have come across any uncaused physical things or events in the universe, have you Peter?"

Hi Paul,

I can't speak for Peter, but I have never come across a god either. So that must mean there are none. If there are one or more gods, then not having witnessed any uncaused events could not lead to a presumption that they have not happened by the same token.

Come to think of it, if I had come across an uncaused physical thing or event, I do not see how I could recognise it as such. Do you know of any criterion that might work?

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:30:09 GMT
Spin says:
It is not a God that theists must praise, but themselves. It is not God that fights the evils of this world, but those with a concern, be it at times faulty and misled,, for humanity. I have more faith and trust in humanity than I do in deity. It is mankind that is of importance, not religion or science.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:34:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 15:37:46 GMT
Andrew Daley says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[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:  48
Total posts:  453
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  30 Mar 2013

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

Search Customer Discussions