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

[AK4]

The poster is absolutely correct: a statement is demonstrably true or it is not.
‘God exists’ can be denied without contradiction, as can ‘everything that is caused to exist is in want of a cause’, as can ‘There is an ultimate starting point’. Compare those statements with ‘The world exists’, which cannot be denied with involving a contradiction.
And a thing that produces doesn’t have to be greater than the thing produced. It needs only what is sufficient for that purpose, no more and no less.

If it can be demonstrated that an USP can have a starting point before it then I agree that the God question can be true or not. So far it has not been demonstrated that you can something before an USP.

Neither of those claims is demonstrably true, not ‘an ultimate starting point’ nor ‘the world is self-existent’. They are hypotheses.

An USP is demonstrated billions upon billions of times on this planet alone in a sense. Your existence is USP for you in a way. It is an USP for cottage and all that is and will be known starts from your conception. Anything before that is can add to what made up that USP of you but it doesn’t preceed you because before that USP you didn’t exist. I admit this isn’t the best analogy because I know what you will say.

Your own argument, that there is an eternal God is a hypothesis, not based on facts. And facts from the world of experience cannot be used to argue for the existence of an entity beyond the world of experience.

Is this the reason or how they came up with other theories and physics? Facts from the world of experience was used to argue for the existence of things beyond our world of experience. So as you can see, your statement doesn’t stand

One of the greatest theologians of all time, St Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged that the universe needs no beginning.

“It would seem that the universe of creatures, called the world, had no beginning, but existed from eternity.”

He goes on to explain why:

“For everything which begins to exist, is a possible being before it exists: otherwise it would be impossible for it to exist. If therefore the world began to exist, it was a possible being before it began to exist. But possible being is matter, which is in potentiality to existence, which results from a form, and to non-existence, which results from privation of form. If therefore the world began to exist, matter must have existed before the world. But matter cannot exist without form: while the matter of the world with its form is the world. Therefore the world existed before it began to exist: which is impossible.” Summa Theologica 1a, 46

Yeah and from theologians like him we got the teachings of eternity, immortal soul and the like. Did you know that eternity is a theological term, made up by theologians and their "wisdom"?
And so this guy doesn’t sound confused to you? Hes at a standstill in his thoughts. Look at that last sentence, he comes to the conclusion that the world existed before it began to exist, yet finds this impossible. Does that sound like he is for sure on his stance? Also he says the world has no beginning, we know that’s false. Another contradiction, how can something exist from eternity and then have a beginning? Eternity---no beginning or end. How can something from eternity have a beginning.

So are we!

I just don’t see how yall don’t see it. Its almost like saying “A” is the beginning of the alphabet but you guys insist on there is a letter before it. If all things came from letter A and everything from it still continues to exist, then how could you possibly not think A isn’t eternal.

Yet again another philosophical proof.

 

[cottage]

This is what they teach in theological cemetaries [seminaries], but this is not what the bible teaches. There is mans “wisdom” and there is Gods wisdom and God calls ours foolishness. Anyway, in Romans it says in the greek that He is the Eonian God or the God of the ages. And I also disagree with saying God is transcendental because that is also not what the scriptures teach. It says [paraphrased] that those who is of the Spirit will know the things of the Spirit. So transcendental does not define God.

But scripture does not own the concept of God, of course. The Supreme Being is generally understood to be beyond the empirical and material, and cannot be limited or contained.

are some of the classic arguments?

The Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological or Kalam Argument.

First off I agree with your analogy but this statement above is not entirely true and if I am reading it right its hinting at quantum mechanics. You say only by observation---this is where this fails because if something isn’t observed, does that make that thing not exist? No the thing still exists even if we don’t observe it or experience it. Its like saying if a tree fell in the woods and no one was around, did it make a sound? Of course it did because we know emphatically that the tree fell. You may argue then that no one heard the sound so there was no sound. My answer to that is we know a supernova explodes, we are no where near to hear the sound, yet it would be ridiculous to say that it didn’t make a sound. We may need instruments to hear them but it still is sound.

What you appear to be saying here is that fire would burn even before we experienced it, which is specious because it is only by experiencing it that we can learn that it burns. Cause and effect is entirely dependent upon experience. A tree fell in the woods and we heard it, and therefore (we say) all trees will make a sound on falling. But there is nothing logically certain about falling trees making sounds or fire and flames burning, because an argument from the past cannot be an argument to the future. These are events that occur on the basis of a high degree of probability (scientific reasoning) in the world, a world that doesn’t have to exist, unless there is some aspect of it that exists necessarily from which all material things have their subsequent causes. But whatever, it comes down to one thing only: not a First Cause, but self-existence. It may be said that if something exists contingently then something exists necessarily to account for it. And why should we look outside of what we know exists in order to speculate on something else? We know the physical world exists, but God is only a speculative belief.

How is it not proven? One proof that has stood the test of time and so far even quantum mechanics, the first edict of the universe, cause and effect. Until that is disproven that’s one proof. And the other proof is in philosophy. For everything created it must have a USP and that USP cannot have something before it. Until that is disproven its another proof. You guys have claimed that me just stating “until you prove one these to be false” is not valid, I counter that with isn’t that exactly how science works to prove a theory true or not. Am I not going through the same scientific process with you guys.

I propose a theory.
I test it to science.
I test it to philosophy.
{then Ive personally tested it to other things also}
Testing them demonstrated that so far my theory is true.
So I give my theory up for peer review.
No one from the peer review has disproven the theory.
Therefore, by the scientific process, my theory is true until otherwise proven false.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. You haven’t propounded a scientific theory, and certainly not one that can be tested! You’ve propounded a metaphysical hypothesis. If it were a proven theory, ie testable and replicable, you’d be able to demonstrate its inception, instead of just speculatively arguing backwards. You’ve argued from features of the known world to a world you claim exists (God), which must (according to your argument) have the same features as this one! But the existence and substance of this world isn’t proof of an unknown other.

Also your argument insists there is something that is not dependent for its existence on any other thing (God), in other words self-existence. So if we’ve established that as a principle then I say to you that the world is self-existent. For while it cannot be proved that the phenomenon of cause and effect exists in other worlds, we know it exists in this one; therefore I say the material world has its first cause from within itself. What I’ve just done here is to set out a metaphysical hypothesis, which is exactly what your argument is, too. In neither case can it be said that the hypothesis is true until proven false. Why? Because neither is true, that’s why! Both can be denied without contradiction.

 

[cottage]

If it can be demonstrated that an USP can have a starting point before it then I agree that the God question can be true or not. So far it has not been demonstrated that you can something before an USP.

Easily! A necessary existence is prior to any causal abilities. It logically pre-exists any act, cause or creation. In addition, please see my remarks on this further down the page.
And this of course is entirely dependent upon the principle of causation being transferable to other worlds beyond experience, which would seem to be an excessive partiality.

An USP is demonstrated billions upon billions of times on this planet alone in a sense. Your existence is USP for you in a way. It is an USP for cottage and all that is and will be known starts from your conception. Anything before that is can add to what made up that USP of you but it doesn’t preceed you because before that USP you didn’t exist. I admit this isn’t the best analogy because I know what you will say.

As Bertrand Russell says: “Every mathematician knows that there is no impossibility of there being no first term; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary.” And anyway if it is being held that all things have a beginning, then God too must have a beginning. We can’t state a principle and then withdraw it when the terms become unfavourable.

Is this the reason or how they came up with other theories and physics? Facts from the world of experience was used to argue for the existence of things beyond our world of experience. So as you can see, your statement doesn’t stand

You misunderstand. You’re just referring to facts, which led to other facts – concerning the world of possible experience. God or an uncaused cause is a metaphysical or mystical explanation, beyond the physical world.

Yeah and from theologians like him we got the teachings of eternity, immortal soul and the like. Did you know that eternity is a theological term, made up by theologians and their "wisdom"?

And so this guy doesn’t sound confused to you? Hes at a standstill in his thoughts. Look at that last sentence, he comes to the conclusion that the world existed before it began to exist, yet finds this impossible. Does that sound like he is for sure on his stance? Also he says the world has no beginning, we know that’s false. Another contradiction, how can something exist from eternity and then have a beginning? Eternity---no beginning or end. How can something from eternity have a beginning.

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the argument. Actually, it’s brilliant!
His style of writing is somewhat circumlocutory, which can make it rather difficult to follow, but his logic is sound. (Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Aquinas, in his famous Five Ways, expresses the very argument you’ve been advocating.) To be fair to the man his teachings are divided into two strands, those addressed to theologians, and those addressed to philosophers. The latter, as the above example, are impressive and compelling. He begins from the position that it seems the world had no beginning and goes on to demonstrate, impressively, why that must be the case. Everything that begins to exist has the potential to exist. So if the world began to exist it must already have that potentiality. But if the world began to exist, matter must have potentially already existed, but matter cannot exist without form and the world is comprised matter and form. The conclusion, then, is that the world existing before it began to exist is absurd. Therefore the world had no beginning, but has always existed.
You take issue with his statement that the world has always existed, saying we know that is false. With respect, we know no such thing. No argument, not the Big Bang, or anything else, has shown where the physical world had a beginning. If the universe could be shown to have begun, that is to say be caused to exist by something not physical, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion: the matter would be settled.

I just don’t see how yall don’t see it. Its almost like saying “A” is the beginning of the alphabet but you guys insist on there is a letter before it. If all things came from letter A and everything from it still continues to exist, then how could you possibly not think A isn’t eternal.

Yet again another philosophical proof.

Not quite. I'm saying the existence of the universe does not require a cause, any more than a supposed deity requires a cause. And I see no logical impossibility with the concept of the universe being eternal.

 

[Humanistheart]

Again, you claim there was no Christ. Obviously if a Christ was to come through the jews line and some of the jews believed that the one called Jesus from Nazareth was the Christ and this did not died out shortly after Jesus' death then you might wanna reconsider if He was the Christ or not. Take heed to the words of the pharisee Gamilael

.

No, the simple fact that jesus fulfilled no messianic prophecies, let alone all of them, disqualifies jesus from being a messiah. Why are you arguing on this thread when your god's already been debunked?

 

[AK4]

But scripture does not own the concept of God, of course. The Supreme Being is generally understood to be beyond the empirical and material, and cannot be limited or contained.

For the sake of this particular argument for the “all religious books leads to God” you are correct.

For the scriptures [whats really supposed to be in the bible] it does own the concept because it teaches that there is only one way, one truth.

The Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological or Kalam Argument.

I will have to investigate these.

What you appear to be saying here is that fire would burn even before we experienced it, which is specious because it is only by experiencing it that we can learn that it burns. Cause and effect is entirely dependent upon experience. A tree fell in the woods and we heard it, and therefore (we say) all trees will make a sound on falling. But there is nothing logically certain about falling trees making sounds or fire and flames burning, because an argument from the past cannot be an argument to the future. These are events that occur on the basis of a high degree of probability (scientific reasoning) in the world, a world that doesn’t have to exist, unless there is some aspect of it that exists necessarily from which all material things have their subsequent causes. But whatever, it comes down to one thing only: not a First Cause, but self-existence. It may be said that if something exists contingently then something exists necessarily to account for it. And why should we look outside of what we know exists in order to speculate on something else? We know the physical world exists, but God is only a speculative belief.

That is like saying why explore space? Or anything unknown before we know it.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. You haven’t propounded a scientific theory, and certainly not one that can be tested! You’ve propounded a metaphysical hypothesis. If it were a proven theory, ie testable and replicable, you’d be able to demonstrate its inception, instead of just speculatively arguing backwards. You’ve argued from features of the known world to a world you claim exists (God), which must (according to your argument) have the same features as this one! But the existence and substance of this world isn’t proof of an unknown other.

Is it not testable? Test if its logical to have something before an USP. You can test this in those same three categories and you will get the same answer. It is highly replicable because its been argued for millennia now.

Also your argument insists there is something that is not dependent for its existence on any other thing (God), in other words self-existence. So if we’ve established that as a principle then I say to you that the world is self-existent. For while it cannot be proved that the phenomenon of cause and effect exists in other worlds, we know it exists in this one; therefore I say the material world has its first cause from within itself. What I’ve just done here is to set out a metaphysical hypothesis, which is exactly what your argument is, too. In neither case can it be said that the hypothesis is true until proven false. Why? Because neither is true, that’s why! Both can be denied without contradiction.

That wasn’t a good analogy. Any truth can be denied, but that still doesn’t make that truth false. In the case for God, it is a truth that there must be an ultimate starting point that started something created, whether you call it God or not, this is still a truth. People may deny a USP but until we know of anything for certain, inside creation, that can be eternal or always existed then that truth stands no matter how much its denied.

 

[AK4]

No, the simple fact that jesus fulfilled no messianic prophecies, let alone all of them, disqualifies jesus from being a messiah. Why are you arguing on this thread when your god's already been debunked?

LOL, again your assertions have already been debunked so why are still arguing that Jesus didnt fulfill any messianic prophecies? Do you feel its your duty to argue this false mute point?

 

[cottage]

For the sake of this particular argument for the “all religious books leads to God” you are correct.

For the scriptures [whats really supposed to be in the bible] it does own the concept because it teaches that there is only one way, one truth.

Okay.

[quote]That is like saying why explore space? Or anything unknown before we know it.

It’s not, actually. We can explore space to the nth degree, but we will not find God. Such metaphysical concepts are outside the empirical world, even though they involve the world.

Is it not testable? Test if its logical to have something before an USP. You can test this in those same three categories and you will get the same answer. It is highly replicable because its been argued for millennia now.

If a thing is eternal then by definition it doesn’t have a beginning. And if a thing is infinite it doesn’t have a beginning.

That wasn’t a good analogy. Any truth can be denied, but that still doesn’t make that truth false.

Well of course! That is why we use the principle of non-contradiction. If a thing is demonstrably true it cannot be false. And if a thing can be denied without contradiction, then it cannot be true.

In the case for God, it is a truth that there must be an ultimate starting point that started something created, whether you call it God or not, this is still a truth. People may deny a USP but until we know of anything for certain, inside creation, that can be eternal or always existed then that truth stands no matter how much its denied.

I think perhaps we’re on different tracks here. The phenomenon of cause and effect is part and parcel of our world. Nobody seriously doubts that one thing is caused by another thing, even though there is no logical necessity involved. We’re human, we’re contingent and we’re finite, and we’re an effect, and we can trace our causal history back as far as we are able. But the argument has been that, if there is a God, the universe is created and must answer to a first cause, or an ultimate starting point as you describe it. My argument is that there is no first cause, or ‘God’, if the universe is self-existent. And I support that case in three ways. First, it is more plausible to begin from what actually exists, ie the universe is a fact, and secondly, to argue that cause and effect, a feature of the known universe, must apply to some other unknown world is an assertion without substance. Thirdly, God cannot be logically impossible. ‘God cannot be God’ is a necessary truth, whether or not one believes in God (law of identity). But ‘God is the first cause of all subsequent causes and their effects’ is no more the truth than saying that causality in the universe answers to itself.

 

[AK4]

It’s not, actually. We can explore space to the nth degree, but we will not find God. Such metaphysical concepts are outside the empirical world, even though they involve the world.

We wont “find” God because He cant be seen or heard, but the scriptures do teach that we will “find” Him and He will be all in all.

If a thing is eternal then by definition it doesn’t have a beginning. And if a thing is infinite it doesn’t have a beginning.

Exactly and as far as we can tell so far is that the universe isn’t infinite but had a beginning

Well of course! That is why we use the principle of non-contradiction. If a thing is demonstrably true it cannot be false. And if a thing can be denied without contradiction, then it cannot be true.

But to deny that it is logically impossible to have something before a USP is a contradiction.

My argument is that there is no first cause, or ‘God’, if the universe is self-existent. And I support that case in three ways. First, it is more plausible to begin from what actually exists, ie the universe is a fact,

But if the universe is self existent we wouldn’t be able to put an age on it. We would be able to measure how old the universe is. We wouldn’t be able to say that it had a beginning. See thats where a self existent universe fails because it has a beginning. Thats why i say if you guys can prove that the universe is eternal or always existed or self existent then i would happily bow out. Now i do not rule out that an USP could have created an universe that could be self sustaining but that doesnt nullify my argument.

and secondly, to argue that cause and effect, a feature of the known universe, must apply to some other unknown world is an assertion without substance.

The cause and effect doesn’t apply to the USP because it would be the ultimate cause. It could not by definition be an effect from something else. The substance comes from what we know in our universe that everything in it is now an effect of some primary cause. So since the universe shows that it has a beginning, it demands that the universe is an effect from some cause. Basically you are saying with a self existent universe, you are starting from an effect, not a cause and that’s just not logical for a universe that has a beginning. And what makes it not work is that there is nothing in this universe that is eternal that we could use as an example, so the self existent universe has no substance.

Thirdly, God cannot be logically impossible. ‘God cannot be God’ is a necessary truth, whether or not one believes in God (law of identity). But ‘God is the first cause of all subsequent causes and their effects’ is no more the truth than saying that causality in the universe answers to itself.

How can God cannot be God a necessary truth? There is no evidence of causality in the universe that answers to itself though. But all paths point to a USP that is before the universe began.


I think you are the first to come out and directly state your position but still the main burden of proof to prove that God doesnt exist lies on if the universe is eternal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But to deny that it is logically impossible to have something before a USP is a contradiction.

There's no logical contradiction in arguing that the thing you're calling a "USP" might not meet the definition of "USP" that you've given.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the phrase "ultimate starting point" can have any meaning without time (which is required for the words "ultimate" and "starting" to be meaningful) and space (which is required for "point").

But if the universe is self existent we wouldn’t be able to put an age on it.

Why would that be?

The cause and effect doesn’t apply to the USP because it would be the ultimate cause. It could not by definition be an effect from something else.

An invisible pink unicorn is by definition both invisible and pink, despite the fact that pink things are not invisible.

Defining something doesn't mean it necessarily exists... or even that it's necessarily possible.

I think you are the first to come out and directly state your position but still the main burden of proof to prove that God doesnt exist lies on if the universe is eternal.

I think you may have misunderstood: this First Cause Argument tangent that you've taken us down wouldn't disprove God.

If we want to actually disprove God, first we have to establish what the term "God" means and why that definition is necessarily valid. Do you want to try another kick at that can?

 

[cottage]

We wont “find” God because He cant be seen or heard, but the scriptures do teach that we will “find” Him and He will be all in all.

I accept that's your belief.

Exactly and as far as we can tell so far is that the universe isn’t infinite but had a beginning

We don’t know the universe had a beginning, not because science is at best only probable, but because we don’t know what counts as ‘beginning.’ And there isn’t a God as ‘far as we can tell’.

But to deny that it is logically impossible to have something before a USP is a contradiction.

This is just awarding the term ‘ultimate starting point’ to something and then saying it exists. If I say there is no ultimate starting point I’m guilty of no contradiction. There is no contradiction in the concept of eternity.

But if the universe is self existent we wouldn’t be able to put an age on it. We would be able to measure how old the universe is. We wouldn’t be able to say that it had a beginning. See thats where a self existent universe fails because it has a beginning. Thats why i say if you guys can prove that the universe is eternal or always existed or self existent then i would happily bow out. Now i do not rule out that an USP could have created an universe that could be self sustaining but that doesnt nullify my argument.

It can’t of course be proved that the universe is self-existent; it’s only a metaphysical explanation, and little different in that respect from the religious hypothesis. We can certainly measure parts of the universe, but we can’t assume a beginning. But an uncaused cause is a concept that is not intelligible. If all existent things need a cause in order for them to exist, then it is the case that all things need a cause notwithstanding the term ‘uncaused’ or ‘ultimate’. We then have an infinite regression. So the difficulty arises because of the notion of causation; as Kant said, there is no argument for its universal validity. However, causation doesn’t have to be linear but may be circular in operation, where every one thing is connected to the other thing in some way, which is what we observe in nature.

The cause and effect doesn’t apply to the USP because it would be the ultimate cause. It could not by definition be an effect from something else. The substance comes from what we know in our universe that everything in it is now an effect of some primary cause. So since the universe shows that it has a beginning, it demands that the universe is an effect from some cause. Basically you are saying with a self existent universe, you are starting from an effect, not a cause and that’s just not logical for a universe that has a beginning. And what makes it not work is that there is nothing in this universe that is eternal that we could use as an example, so the self existent universe has no substance.

Well, you can’t say cause and effect doesn’t apply to a First Cause, because it is exactly that which establishes the very principle of causation, the principle of one thing being the cause of another. And it is begging the question to say the universe has a beginning and therefore demands a cause. No such thing is evident. Everything we see in the universe comes into being and passes out of being, but matter remains existent nonetheless. The phenomenon of causation doesn’t have the least effect on the world’s continuity: it is merely a system within a system, and it certainly does not imply that the overall system is in need of a cause, or that matter must have been externally created. And there is no logical demonstration to the contrary.

How can God cannot be God a necessary truth?

God cannot be God because that is the law of identity (A=A). A thing is the same as itself.

There is no evidence of causality in the universe that answers to itself though. But all paths point to a USP that is before the universe began.

Isn’t there? Everything that the universe needs is contained within itself: precipitation, heat, light, and oxygen. There is decay and degradation but repair and renewal are as much in evidence because there is balance and cyclicality. And these things are happening not because of some external, supernatural agency but because the means exists in nature. The universe doesn’t need a starting point or a creator to explain the way it exists.

I think you are the first to come out and directly state your position but still the main burden of proof to prove that God doesnt exist lies on if the universe is eternal.

If the argument is that there is a God, a worshipful, supernatural being, who created the world, then the onus is on those making the claim. What you’re doing is making inferences from the material world and then saying there is another world, which has similar causal properties, and that this world must be God. Yours is the claim, not mine.


If you require proof that something (God?) doesn’t exist, then the argument can be turned back on the questioner: for if you believe your particular understanding of God is the only god, then if must follow that there can be no other gods, and in that case it is incumbent upon you to prove the non-existence of all other gods or entities, which is equally absurd.

 

[Humanistheart]

LOL, again your assertions have already been debunked so why are still arguing that Jesus didnt fulfill any messianic prophecies? Do you feel its your duty to argue this false mute point?

Since no one was able to disprove my assertion and no one was able to succesfully apply the prophicies to jesus, my assertions have not been debunked. This was a rather cheap attempt at a responce on your part. Your religions already been proved false.

 

[AK4]

There's no logical contradiction in arguing that the thing you're calling a "USP" might not meet the definition of "USP" that you've given.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the phrase "ultimate starting point" can have any meaning without time (which is required for the words "ultimate" and "starting" to be meaningful) and space (which is required for "point").

I thought i was the one arguing that there is no such thing as a time before time---pertaining to God or an USP. From the point the USP started to do anything another time started. And so not to contradict myself i am basically saying there wasnt a time when the USP wasnt doing anything. So how deep can that go? Who knows. Now as for the universe, somewhere AFTER the USP started doing something the universe came into play.

Why would that be?

Of course i am assuming when you guys say self existent that is also meaning that it is eternal. I do not rule out the fact that it could have been created to be self existent. But anyway How do you put an age on something that has no beginning? If you can answer that for me then....

An invisible pink unicorn is by definition both invisible and pink, despite the fact that pink things are not invisible.

Then again its a contradiction in itself because in order to SEE pink or any color or anything, it cant, by definition, be invisible

Defining something doesn't mean it necessarily exists... or even that it's necessarily possible.

Try a better analogy and we may reconsider this phrase


I think you may have misunderstood: this First Cause Argument tangent that you've taken us down wouldn't disprove God.

If we want to actually disprove God, first we have to establish what the term "God" means and why that definition is necessarily valid. Do you want to try another kick at that can?

Okay instead of a all encompassing definiton, let break it down by what the scriptures say is what God is made of among others
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23meekness, temperance

The actual term "God" means the placer or something along those lines

 

[Humanistheart]

AK4, since you're a christian why don't you argue, oh I don't know, the christian god. Oh right, because he doesn't exist.

 

[AK4]

Since no one was able to disprove my assertion, no one was able to succesfully aplly the prophicies to jesus, my assertions have not been debunked. This was a rather cheap attempt at a responce on your part. Your religions arleady been proved false.

Okay okay i play your game. In the OT it says of God "i will open my mouth in parables". In the NT it says over and over again Jesus spoke in parables and even says "and not without a parable did He speak to the multitudes". So now disprove this.

 

[AK4]

AK4, since you're a christian why don't you agree, oh I don't know, the christian god. Oh right, because he doesn't exist.

Calling me a christian is almost like calling me a slur. The only thing i have in common with them [and this is said loosely because their beliefs on who/what He is] is that He was/is the Christ. Thats it. I do not follow their doctrines of devils.

 

[Humanistheart]

Okay okay i play your game. In the OT it says of God "i will open my mouth in parables". In the NT it says over and over again Jesus spoke in parables and even says "and not without a parable did He speak to the multitudes". So now disprove this.

I don't have to. You claim this is stated in the OT and that it's a reference to the messiah, but you don't list the passage, or explain how it's both a messianic prophicy and that it can be applied to jesus.

Also interesting side note, parables were considered a lower form of teaching by the jewish spiritual leaders of the time jesus was said to exist.

 

[Humanistheart]

Calling me a christian is almost like calling me a slur. The only thing i have in common with them [and this is said loosely because their beliefs on who/what He is] is that He was/is the Christ. Thats it. I do not follow their doctrines of devils.

So, are you muslim then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought i was the one arguing that there is no such thing as a time before time---pertaining to God or an USP.

You may have thought that, but you also argue for this "USP", which, AFAICT, is a concept that requires time.

From the point the USP started to do anything another time started. And so not to contradict myself i am basically saying there wasnt a time when the USP wasnt doing anything. So how deep can that go? Who knows. Now as for the universe, somewhere AFTER the USP started doing something the universe came into play.

Wait... so you're arguing that this "USP" is a meaningless concept?

Of course i am assuming when you guys say self existent that is also meaning that it is eternal.

The "of course" doesn't really work here. Why do you assume this?

To me, this is like saying that "there's nothing further north than the north pole" implies "the north pole is infinitely far away".

Then again its a contradiction in itself because in order to SEE pink or any color or anything, it cant, by definition, be invisible

Just as an uncaused thing in a universe where everything is, by definition, caused is a contradiction.

Okay instead of a all encompassing definiton, let break it down by what the scriptures say is what God is made of among others
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23meekness, temperance

The actual term "God" means the placer or something along those lines

I don't think that's a good definition. Are you saying that any entity that posesses love, joy, peace, long-suffering-ness, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance is necessarily God?

 

[AK4]

[
We don’t know the universe had a beginning, not because science is at best only probable, but because we don’t know what counts as ‘beginning.’ And there isn’t a God as ‘far as we can tell’.

Okay let me rephrase, science proves that it hasn’t always been the way it is now, but rather is expanding suggesting that it had a beginning. This is the consensus in the community .

This is just awarding the term ‘ultimate starting point’ to something and then saying it exists. If I say there is no ultimate starting point I’m guilty of no contradiction. There is no contradiction in the concept of eternity.

“IF” is the keyword. But so far as stated above it is believe the universe had a starting point which that in itself suggest another point because we know it had to be created.

It can’t of course be proved that the universe is self-existent; it’s only a metaphysical explanation, and little different in that respect from the religious hypothesis. We can certainly measure parts of the universe, but we can’t assume a beginning.

How so? They say its between 14 and 17 billions of years old. That assumes and demands a beginning because what was there 20 billion years ago.

But an uncaused cause is a concept that is not intelligible. If all existent things need a cause in order for them to exist, then it is the case that all things need a cause notwithstanding the term ‘uncaused’ or ‘ultimate’.

So that would mean by your definition the universe is eternal

We then have an infinite regression. So the difficulty arises because of the notion of causation; as Kant said, there is no argument for its universal validity. However, causation doesn’t have to be linear but may be circular in operation, where every one thing is connected to the other thing in some way, which is what we observe in nature.

I may be wrong but I don’t think circular fits with expanding neither does it fit with infinite regression---now thats a contradiction. We know for a fact its expanding. It is hypothesized on being circular and yet to be proven

Well, you can’t say cause and effect doesn’t apply to a First Cause, because it is exactly that which establishes the very principle of causation, the principle of one thing being the cause of another. And it is begging the question to say the universe has a beginning and therefore demands a cause. No such thing is evident.

Theres only evidence for it having a beginning. There is none for it to be eternal. Maybe self sustaining but not eternal.

Everything we see in the universe comes into being and passes out of being, but matter remains existent nonetheless. The phenomenon of causation doesn’t have the least effect on the world’s continuity: it is merely a system within a system, and it certainly does not imply that the overall system is in need of a cause, or that matter must have been externally created. And there is no logical demonstration to the contrary.

So if the universe is created, what brought it into being? If its not created then its eternal, but you say its not eternal so if its not eternal its created. You see that the dilemma you put yourself in

God cannot be God because that is the law of identity (A=A). A thing is the same as itself.

The word God is just a title, so as for the LOI calling the Father, God doesn’t break this law. [As a side note that is why Jesus is called God]

Isn’t there? Everything that the universe needs is contained within itself: precipitation, heat, light, and oxygen. There is decay and degradation but repair and renewal are as much in evidence because there is balance and cyclicality. And these things are happening not because of some external, supernatural agency but because the means exists in nature. The universe doesn’t need a starting point or a creator to explain the way it exists.

No that’s called self sustaining. The sun is to a point self sustaining. All the stuff you listed is how the earth helps to self sustain life here. In no way this the same as a USP. The universe can be self sustaining but since there is a beginning it has to be something before it.

If the argument is that there is a God, a worshipful, supernatural being, who created the world, then the onus is on those making the claim. What you’re doing is making inferences from the material world and then saying there is another world, which has similar causal properties, and that this world must be God. Yours is the claim, not mine.

I have made my claim, you don’t agree with a USP having no cause. You’ve made your claim, I don’t agree and theres no evidence of the universe being eternal, maybe self sustaining [reminder I use that loosely] but not eternal. By default no one can say an USP has a starting point before it. Until there is evidence of the universe being eternal, by default, a USP with no cause stands. Remember your proofs of above prove suggest self-sustaining not eternal.

If you require proof that something (God?) doesn’t exist, then the argument can be turned back on the questioner: for if you believe your particular understanding of God is the only god, then if must follow that there can be no other gods, and in that case it is incumbent upon you to prove the non-existence of all other gods or entities, which is equally absurd.

Well I can only do that with the Scriptures and its pretty easy to do.

 

[AK4]

I don't have to. You claim this is stated in the OT and that it's a reference to the messiah, but you don't list the passage, or explain how it's both a messianic prophicy and that it can be applied to jesus.

Just type in the words i put in the search engine and the verses will pop up. Here ill help ya--type in open mouth in parables and this should give you the OT verse. Type in only spoke to the multitudes in parables and that will give you the NT verses.

Okay it says in the OT God is the Saviour of the world. The NT says Jesus is the Saviour of the world. It says the in the OT [Isa 53:9] about the Servant that He will be given a grave with a wicked and later He will be a sin offering. The NT states and shows how this happened.

Now when you prove this didnt happen and the parables thing ill show you more. Also the Jesus was only a concept thing is viable either or that there were "Jesuses" before Jesus ever came because i got verses for that. So keep the argument please at least He came at least as a prophet.

Also interesting side note, parables were considered a lower form of teaching by the jewish spiritual leaders of the time jesus was said to exist.

Ha, then they were dumber than expected because they didnt even understand His parables and sometimes the pharissees also didnt. His own disciples didnt understand the parables either. So whats your point?