Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

No, I wasn't.

I asked you plenty of questions about it otherwise being eternal. I believe you first said you didnt know, but you always argued from the standpoint of an eternal universe. And with your own words you killed your own argument.

No, it shows that I acknowledged the terms of the argument as you laid them out

You are running from yourself now. Tsk Tsk

 

[AK4]

Revealed revelations are proof only of mans imagination.

Maybe, but if they are true then they are true. God says "they will dream dreams and see visions". So the fact that they do this and they stand up to the rest of the Word and are true, its just another proof of Gods existence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Maybe, but if they are true then they are true. God says "they will dream dreams and see visions". So the fact that they do this and they stand up to the rest of the Word and are true, its just another proof of Gods existence.

"If they are true, they are true....."
Very profound and obvious proof of their validity....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was a rhetorical question. Its silly to say the scriptures arent proof of other gods. That is the whole point of the scriptures. It is proof no matter how much yall want to deny it.

Wait: so now you're arguing for polytheism? Multiple "USPs"?

I asked you plenty of questions about it otherwise being eternal. I believe you first said you didnt know, but you always argued from the standpoint of an eternal universe.

You're inferring. Pointing out what's wrong with your argument is not the same thing as making an argument myself.

And with your own words you killed your own argument.


You are running from yourself now. Tsk Tsk

Meh. If your argument is founded on my poor choice of words, then it's not founded on much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, but if they are true then they are true.

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt a-hoppin'.

Doesn't make it so.

 

[AK4]

"If they are true, they are true....."
Very profound and obvious proof of their validity....

I only use "if" for you guys. I know would better describe what i think.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I only use "if" for you guys. I know would better describe what i think.

Is that because you know most here would not accept something as "true" without empirical evidence?
While others, yourself included, can say something is "true" based purely on faith?

 

[AK4]

Wait: so now you're arguing for polytheism? Multiple "USPs"?

No. Just as the scriptures say "there are many gods, but for us there is one God, the Father". or say "but there is one USP, the Father". See the word "God" is just a title. It can and has been applied to many things. But as it just said there is really only one who is THE God, THE USP.

You're inferring. Pointing out what's wrong with your argument is not the same thing as making an argument myself.

When you did this you stressed your stance. There is only two options as i stressed before. Either the universe is eternal or there has to be something before it that brought it to existence. Same thing applies to God. Either He is eternal or there is no God because there is something before Him. you choose the former to counter the latter. Unless there is another option then that is your stance

Meh. If your argument is founded on my poor choice of words, then it's not founded on much.

Please clarify your stance then

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is only two options as i stressed before. Either the universe is eternal or there has to be something before it that brought it to existence.

Incorrect assumptions. As I have pointed out, there are many possibilities.

 

[AK4]

Is that because you know most here would not accept something as "true" without empirical evidence?
While others, yourself included, can say something is "true" based purely on faith?

No mine is not just purely on faith. Its is given second and third witnesses with science and philosophy and many other things. But not to belittle the faith part because it does take that to believe what was written. It does take faith to see that the empirical evidence meshes with scriptures though. As i demonstrated before.

 

[AK4]

Incorrect assumptions. As I have pointed out, there are many possibilities.

please open my eyes to this. what are they?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Just as the scriptures say "there are many gods, but for us there is one God, the Father". or say "but there is one USP, the Father". See the word "God" is just a title. It can and has been applied to many things. But as it just said there is really only one who is THE God, THE USP.

That doesn't work. Many religions' scriptures claim that their god is the "creator". They also make conflicting claims about their gods.

This allows only two possibilities to resolve the conflict:

1. At least some of these scriptures are incorrect.
2. The scriptures describe different gods.

You told us that all scriptures are true, which eliminates option 1. The only possibility left is option 2: multiple creators. Multiple "USPs".

When you did this you stressed your stance. There is only two options as i stressed before. Either the universe is eternal or there has to be something before it that brought it to existence. Same thing applies to God. Either He is eternal or there is no God because there is something before Him. you choose the former to counter the latter. Unless there is another option then that is your stance

Please clarify your stance then

My stance is that your argument is a bad one based on faulty logic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

please open my eyes to this. what are they?

Read back through the thread. Although you have either dismissed them through an inaccurate understanding of quantum physics or ignored them already.

 

[cottage]

But if it is logically possible for a thing to be the unconditioned, uncaused cause (which it is, as no contradiction is implied in conceiving a thing to have always existed) then matter can also be the unconditioned, uncaused cause of subsequently existing matter.

So If matter creates matter, [thus making it eternal, self-existing] where did the first matter come from? Did it create itself?Matter is conditioned. It works only within laws that something ELSE had to program it with. Matter doesn’t just operate on its own “freewill” and decides to follow a law. It stands that something made matter to react a certain way when certain conditionsare met.

I’m sorry but I’m finding it difficult to answer you in this form. However, I’m sure I’ve picked up on the main points below, but if there’s something you feel I should have answered, but haven’t, please post it again and I’ll answer by return.

I said the only thing that can exist prior to the action of anything being un-causally caused is something that is unconditioned, upon which the conditioned depends for its existence. You replied that it sounded like I was supporting your argument. In one sense that’s true, because fundamentally we’re arguing the same point, which is that something exists from eternity that explains what there is.
The concept of Supreme Being has never exclusively meant a worshipful being, deity or a property of religion or theism, but an entity with the power over all things as an explanation for life itself.

The premise is that matter doesn’t actually create matter: it is self-existent, and that is to say eternal. The essence of matter enables changes in shape and form, separates, increases and decreases (what we call cause and effect) but is not destroyed and the world continues notwithstanding. It reacts and changes according to the laws of the universe, which in turn are governed by the concept of its necessary existence.

Now please explain where God is to be found? I say that God, as transcendent, personal being who seeks a relationship with humans is a purely arbitrary notion and one that is not without contradictions. You are arguing from something that is proven to exist in order to infer something that cannot be proven to exist, against which there is no argument that informs us that matter, which is real and existent, has not always existed in some form or other. God’s existence can never be proved by inferential arguments, but only by ontological ones. In other words the argument should be ‘God, therefore the world’, and not ‘The world, therefore God.’




Scripture isn’t proof for no other Gods.

Then what would be?

Indeed! That is my question for you.

 

[AK4]

That doesn't work. Many religions' scriptures claim that their god is the "creator". They also make conflicting claims about their gods.

This allows only two possibilities to resolve the conflict:

1. At least some of these scriptures are incorrect.
2. The scriptures describe different gods.

You told us that all scriptures are true, which eliminates option 1. The only possibility left is option 2: multiple creators. Multiple "USPs".

I see where you are getting me confused with others. Yes i did state earlier that just for the sake of the argument "all religious books lead to God". I dont really believe this so i my POV is from the Holy Scriptures OT and NT everything esle is just satans ways of deception. So coming from the POV of the Scriptures there is only one God or USP.

My stance is that your argument is a bad one based on faulty logic.

all i am seeing from you is that you are trying to shy away from the fact that your own words killed your own argument and stance. Until you come up with a way to defend your words and be able to keep your stance, you are looking worse and worse in trying to run from your own confession.

 

[AK4]

Read back through the thread. Although you have either dismissed them through an inaccurate understanding of quantum physics or ignored them already.

Cant say i understand QP all the way but even that doesnt disprove the USP or God concept. It doesnt even take away the cause and effect law. Have you read up on Super Relativity. Einsteins law and QP are not complete laws as scientists have admitted. Super Relativity tries to bridge the gap but i dont know if so fully. Ive shown how these dont nullify the God/USP concept.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

When you did this you stressed your stance. There is only two options as i stressed before. Either the universe is eternal or there has to be something before it that brought it to existence. Same thing applies to God. Either He is eternal or there is no God because there is something before Him. you choose the former to counter the latter. Unless there is another option then that is your stance

Atleast there is evidence for the universe.

 

[AK4]

I’m sorry but I’m finding it difficult to answer you in this form. However, I’m sure I’ve picked up on the main points below, but if there’s something you feel I should have answered, but haven’t, please post it again and I’ll answer by return.

I said the only thing that can exist prior to the action of anything being un-causally caused is something that is unconditioned, upon which the conditioned depends for its existence. You replied that it sounded like I was supporting your argument. In one sense that’s true, because fundamentally we’re arguing the same point, which is that something exists from eternity that explains what there is.
The concept of Supreme Being has never exclusively meant a worshipful being, deity or a property of religion or theism, but an entity with the power over all things as an explanation for life itself.

The premise is that matter doesn’t actually create matter: it is self-existent, and that is to say eternal. The essence of matter enables changes in shape and form, separates, increases and decreases (what we call cause and effect) but is not destroyed and the world continues notwithstanding. It reacts and changes according to the laws of the universe, which in turn are governed by the concept of its necessary existence.

Now please explain where God is to be found? I say that God, as transcendent, personal being who seeks a relationship with humans is a purely arbitrary notion and one that is not without contradictions. You are arguing from something that is proven to exist in order to infer something that cannot be proven to exist, against which there is no argument that informs us that matter, which is real and existent, has not always existed in some form or other. God’s existence can never be proved by inferential arguments, but only by ontological ones. In other words the argument should be ‘God, therefore the world’, and not ‘The world, therefore God.’

I see your point. And your argument then is how can a God or USP be personal, am i right? So then besides using the scriptures i would have to prove that God/USP is personal with His creation to where this creation should worship Him. So i need something scientific or philosophy wise---no i will stick with scientific to show this because you wont accept the scriptures. I have to go right now so i will answer tomorrow [i do but dont need time to come up with an answer]

Scripture isn’t proof for no other Gods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK4
Then what would be?



Indeed! That is my question for you.

If i cant use scripture to prove that there is only one True God, i dont know what else to say except for the USP thing i been arguing. Yes from the one true God can other gods come [hence we are becoming gods, satan is called a god] but scientifically if everything comes from the USP and it is termed a god then there would be many gods, but that doesnt change the one true God being the ONE TRUE GOD or USP.

 

[AK4]

Atleast there is evidence for the universe.

Back at cha cause that universe is evidence for God also.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see where you are getting me confused with others. Yes i did state earlier that just for the sake of the argument "all religious books lead to God". I dont really believe this so i my POV is from the Holy Scriptures OT and NT everything esle is just satans ways of deception. So coming from the POV of the Scriptures there is only one God or USP.

Ah. I got a different meaning from that. Fair enough.

all i am seeing from you is that you are trying to shy away from the fact that your own words killed your own argument and stance. Until you come up with a way to defend your words and be able to keep your stance, you are looking worse and worse in trying to run from your own confession.

Wait a minute: in this very post, you just finished explaining that your words came across differently from how you intended, just as I explained to you about my post. I no more "confessed" in my post than you did, and you're no less a polytheist than I am a proponent of special creation.

It's hypocritical of you to shrug off what you say "just for the sake of argument" but try to hold me to what I say on the same basis. This tangent also does nothing to support your argument... of course, if you have no logical basis for your argument, then I suppose distraction from that fact might be the wisest course of action. If so, carry on. Otherwise, make your points... if you have any.