I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.

[yrger]

Define what you understand by "god".

I use the name God, so let you also take notice that for me I am after the existence of God, and not god, okay?

Here is God according to my honest intelligent productive thinking:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

 

[Whatsisface]

You mean man has a concept of God that is based on man's honest intelligent productive thinking, and that is not any creation at all of God in our own image.

No, I do not mean that. I have noticed that people believe in a God that reflects their own personality. For example, former Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who is a civilised, educated and caring man does not believe in a God that sends people to suffer in torment for eternity. Whereas, right wing fundamentalist Christians who are quite judgemental do.

 

[yrger]

I don't know any atheist who's number 1 reason is as you say. Not one. Certainly not mine.

You misunderstand the idea behind the FSM, and the tea pot.

You do. i remember you from a while back. I knew it would go like this.

Whatever arguments you present, the atheists here will give substantive replies.

Classic argument from personal incredulity.

Please limit your concern to just one per post, okay?

 

[yrger]

We already have a moral high horse thread posted by a fresh diploma. Today

Atheism is a religion and attacks religion. Mostly Christians.

Let us not bother with atheism being religion or not, just examine what it is their atheists' whatever grounds are for whatever they tallk about which in effect is anti God, period.

 

[yrger]

I can see why you have a problem holding an atheist's attention. This is looking boring already.

What you perceive as a beginning of everything assumes that you have some capacity to know what everything is, even that which defies your current capacity to measure. Example..... Did we know what microwaves were before they were measured, focused, and used to cook stuff from the inside out? Did they not exist until we measured them?

If you are reaching back into Planck-time with regards to what you call a creation event, aren't you merely pointing to a currently immeasurable "something" and not a something from nothing event? Or have you decided that anything you cannot measure is nothing by fiat? If so, then for you to be logically consistent you would apply that logic to god too and god would therefore be declared to be nothing as well, not existent.

Just present your number 1 point, okay? Only one and sharp point, please.

 

[Nouveau]

Here is my proof for the existence of God:

1. There are entities in existence that have a beginning.
2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.
3. Therefore God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

You're not giving me much here to work with.

Obviously all the work here is being done by (2). Can you explain why you think (2) is true?

 

[yrger]

You will find few if any militant atheists.

My own concept of God, is an imaginary super-self that English speaking Christians create as their idealized self.
An extension of their character, and an expression of their fantasies.
Also a vehicle for revenge fantasy.

That is not the God I know to exist, so just keep to the God I know to exist, but if you insist, then you can go and continue with your concept of God, and also continue with whatever opposition you have against God in your own concept, okay?

Here is my God or the God I know to exist:

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

 

[5wize]

Just present your number 1 point, okay? Only one and sharp point, please.

You want me to write it again?

Maybe you need a summary thought. You have no legitimate reason to believe there was ever nothing.

 

[yrger]

So you have zero clue about atheism. Or individual atheists.
And you have never cracked a book on biology, physics, chemistry, or cosmology.


Show me that someone named God, exists.

I will show you, this way, you are the evidence of God existing, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

I await your explanation for your very own existence as a member of the taxonomy, homo sapiens, okay?

 

[Whatsisface]

Please limit your concern to just one per post, okay?

I answered the points in your post as you wrote them. Am I not allowed to respond to all the points you make in a single post, in a single post of my own?

 

[rossum]

Here is my proof for the existence of God:

1. There are entities in existence that have a beginning.
2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.
3. Therefore God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe aned everyting with a beginning.

1. I can agree with.
2. May, or may not be true. The Eiffel Tower had a beginning, but that does not make Gustave Eiffel eternal. A cause can be non-eternal as well as eternal.
3. Therefore the multiverse or any other concept of a causing entity existed at the time the material universe started. Properties like life, anger, love etc. are not required. Instead of an eternal being, we may perhaps have an eternal regress of non-eternal causes. You are omitting a great many possible options here.

 

[yrger]

I am not a militant atheist, but I am happy to talk.


This I disagree with. In a philosophical discussion, I define the universe as "All That Exists" (ATE). This is not the same at the STEM material universe of science. The STEM universe is part of the ATE universe. If any God or gods exist then those gods are part of the ATE universe, not separate from or outside it. By definition that ATE universe cannot have an external cause since nothing exists outside the ATE universe. If any existing component of the ATE universe is eternal, then the ATE universe is itself also eternal, and so does not require a cause.

You did well to include "with a beginning" to your concept of what God created. That leaves out a great many things. The Abrahamic God is a living God, so He did not create life. He is intelligent, so He did not create intelligence. He is jealous, angry, merciful etc. so He did not create them either. God did not create Himself, hence He did not create any of His characteristics. Those characteristics did not have a beginning, so God did not create them.

$0.02

How about we just concur that God is existence, okay?

That is the conclusion from my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

I am not into the God of religion, but the God of reason.

Still the God of reason is mentioned in the Bible, from this very first text in the Bible:

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth..."

And the God of religion is also and predominantly in the Bible, which is into things like hell.

So, I could add the word hell to the first text of the Bible, in order to show that the God of religion is predominantly in the Bible:

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth and hell..."

Please, everyone, just abstain from bringing in this thread the God of religion, also ideas in the Bible that are into the God of religion.

And who are going to decide what things belong to the God of religion folks, and what things belong to the God of reason folks?

Who else but us humans, do you know of some other live entities interested in God at all?

 

[yrger]

No, I do not mean that. I have noticed that people believe in a God that reflects their own personality. For example, former Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who is a civilised, educated and caring man does not believe in a God that sends people to suffer in torment for eternity. Whereas, right wing fundamentalist Christians who are quite judgemental do.

I don't talk about hell, because my concern is with the God of reason, hell is the concern of folks who go for the God of religion.

Folks who go for the God of religion, they also go for the God of reason, only they make a point to render the God of religion coheres to or be consistent with the God reason, by all kinds and manners of ideas they can and do bring up.

 

[Whatsisface]

I don't talk about hell, because my concern is with the God of reason, hell is the concern of folks who go for the God of religion.

Folks who go for the God of religion, they also go for the God of reason, only they make a point to render the God of religion coheres to or be consistent with the God reason, by all kinds and manners of ideas they can and do bring up.

Huh? That's as clear as mud.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I will show you, this way, you are the evidence of God existing, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

I await your explanation for your very own existence as a member of the taxonomy, homo sapiens, okay?

I am not evidence of God existing. Just as I am not evidence of Unicorn existing.


Ok. My mother and father had sex in late september or early october of 1965. They were both members of the species Homo Sapiens sapiens.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That is not the God I know to exist, so just keep to the God I know to exist, but if you insist, then you can go and continue with your concept of God, and also continue with whatever opposition you have against God in your own concept, okay?

Here is my God or the God I know to exist:

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

I have no opposition to God. Nor to Unicorn, or Elf, or Hobgblin.

 

[yrger]

Yrger said: Here is my proof for the existence of God:
1. There are entities in existence that have a beginning.
2. The existence of entities with a beginning demands an entity without beginning to come into existence.
3. Therefore God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Obviously all the work here is being done by (2). Can you explain why you think (2) is true?

It's like this:

(a) Entities with a beginning did not exist prior to their beginning.
(b) So logically an entity already existing brought them into existence.
(c) This antecedent entity could be (c1) a self-existing one or (c2) another with also a beginning.
(d) If it be (c2) and then another (c2) and then still another (2)...
(e) This regressing series will end up with (c1) the self-existing last antecedent entity.
(f) And thus we call (c1) God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

 

[yrger]

I can see why you have a problem holding an atheist's attention. This is looking boring already.

What you perceive as a beginning of everything assumes that you have some capacity to know what everything is, even that which defies your current capacity to measure. Example..... Did we know what microwaves were before they were measured, focused, and used to cook stuff from the inside out? Did they not exist until we measured them?

If you are reaching back into Planck-time with regards to what you call a creation event, aren't you merely pointing to a currently immeasurable "something" and not a something from nothing event? Or have you decided that anything you cannot measure is nothing by fiat? If so, then for you to be logically consistent you would apply that logic to god too and god would therefore be declared to be nothing as well, not existent.

Just present your whatever most important point in brief language, okay?

 

[5wize]

Just present your whatever most important point in brief language, okay?

Third time....in brief, succinct language >>>>> "You have no legitimate reason to believe there was ever nothing" <<<<<

If you want this point elaborated on, first study the original post closer and try to understand it. It contains the support for the above concise point and only that point.

 

[yrger]

I am not evidence of God existing. Just as I am not evidence of Unicorn existing.


Ok. My mother and father had sex in late september or early october of 1965. They were both members of the species Homo Sapiens sapiens.

I know where you are going to with your bringing in unicorn, just leave unicorn out of the thread, we are talking about God existing or not, not unicorn.