Does God Exist?
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
There's no immaculate conception, just human conception.
This is a side track but you are right. The Bible does not teach the immaculate conception. Mary was not protected from original sin. -
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you ask me, I think it is pointless to argue what was prior to "In the beginning God...". It's just academic. But we all agree that there was a beginning. The clock started ticking. If it started then something must have caused it to start. Now, we already said that whatever created the universe must be timeless, so why do you now suggest that it is not and thus requires a cause? We can either go infinite regress which explains nothing or we start with a necessary being God. There is nothing illogical about an uncaused cause.
Let's again not confuse the proof with the logic of the argument. Like it or not, there is no way we can transcend our confines to observe anything outside the universe. This is our limitation. But this does not in anyway proves that there is no cause that is outside of the universe. Cause and effect is a universal law, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to apply it to the universe. Remember, your issue is more of how to verify the cause, not that there is no cause. Agnosticism about the cause is not the same as denial of the cause.
Occam's Razor is a method of reasoning, not a proof of anything. It is invoked to remove UNNECESSARY entities to explain something. The simpler the explanation it should be PREFERRED over those that multipliy entities unneccessarily. There is no need to burden ourselves with extra entities when a simpler one is available.
I agree with your first statement. Except that I would push it a step further, it is of little value to argue what existed before the Big Bang. You would agree that there was timelessness before the Big Bang. How can we then assert that there could be a timeless creator which created the universe (not to mention time) during timelessness itself? I do not think there is a timeless creator for the cosmos. Which is why I reject the 1st and 3rd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I do not think we know enough about physical cosmology to ascertain if an actual infinite past can occur or if time exists as a closed loop.
I think it is precisely because of our inability to observe outside of the universe that we can't draw any conclusions regarding non-physical causation. Sure, we know a lot about physical causation. But what do we know about non physical causation? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Cause and effect is a universal law, which means it's principles hold true "in this universe". To then assume that it is also applicable to the causation of the universe, which if it did happen, would happen "outside the universe" is the Fallacy of Composition. Perhaps it is a little fuzzy; I'll try to give an example.
Set theory can help clarify. Suppose that everything, including the universe and whatever is outside of it is denoted as P. The universe is contained within P and we shall call it Q. Q is a part of P. To say that since the principle of cause and effect is true of Q, and it is therefore true of P is the fallacy I'm pointing to. Moreover I wish to add that causality cannot take place outside of time. I think it it is senseless to speak of the universe as having a cause since the very notion of "cause" involves temporal priority.
I strongly disagree with the methodology of Occam Razor. Simplicity is not always the best answer, not to mention not the most true. Preferences for epistemology aside, I find Bayesian Confirmation Theory to be much more useful at establishing truth claims.
By the way, I'm really enjoying our discussion thus far. Thanks.
-
If demons and devil exist, so does god
-
It's far more comforting to think that you are not alone, than to you being discarded.
-
Originally posted by White Dust:
I agree with your first statement. Except that I would push it a step further, it is of little value to argue what existed before the Big Bang. You would agree that there was timelessness before the Big Bang. How can we then assert that there could be a timeless creator which created the universe (not to mention time) during timelessness itself? I do not think there is a timeless creator for the cosmos. Which is why I reject the 1st and 3rd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I do not think we know enough about physical cosmology to ascertain if an actual infinite past can occur or if time exists as a closed loop.
I think it is precisely because of our inability to observe outside of the universe that we can't draw any conclusions regarding non-physical causation. Sure, we know a lot about physical causation. But what do we know about non physical causation? Nothing, absolutely nothing! Cause and effect is a universal law, which means it's principles hold true "in this universe". To then assume that it is also applicable to the causation of the universe, which if it did happen, would happen "outside the universe" is the Fallacy of Composition. Perhaps it is a little fuzzy; I'll try to give an example.
Set theory can help clarify. Suppose that everything, including the universe and whatever is outside of it is denoted as P. The universe is contained within P and we shall call it Q. Q is a part of P. To say that since the principle of cause and effect is true of Q, and it is therefore true of P is the fallacy I'm pointing to. Moreover I wish to add that causality cannot take place outside of time. I think it it is senseless to speak of the universe as having a cause since the very notion of "cause" involves temporal priority.
I strongly disagree with the methodology of Occam Razor. Simplicity is not always the best answer, not to mention not the most true. Preferences for epistemology aside, I find Bayesian Confirmation Theory to be much more useful at establishing truth claims.
By the way, I'm really enjoying our discussion thus far. Thanks.
1. I think humility should prevail when we have reached the limits of human reasoning and inquiry. We can wax eloquent about speculative things but it is still nothing but speculation. What we both should realise that in talking about what caused the universe we have left the physical universe and are talking about metaphysics. No more can we talk about empirical science or observations, or proofs and verification of anything. We are now arguing about what we BELIEVE and the reasonableness of belief, not what we can prove. What we have are arguments, not evidence. We cannot conclude based on what we do not know, but on what we do know. So it is about which argument makes the better case. If you are agnostic about it, then you cannot use your agnosticism to rule out my beliefs or to judge it wrong. Which comes back to the question, why can't I conclude that the cause of the universe is timeless? If time is an effect, the cause must be timeless i.e. not bound by time. And because the universe has a beginning, it is LOGICAL and reasonable to conclude that it has a cause because it is also supported by all our experience which tells us that everything that began to exists has a cause. Again you need to be clear as to whether you are being agnostic about the cause or are you denying there is a cause?
2. Your set theory example is flawed because it is ASSUMING that P is like Q, but just bigger to include Q. I am arguing that anything that can cause Q to exists is qualitatively different from Q. There is thus no fallacy of composition.
3. Occam's Razor is pretty much used everywhere. It is the economy of explanation that people look for. The simplest answer may certainly not be the best answer because the right answer could be anything but simple. But that's where the need to argue your case comes in. You have to give good reasons why Occam's Razor should not be applied in that instance to prefer the simpler explanation that can still explain the phenomena we wish to explain.
4. I'm happy to know that you are enjoying this discussion. So am I. Ignore the noise generated by the trolls like beta though. I'll do house-keeping as often as I can to keep out the trash and hopefully keep the thread alive and not being locked.
BTW, please see http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning and share your thoughts
-
.
-
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
Y delete negative posts? U sissy arh? If u wan a debate, u've got to accept other's opinions.
What do you do with trash in your house? You remove them. The posts I deleted have nothing to do with the topic but are either personal attacks or beta's nuisance pictures. -
I hate god. Here is why.
God has all power. God gains cold-hearted pleasure from misusing his power. He misuses his power by knowingly and willingly neglecting his duties. His duties are:
1. To eliminate any currently-existing SDD [Suffering, Destruction, and Death]
2. To prevent any future SDD
Since god purposely refuses to perform his duties, I hate him with a passion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the devil but I'd take a gazillion devils over one god. God and the devil are on the same side -- that of evil. However, god is much more powerful than the devil.
God's angels are good. The angels want to get rid of SDD. Sadly, god forces his angels -- via threats of eternal torture -- not to rescue physical reality from SDD. God forces the angels to allow SDD to continue to plague physical reality. Of all the evil entities, god is the most evil.
-
Originally posted by Gentleman_For_Girls:
I hate god. Here is why.
God has all power. God gains cold-hearted pleasure from misusing his power. He misuses his power by knowingly and willingly neglecting his duties. His duties are:
1. To eliminate any currently-existing SDD [Suffering, Destruction, and Death]
2. To prevent any future SDD
Since god purposely refuses to perform his duties, I hate him with a passion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the devil but I'd take a gazillion devils over one god. God and the devil are on the same side -- that of evil. However, god is much more powerful than the devil.
God's angels are good. The angels want to get rid of SDD. Sadly, god forces his angels -- via threats of eternal torture -- not to rescue physical reality from SDD. God forces the angels to allow SDD to continue to plague physical reality. Of all the evil entities, god is the most evil.
Thanks for sharing. I suppose you are FOR the existence of God. Much of the SSD you speak of are caused by man's moral choices. You cannot blame God for that. Hating God does not rid the world of SSD either. But the Bible teaches that God will bring an end to all that in His time. -
BroInChrist:
God have humans the ability to say and do wrong things. So god is at fault for "man's moral choices". God could have places a partial "paralysis" on humans so that we wouldn't be able to say or do evil things. Sadly, god -- being the sadist he is -- allows us to act on evil intentions.
-
Originally posted by Gentleman_For_Girls:
BroInChrist:
God have humans the ability to say and do wrong things. So god is at fault for "man's moral choices". God could have places a partial "paralysis" on humans so that we wouldn't be able to say or do evil things. Sadly, god -- being the sadist he is -- allows us to act on evil intentions.
they call that freedom of choice
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
you are just as bad as the TS, trolling hahahahahah.
That is your Personal immature perception and personal attack against me. Don't talk like you know me personally. I don't know any ah siao hor. No wonder you have serious mood swing. Say and post at your own risk, karma karma! hahahahah!
eh, siao eh! http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/453248?page=5
wow, you psycho that your ex boss had to send you see psychiatrist. Psycho alert!! hahahahah
So?
Aiyah, You don't talk like you so smart lah. At least now in my new company, I transform. Even now sit in manager position. Not like you, offend the whole church.
You talk of karma. You yourself get ex-communicated by a whole church. You are like the kettle calling the teapot black. Why don't you warn yourself of impending karma.
You are nothing but a troll in the church.
Why do you join the church for? Yuo join to meet hansom guys or to get accepted by society? When you try to talk to people at church, they didn't respond the way you wanted - you felt lonely, abandoned and disliked, you became a blamer.
You join church for the wrong reasons. This is why you faltered. Your faith is weak.
For me, I got back on my feet. I was set up by previous boss. But now, I am the prodigal son, I came back to another new office and became better at what I do.
Not like you, you reject christ, because of your hate for other christians. People join religion is because of the god not because of the worshippers. You only concentrate on hansom boys at the church who ignore you. Instead you choose to blame christian aunties. In the end, those who reject christ, the fiery lake of sulphur is waiting for you. You laugh but when you go to your next life, you will be laughing in pain. Burn and singe by the fire of hell.
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
You are not my choice of christian to share with you . To me you are a nasty christian whom I don't think it is wise for me to share. I have shared with the very few pleasant and non judgemental christians and you don't belong to this category. You sound destructive than being spirit filled to love souls to win souls for God. All you are doing is building walls against non believers. I have seen too many of your kind around in churches, work places, and social setting
You are ridiculous people. You let a few christians make you disenchanted with christianity. You are like the parable of the sower. Like the stupid seed fall on rock. Since your faith not strong, you never grow. When rain, you just get washed away. I have many christian friends and they tell me perseverance is key to your faith. But you won't understand anyway because you are a first class whinner. You are in the wrong forum - go to whinehouse.You dare to call yourself an ex-christian. Where got such thing? God already fated who is christian and who is not. You are just one of the pew warmers who go to church to enjoy air cond and want all christians to be agreeable to you.
It is you who is building a wall, don't blame other people.
Just look at yuor acid mouth, you speak with so much sin, misery and angst.
Look at me, although me not a christian, I am like jesus, when I am struck down, i can get back on my feet and become better.
You? You seem to be lost in your loser mode, always blaming, always finding fault in people when you yourself are full of black pot marks on your face.
-
This thread has so many tangents.... Think I'd quit sgf altogether....
-
So who is the chairperson ? lol
I think this thread can seperate the men from the boys. Intellects from rocks. High reasoning and sound judgement vs .... well you get the picture. lol
As i got nothing to add till this point. So I am sweet as.
Keep it up~
-
lols... basically what some ppl wanna do is just to come in and rage at every aspect.
-
A COMMERCIAL FOR GOD
I recently attended a course for Scout Leaders and during the Scout's Own a Scouter asked "What Do You Think God Is Like?". He answered by commercializing or marketing his product - God.
He said God is like a greeting card maker who "cares enough to send the very best" - His love. Like the card maker - "God has a better idea". God's like the well-known soap you use - "aren't you glad you do, don't you wish everyone did?"
All the next week I thought about this message. It was a fascinating experience and I'm going to share my results with you.
- God is like a hairspary - "holds in all kinds of weather." God is always there in times of need - even when you don't think you have a need.
- God is like a cold tablet - "takes the pain away". God does indeed help ease the pain if you really have faith.
- God is like a rent-a-car - "puts you in the driver's seat". God has given us life and the strength and ability to face the life mapped out for us.
- God is like the well-known soft drink - "the real thing!" "And things go better with God!" We must believe this to have a fulfilling life.
We must have faith in God and put our faith in God, to see us through.
And I ended my thoughts with one last slogan. A cereal-eating tiger said it best, God is Grrr-R-E-A-T! for me and for you!
Source: Thoughts For Sharing - Sixty inspiring thoughts for Scouters to share with their section. By Peter Longmore
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. I think humility should prevail when we have reached the limits of human reasoning and inquiry. We can wax eloquent about speculative things but it is still nothing but speculation. What we both should realise that in talking about what caused the universe we have left the physical universe and are talking about metaphysics. No more can we talk about empirical science or observations, or proofs and verification of anything. We are now arguing about what we BELIEVE and the reasonableness of belief, not what we can prove. What we have are arguments, not evidence. We cannot conclude based on what we do not know, but on what we do know. So it is about which argument makes the better case. If you are agnostic about it, then you cannot use your agnosticism to rule out my beliefs or to judge it wrong. Which comes back to the question, why can't I conclude that the cause of the universe is timeless? If time is an effect, the cause must be timeless i.e. not bound by time. And because the universe has a beginning, it is LOGICAL and reasonable to conclude that it has a cause because it is also supported by all our experience which tells us that everything that began to exists has a cause. Again you need to be clear as to whether you are being agnostic about the cause or are you denying there is a cause?
2. Your set theory example is flawed because it is ASSUMING that P is like Q, but just bigger to include Q. I am arguing that anything that can cause Q to exists is qualitatively different from Q. There is thus no fallacy of composition.
3. Occam's Razor is pretty much used everywhere. It is the economy of explanation that people look for. The simplest answer may certainly not be the best answer because the right answer could be anything but simple. But that's where the need to argue your case comes in. You have to give good reasons why Occam's Razor should not be applied in that instance to prefer the simpler explanation that can still explain the phenomena we wish to explain.
4. I'm happy to know that you are enjoying this discussion. So am I. Ignore the noise generated by the trolls like beta though. I'll do house-keeping as often as I can to keep out the trash and hopefully keep the thread alive and not being locked.
BTW, please see http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning and share your thoughts
You cannot conclude that the cause of the universe is timeless because you can't have "cause and effect" without time. If you wish to assert that the universe has a cause, then you must also accept that time existed before the universe began to exist. Otherwise, the whole idea of causality is pointless in the absence of temporal priority. I also wish to reiterate that time is not an effect , time is the prerequisite for cause and effect. I am denying that there is a cause; that's my position with respect to causality.
P is like Q? Not at all! Q is a subset of P. I don't understand what you mean by "Anything that can cause Q to exist is qualitatively different from Q." To argue that since everything in Q has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause (an occurence in set P, outside of Q) is the Fallacy of Composition. Or perhaps you could explain how there can be a cause of the universe in the absence of time?
You just gave the answer youself haha. Which is, the simplest explanation may not necessarily be the best explanation. Furthermore, occam's razor has been used to argue against the existence of God that the universe spontaneously came into existence* (Daniel Dennett, 2007), just to give an example. On the other hand, I have offered another epistimic tool - Bayesian Confirmation Theory, where we can assess the prior probabilities with regards to claims. This is especially useful in determining the probabilty of resurrection accounts in critical history** (F. H Bradley, 1877).
* Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Michael Martin, Chapter 8; Cambridge University Press.
** Presuppositions of Critical History, F. H Bradley, The British Library.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
This thread has so many tangents.... Think I'd quit sgf altogether....
wow u cant be tat serious in this forumlook at the fun
-
Man jailed for posting comic strips on Prophet
MUARO SIJUNJUNG (Indonesia) - AN Indonesian man arrested after writing "God doesn't exist" on his Facebook page was jailed for 2 ½ years yesterday for sharing explicit material about the Prophet Muhammad online.
Alexander Aan, 30, was found guilty of "deliberately spreading information inciting religious hatred and animosity", presiding judge Eka Prasetya Budi Dharma told the Muaro Sijunjung District Court in western Sumatra.
Aan started an atheist group on Facebook on which he shared comic strips of the Prophet having sex with his servant, Judge Dharma said.
"Under the Electronic Information and Transactions law, we sentence him to prison for a length of two years and six months", the judge said.
"What he did has caused anxiety to the community and tarnished Islam."
Aan was beaten by an angry mob and arrested by police in his Sumatran hometown of Pulau Punjung in January after posting the material online and declaring himself as an atheist.
The court had earlier indicted Aan with two other charges - persuading others to embrace atheism and biasphemy - and prosecutors had sought a jail term of 3 ½ years for him.
But the court convicted him of the most serious charge and dropped the other two.
Aan's arrest sparked outrage among Indonesians and international activists, who showed their support on his Facebook group and circulated petitions to have his charges dropped.
Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority nation, guarantees freedom of religion in its Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but only recognises six faiths: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Confucianism.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Asia, The Straits Times, Friday, June 15 2012, Pg A14
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Feel better after letting it out at me?
It's OK really. I'm not asking you to share your life story with me or pour out your bitterness and hurts to me. I'm probably not the right guy for you anyway.
But if you have any arguments related to
this thread please be at liberty to share.You have no compassion and God's love for people why should those of us who know your kind share with you.
Again, you are not my choice to share. I have shared with pleasant Christians who care to practise God's love.
If you have no love of God to share and post to communicate with non believers , I suggest you stop posting lest you continue to sin and further bring shame to God's name.
-
Originally posted by Miyuki miingguii:
Y delete negative posts? U sissy arh? If u wan a debate, u've got to accept other's opinions.
He is a christian tyrant with mission here to shame God's name la. Tell you he is going to delete this post of mine. ghahahaha
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
He is a christian tyrant with mission here to shame God's name la. Tell you he is going to delete this post of mine. ghahahaha
-
Originally posted by speakoutfor:
So?
Aiyah, You don't talk like you so smart lah. At least now in my new company, I transform. Even now sit in manager position. Not like you, offend the whole church.
You talk of karma. You yourself get ex-communicated by a whole church. You are like the kettle calling the teapot black. Why don't you warn yourself of impending karma.
You are nothing but a troll in the church.
Why do you join the church for? Yuo join to meet hansom guys or to get accepted by society? When you try to talk to people at church, they didn't respond the way you wanted - you felt lonely, abandoned and disliked, you became a blamer.
You join church for the wrong reasons. This is why you faltered. Your faith is weak.
For me, I got back on my feet. I was set up by previous boss. But now, I am the prodigal son, I came back to another new office and became better at what I do.
Not like you, you reject christ, because of your hate for other christians. People join religion is because of the god not because of the worshippers. You only concentrate on hansom boys at the church who ignore you. Instead you choose to blame christian aunties. In the end, those who reject christ, the fiery lake of sulphur is waiting for you. You laugh but when you go to your next life, you will be laughing in pain. Burn and singe by the fire of hell.
Say all you want, the bible said about reap and sow. You have beenn commiting sin after sin. The church very much want to have members they never ex communicate anyone. Only evil, childish christian like yourself hate to practise God's love and all you have to offer the whole world is nothing but all your evil sins.
Shame on you! Mind you, not all christians go to heaven, from the way you behave you will end up in hell if you refuse to repent. You are a liar!
Damn you , you are alwatys the one who finds fault with people. I remember vividly I was engaged in discussion with you on the some political issue, and suddenly you turn a monster to evil doing. Tsk tsk tsk, mood swing, no wonder la you the damn speakupfor is sent to see a psychiatrist. Lunatic!