The End of Religious Debates

[Valerian]

Yes. Those rules are related to safety, though, not morality. But rules impact on behaviour, if that is your point.



No. But it's possible. I've read mixed studies on it.



That's an interesting leap. You might also be more likely to judge homosexuals, shun non-believers, or allow set-up a dichotomy where Christian politicians are vastly more likely to be voted into public office. Let me ask you a question related to this, but in a different way, assuming you see monogamy as a moral behaviour. Christians and non-Christians cheat. Isn't the determination of who is behaving morally related to the action? Ultimately I would agree that living 'morally' requires a level of discipline and sacrifice, and that religion can be a source of this. But why we judge people on claimed associations and not simply their behaviour is beyond me.



Why? Is the only reason you don't cheat because of God? That seems...well...sad. I made a promise to my wife. Simple.



This line of thinking appears to have the same basic flaw as Pascal's Wager. It makes more sense when considering a form of belief (eg. Christianity) versus non-belief. When considering the various religious beliefs around, it seems to have more issues. Unless you think women should morally cover their heads?

[Valerian said: If there were no laws against prostitution do you think there would be more prostitutes walking the street and more men willing to engage?]

>>No. But it's possible. I've read mixed studies on it.

Well kids and adults are smoking a lot more pot in Colorado are they not? We Christians refrain from bad behavior because of God’s laws. Yes, I know we still engage in bad behavior but the point remains it would be far worse, more like many of those unbridled with any God fears.



>>That's an interesting leap. You might also be more likely to judge homosexuals, shun non-believers, or allow set-up a dichotomy where Christian politicians are vastly more likely to be voted into public office.

Well we are beholden to what God deems right or wrong. And Christianity judges homosexuality under the same heavenly edict that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. I cannot see how you can expect us to make exceptions for gay sex.


>>Let me ask you a question related to this, but in a different way, assuming you see monogamy as a moral behaviour. Christians and non-Christians cheat. Isn't the determination of who is behaving morally related to the action? Ultimately I would agree that living 'morally' requires a level of discipline and sacrifice, and that religion can be a source of this. But why we judge people on claimed associations and not simply their behaviour is beyond me.

I would agree with you when you said “the determination of who is behaving morally related to the action.” By and large, yes, but the degree of culpability can never be known by us.

Your last sentence you appear to be saying a sexual act can be deemed honorable if it is with someone you are loyal to, regardless if you are married to them or not or regardless if they are man or woman. If that is what you are saying, then it sounds wrong to me on more levels than just God says it is not to be. Again, do not ask me to pass a sentence because for some they just have no moral compass to ever know any better.



]Valerian said: So no one is saying you do not have personal moral and ethical standards, but I will say without a God to be accountable for it is much easier not to live up to those standards or not worry about it if you do not.]

>>This line of thinking appears to have the same basic flaw as Pascal's Wager.

Not really. I am merely pointing out those without any feeling of consequence from some eternal being is more likely to engage in acts that violate their own conscience of right and wrong.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What has transpired since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ validates its authenticity thousands of times over.

Opinions are all well and fine, but what has transpired; people seeing Jesus and Mary in pastries? I see Thor in the sky - does that validate his authenticity?

you say miracles are separated from logic and reason. Hardly.

I'll stick to what is.

mir●acle n
1. an act or event that does not follow the laws of nature and is believed to be caused by God (in Abrahamic faiths)
2. (informal) a lucky thing that happens that you did not expect or think was possible
an economic miracle
It's a miracle (that) nobody was killed in the crash.
It would take a miracle to make this business profitable.
a miracle cure/drug
3. ~ of something a very good example or product of something - synonymous with wonder
The car is a miracle of engineering.
(Source: Oxford English Dictionary)

Now, it's quite clear that when you use the word "miracle", you mean the first definition given; acts of god that defy reason--by their very nature. Fish and bread multiplying, stones weeping long-dead human blood, the dead rising from the grave. What a poet says about his views on miracles in relation to believers and non-believers hardly negates the defined and observable fact that "miracle" in a theistic sense is nothing short of "magic" - Christians are simply loathe to call it this in that they don't want to be associated with witchcraft and the like. Yet there it is.

Benedict XVI said faith without reason is false.

Quite so. Yet I wager that he meant "faith without [a] reason", as opposed to blind faith where one believes simply because they were told to believe. Yet we're not talking about faith, not specifically. Here's the problem with your "proof"; you didn't witness any of it. You didn't see Jesus crucified, you didn't see him rise - you're taking the word of whoever authored the Gospels at best thirty years after the events, and at most sixty. That, by no means whatsoever, is evidence or proof of anything but a story. Granted, a story that you believe is true, but a story that has no more veracity than the saga of Sigurd slaying Fafnir.

The point remains, your religion says that if you trace mankind’s ancestry back far enough that is all you have… dirt.

Actually, no. My religion claims that men were crafted from an Ash tree, and women from an Elm, and then our soul, sense and life were given to us by Odin, Hönir and Loki. Though if you want to complain about red herrings, perhaps you should not have mentioned your convictions regarding Evolution in a topic that had no relevance to it.

I contend the probabilities of some inanimate “force” --- which is nothing more than chance because it is mindless --- of assembling life building cells with thousands of machines in them, and then organisms, and then organ bearing fur animals, et al. --- the probabilities for that are an insult to consider. Impossible. You need I.D. to perform that.

Where you - and others - hamstring yourself is that the ToBE does not rule one way or another in regards to "intelligent design." It has no opinion on it, and there's nothing to say that an "intelligence" is not guiding the process of evolution. But you and yours are so fervently against any challenge to myth that you would reject it all, unthinking, in favor of man being magically crafted from clay and life sprung into existence in the span of six days.

FYI, the reason I am a creationist is by default. The evidence for evolution is a total FAIL (imo).

I am curious just how much you know of the evidences and findings in favor of the ToBE. And are you saying that humans are Creationist by default, or just you Christians?

Sounds nice, but doesn’t mean a thing to me. I reject your hypothesis.

You reject it in futility, as you emulated it further on. You stated that if you were not Christian, then you would be more prone to actions that you consider "sinful". Ergo the only reason you're a "good person" is because your religion says you should be, otherwise you suffer god's wrath. Which makes you not a good person, but a contained bad person.

On the other hand, an atheist has no such... how to word this--shackles? If an atheist is a good person, then he is a good person because it's the right thing to do. Not because he fears what god will do to him if he's not. Goodness for goodness' sake.

My point was simple. Drivers make for safer drivers because there are laws they need to abide by or consequences follow. Christians make for better citizens and moral neighbors (generally speaking) because we fear the consequences if we break the Lord’s laws, you have no laws to worry about in those same matters.

Your point was flawed. I am quite certain that this does not speak for all Christians, but in my extensive experience they do not make for better citizens or moral neighbors - no more so than anyone else. What's more, it's so very often the Christian neighbors that judge, condemn, harass, demean, insult, and blaspheme against their neighbors. Often unprovoked. Many Christians will spend exorbitant amounts of money to regulate and hinder people who do not share their beliefs - we see this daily in American politics. In my experience, a Christian may treat you with civility, so long as they assume you're a Christian too (and even then they will try to sway you to their church, rather than whatever one you might belong to.) Should they find out you're not a Christian. Well... I've literally been spat on after helping a woman carry groceries to her car. If that's Christian thanks and morality, you can keep it.

No, that is not the only reason. We do a lot of good work and act more honestly because of sheer gratitude to God for creating us and creating heaven.

No, you only think that you do more work and act more honestly. The difference - ironically - is that when others do good deeds, they don't make a show of it. Nor do Christian act any more honest than anyone else.

Nor is it a coincidence Christian nations tend to be better friends of other nations as well, willing to defend them when attacked as well.

• Costa Rica
• Liechtenstein
• Malta
• Monaco
• Vatican City
• England
• Tuvalu
• Denmark
• Faroe Islands
• Greenland
• Iceland

Those are Christian Nations. Spoiler Alert: America is not a Christian nation. The only one on that list who's defended their allies is England, and not fully at that.

And you believe what you wrote?

Aye, I do. A person who is "good" only for fear of damnation or hope of reward is not truly a good person. They are false, and selfish.

As far as charitable giving is concerned, I would be willing to bet Christians outgive non-Christians in the same nation.

The irony of this is that charity is not a race. It's not a game, or a contest. When you treat it as such, it only proves that you are not giving to charity to be a good person, you're doing it to look like a good person. And I must assume that it's to look good to others - and show how much better you are than everyone else - because assumedly your god can see right through that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well kids and adults are smoking a lot more pot in Colorado are they not? We Christians refrain from bad behavior because of God’s laws. Yes, I know we still engage in bad behavior but the point remains it would be far worse, more like many of those unbridled with any God fears.

I don't know, but I'm willing to accept they do. That isn't exactly a 'slam-dunk' in terms of your argument. Do you follow a law because it's a law, or because it's moral?

>>That's an interesting leap. You might also be more likely to judge homosexuals, shun non-believers, or allow set-up a dichotomy where Christian politicians are vastly more likely to be voted into public office.

Well we are beholden to what God deems right or wrong. And Christianity judges homosexuality under the same heavenly edict that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. I cannot see how you can expect us to make exceptions for gay sex.

I expect nothing. In this thread at least, I am making no judgements. It's difficult to communicate this to a Christian, or anyone of a more dogmatic belief, since their worldview differs fundamentally to mine. But, to try and communicate my meaning (which I know you'll disagree with, but I think there is value in understanding each other, if not agreeing) consider the following;

Imagine for a moment that you're a Muslim, and you belief moral women should cover their heads.
Your argument could be that Muslim women act more morally than non-Muslim women, since more of them cover their heads. Sure, some don't, but on the overall, more do. Therefore, Islam is a path to increased morality.

Except, for me, getting women to cover their heads isn't moral at all. So I could agree that more Muslim women act in accordance with Islamic morals than non-Muslim women. But that's a pretty self-serving and pointless assertion.

Does that explain my meaning better?

I would agree with you when you said “the determination of who is behaving morally related to the action.” By and large, yes, but the degree of culpability can never be known by us.

Your last sentence you appear to be saying a sexual act can be deemed honorable if it is with someone you are loyal to, regardless if you are married to them or not or regardless if they are man or woman. If that is what you are saying, then it sounds wrong to me on more levels than just God says it is not to be. Again, do not ask me to pass a sentence because for some they just have no moral compass to ever know any better.

This seems to make a supposition, which is probably unavoidable, that morality = Christianity.
My such measure, non-Christians are unavoidably immoral, and Christians can be moral (if they follow their own precepts).
My wedding made no vows to God, no mention of God at all. So is it then moral for me to have sex with my wife after making a vow to her, and her only? How so?

]Valerian said: So no one is saying you do not have personal moral and ethical standards, but I will say without a God to be accountable for it is much easier not to live up to those standards or not worry about it if you do not.]

>>This line of thinking appears to have the same basic flaw as Pascal's Wager.

Not really. I am merely pointing out those without any feeling of consequence from some eternal being is more likely to engage in acts that violate their own conscience of right and wrong.

No, I completely disagree. What I think you are pointing out is that those without any feeling of consequence from some eternal being are more likely to engage in acts that violate religious law, or religious proclamations of right or wrong. If anything, people appear LESS likely to violate their own conscience, since religion is one of the principal forces which can motivate a person to step outside their own conscience, along with political ideologies.

 

[Valerian]

Opinions are all well and fine, but what has transpired; people seeing Jesus and Mary in pastries? I see Thor in the sky - does that validate his authenticity?



I'll stick to what is.

mir●acle n
1. an act or event that does not follow the laws of nature and is believed to be caused by God (in Abrahamic faiths)
2. (informal) a lucky thing that happens that you did not expect or think was possible
an economic miracle
It's a miracle (that) nobody was killed in the crash.
It would take a miracle to make this business profitable.
a miracle cure/drug
3. ~ of something a very good example or product of something - synonymous with wonder
The car is a miracle of engineering.
(Source: Oxford English Dictionary)

Now, it's quite clear that when you use the word "miracle", you mean the first definition given; acts of god that defy reason--by their very nature. Fish and bread multiplying, stones weeping long-dead human blood, the dead rising from the grave. What a poet says about his views on miracles in relation to believers and non-believers hardly negates the defined and observable fact that "miracle" in a theistic sense is nothing short of "magic" - Christians are simply loathe to call it this in that they don't want to be associated with witchcraft and the like. Yet there it is.



Quite so. Yet I wager that he meant "faith without [a] reason", as opposed to blind faith where one believes simply because they were told to believe. Yet we're not talking about faith, not specifically. Here's the problem with your "proof"; you didn't witness any of it. You didn't see Jesus crucified, you didn't see him rise - you're taking the word of whoever authored the Gospels at best thirty years after the events, and at most sixty. That, by no means whatsoever, is evidence or proof of anything but a story. Granted, a story that you believe is true, but a story that has no more veracity than the saga of Sigurd slaying Fafnir.



Actually, no. My religion claims that men were crafted from an Ash tree, and women from an Elm, and then our soul, sense and life were given to us by Odin, Hönir and Loki. Though if you want to complain about red herrings, perhaps you should not have mentioned your convictions regarding Evolution in a topic that had no relevance to it.



Where you - and others - hamstring yourself is that the ToBE does not rule one way or another in regards to "intelligent design." It has no opinion on it, and there's nothing to say that an "intelligence" is not guiding the process of evolution. But you and yours are so fervently against any challenge to myth that you would reject it all, unthinking, in favor of man being magically crafted from clay and life sprung into existence in the span of six days.



I am curious just how much you know of the evidences and findings in favor of the ToBE. And are you saying that humans are Creationist by default, or just you Christians?



You reject it in futility, as you emulated it further on. You stated that if you were not Christian, then you would be more prone to actions that you consider "sinful". Ergo the only reason you're a "good person" is because your religion says you should be, otherwise you suffer god's wrath. Which makes you not a good person, but a contained bad person.

On the other hand, an atheist has no such... how to word this--shackles? If an atheist is a good person, then he is a good person because it's the right thing to do. Not because he fears what god will do to him if he's not. Goodness for goodness' sake.



Your point was flawed. I am quite certain that this does not speak for all Christians, but in my extensive experience they do not make for better citizens or moral neighbors - no more so than anyone else. What's more, it's so very often the Christian neighbors that judge, condemn, harass, demean, insult, and blaspheme against their neighbors. Often unprovoked. Many Christians will spend exorbitant amounts of money to regulate and hinder people who do not share their beliefs - we see this daily in American politics. In my experience, a Christian may treat you with civility, so long as they assume you're a Christian too (and even then they will try to sway you to their church, rather than whatever one you might belong to.) Should they find out you're not a Christian. Well... I've literally been spat on after helping a woman carry groceries to her car. If that's Christian thanks and morality, you can keep it.



No, you only think that you do more work and act more honestly. The difference - ironically - is that when others do good deeds, they don't make a show of it. Nor do Christian act any more honest than anyone else.

• Costa Rica
• Liechtenstein
• Malta
• Monaco
• Vatican City
• England
• Tuvalu
• Denmark
• Faroe Islands
• Greenland
• Iceland

Those are Christian Nations. Spoiler Alert: America is not a Christian nation. The only one on that list who's defended their allies is England, and not fully at that.



Aye, I do. A person who is "good" only for fear of damnation or hope of reward is not truly a good person. They are false, and selfish.



The irony of this is that charity is not a race. It's not a game, or a contest. When you treat it as such, it only proves that you are not giving to charity to be a good person, you're doing it to look like a good person. And I must assume that it's to look good to others - and show how much better you are than everyone else - because assumedly your god can see right through that.

I apologize but I have bail on a fair response to you. I am simply running out of time to get all my year end financial duties covered (seriously). I very much appreciate a civil and sincere effort on your part. No, I do not think you are a bum because you do not believe what I believe. I want to make that much clear. I hope you follow your own morals and feel comforted you are giving an honest effort. Thanks.

(ps – I have to give this exact same response to LewisMiller for the same reasons. Still I meant what I said.)

 

[Valerian]

I don't know, but I'm willing to accept they do. That isn't exactly a 'slam-dunk' in terms of your argument. Do you follow a law because it's a law, or because it's moral?



I expect nothing. In this thread at least, I am making no judgements. It's difficult to communicate this to a Christian, or anyone of a more dogmatic belief, since their worldview differs fundamentally to mine. But, to try and communicate my meaning (which I know you'll disagree with, but I think there is value in understanding each other, if not agreeing) consider the following;

Imagine for a moment that you're a Muslim, and you belief moral women should cover their heads.
Your argument could be that Muslim women act more morally than non-Muslim women, since more of them cover their heads. Sure, some don't, but on the overall, more do. Therefore, Islam is a path to increased morality.

Except, for me, getting women to cover their heads isn't moral at all. So I could agree that more Muslim women act in accordance with Islamic morals than non-Muslim women. But that's a pretty self-serving and pointless assertion.

Does that explain my meaning better?



This seems to make a supposition, which is probably unavoidable, that morality = Christianity.
My such measure, non-Christians are unavoidably immoral, and Christians can be moral (if they follow their own precepts).
My wedding made no vows to God, no mention of God at all. So is it then moral for me to have sex with my wife after making a vow to her, and her only? How so?



No, I completely disagree. What I think you are pointing out is that those without any feeling of consequence from some eternal being are more likely to engage in acts that violate religious law, or religious proclamations of right or wrong. If anything, people appear LESS likely to violate their own conscience, since religion is one of the principal forces which can motivate a person to step outside their own conscience, along with political ideologies.

I apologize but I have bail on a fair response to you. I am simply running out of time to get all my year end financial duties covered (seriously). I very much appreciate a civil and sincere effort on your part. No, I do not think you are a bum because you do not believe what I believe. I want to make that much clear. I hope you follow your own morals and feel comforted you are giving an honest effort. Thanks.

 

[Reggie Miller]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

Well, Jesus commanded Christians to: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

So we believe that if we leave them be we do them a disservice.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How does that relate to being able to prove or disprove a god, Reggie?

 

[Neo Deist]

Well, Jesus commanded Christians to: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

So we believe that if we leave them be we do them a disservice.

Apparently that is lost on a bunch of people. There was this little thing called the Crusades...

 

[interminable]

Miracles are often far separated from logic and reason. In fact, given that the resurrection was seen by three people, and Jesus' "ghost" was seen by only his closest friends in a single room, logic and reason would suggest - strongly - that they made it all up. Especially considering the accounts were really written down somewhere around a half-century after the events.



Proof is something that can be shown, tested, and verified. A major theme in Christianity - especially Catholicism - is "no questions allowed" Thou shall not test the lord thy god, and all that. What you call evidence and proof is belief and conviction, and experiences that have swayed and convinced you. Evidence and proof, on the other hand, shows the truth of something regardless of feelings, beliefs, and emotions.



1. Dirt is not living, and thus does not evolve. It is biologically impossible for anything to evolve from dirt.
2. The "proof" they would claim is a myth in a religious text. Not quite proof of anything, save for a creation myth. If that's the going rate for evidence, then I've proof that the sky dome is the skull of a great giant.



A very small, negligible percentage of scientists. Unless you mean Creationists, who do not employ vetted and verifiable scientific measures. And the wealth of findings to support the Theory of Biological Evolution a) does not negate a creative force guiding it, as many Creationists claim, and b) very much so shows a progression of evolution, not just in humanity but in every species that is. It certainly does not show that we did not evolve.



Lewis beat me to it, but no. Not at all. If anything, atheists have a purer form of morality and accountability than many theists, in that their mistakes and shortcomings are their own, and their good deeds are done for sake of good deeds, not fear of eternal torment or reward.



Currently, there are speed limits, even within city limits. Yet I see many people - even Christians - speeding in excess of ten miles over the speed limit. This isn't really a good example.



Probably not, because the people who are willing to risk those laws are likely the only people willing to utilize a prostitutes' profession.



So then, as said above, your only reason for being a good person is the religious rules you hold in place? That makes for a worse person, you know. It should also be noted that Christians are not the only people who give to charity. I also know many Christians who do everything that you listed, so your claim that someone with no belief is more prone to do those things is demonstrably false.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Correct, you did not. I did, as I find it evidence that eternity to us might not be so, and that even that which is far larger and greater than we will end.



We are actually quite aware of anti-matter (in essence, non-existence) and that it composes a great deal of the known universe. A blank canvas may be seen in an unfinished painting; though it is not a part of the composition, it still exists. Paradoxical to a point, but there it is.



By "this infinite" I assume you mean your god. How do you know he is infinite? How can you prove this?

When something doesn't exist u can't expect from it to have some effects. But anti matter exists and have effects on matter.

Besides I haven't proven my god yet.

And notice that I just wanna prove that u can't find somewhere that doesn't exist. If u accept this so u will understand that we have an existence that is unlimited and infinite.

Right?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Apparently that is lost on a bunch of people. There was this little thing called the Crusades...

Please don't remind me...

 

[interminable]

OK


Ok.



No it does not. Something could come into existence uncaused and random as well. Please demonstrate that it is impossible for a possible existent to exist uncaused?


You are making a logical error. By definition, an infinite series is beginingless. That is its fundamental property. There is nothing illogical about an infinite regress, it can be easily modeled and analyzed using the negative number series. Asking how a beginingless entity begins is asking an illogical question. An infinite regress of causes is completely possible. In such a case, the universe, made up of an infinite regress of causally connected events will itself be beginingless and eternal, though each and every event within it will have a beginning an end and a cause and an effect. A very simple, elegant and logical universe that can be mathematically modelled using the number line.



Ok.

No, it does not. A possible existent is an existent that may or may not exist. Nothing whatsoever can be said about its relations with other existents. There is nothing illogical for there being an existent that can just pop into existence at random without cause or reason. You are assuming that everything that exists must have reason why it exists. Demonstrate this assumption to be true. Some existent may have causes and reasons and others may not. One cannot know apriori that such existents must have causes or reasons.

Finally you are still talking in time. Time itself may be a possible existent. So you have to frame your logic so that it does not use temporal concepts.


OK.



I did not follow how you established this?



You have failed to demonstrate any such thing. Its entirely possible, logical and rational to have an infinite causal regress and you have not demonstrated at all that every possible existent needs a cause.


All of this is based on your unsupported conclusions. You have failed to demonstrate

1) Why an infinite regress is illogical just because its beginingless.
2) Why every possible existent needs a cause or a reason. What is so problematic of things coming and going out of existence without causes or reasons.

[/QUOTE]
OK
So answer this question please

Imagine that two runners decide to run. But A decides not to run until B starts to run. And at the same time B has decided not to run until A starts to run.

So which one of them runs first?

 

[sayak83]

OK
So answer this question please

Imagine that two runners decide to run. But A decides not to run until B starts to run. And at the same time B has decided not to run until A starts to run.

So which one of them runs first?

Neither. They remain stationary.

Unfortunately the analogy is wrong. In your analogy there still remains a time when neither A nor B is running. However a beginningless system (A,B) where
1) A is running because B is running
2) B is running because A is running

will have no first moment where either A or B was stationary. It neither has nor requires an initial condition. In mathematics and in real life, an infinite series or a set is a fundamentally different category of entity than a finite series or a set. Unless you understand this, you will be stuck. If you are going to discuss infinities, it would be better that you familiarize yourself with the basic of infinite mathematics before putting forth logical propositions?
Roads to Infinity: The Mathematics of Truth and Proof: John C. Stillwell: 9781568814667: Amazon.com: Books

 

[interminable]

Neither. They remain stationary.

Well done

The same is about the infinite regress

Imagine 100 existents which their existence depends on each other

When do they exist?? Never

Because if the existence of A depends on B then the existence of B depends on the existence of A too.
So its implication is that A exists and doesn't exist at the same time and this is paradox and is impossible.

Actually this is a very simple fact.

And please think about the concept of existence. Non existent is nothing. Nothing doesn't exist. How can something jump into existence from nothing?? Actually u can't find somewhere that doesn't exist.

Right?

 

[sayak83]

Well done

The same is about the infinite regress

Imagine 100 existents which their existence depends on each other

When do they exist?? Never

Because if the existence of A depends on B then the existence of B depends on the existence of A too.
So its implication is that A exists and doesn't exist at the same time and this is paradox and is impossible.

Actually this is a very simple fact.

And please think about the concept of existence. Non existent is nothing. Nothing doesn't exist. How can something jump into existence from nothing?? Actually u can't find somewhere that doesn't exist.

Right?

I have edited my response. Take another look.
The End of Religious Debates

I will add to this. Very simply a binary system (A,B) where

1) A runs when B runs and
2) B runs when A runs

will have two stable configurations.

Configuration one is when both A and B are stationary for infinity.
Configuration two is when both A and B are running for infinity.

Both are perfectly stable and consistent configurations. Your logical mistake is to believe that somehow the state of rest must be a more natural state than the state of movement, and hence configuration two must have a beginning point. This is false. Both configurations (A,B at rest) and (A,B are running) are beginningless and endless configurations and are mutually exclusive. They cannot transform from one to the other and they have no beginning or initial condition. Both configuration one and configuration two are perfectly possible ways (A,B) can exist and neither is more likely than the other.

 

[Jedster]

Neither. They remain stationary.

Unfortunately the analogy is wrong. In your analogy there still remains a time when neither A nor B is running. However a beginningless system (A,B) where
1) A is running because B is running
2) B is running because A is running

will have no first moment where either A or B was stationary. It neither has nor requires an initial condition. In mathematics and in real life, an infinite series or a set is a fundamentally different category of entity than a finite series or a set. Unless you understand this, you will be stuck. If you are going to discuss infinities, it would be better that you familiarize yourself with the basic of infinite mathematics before putting forth logical propositions?
Roads to Infinity: The Mathematics of Truth and Proof: John C. Stillwell: 9781568814667: Amazon.com: Books

Yes, it's a bit like asking what is the first real number greater than 1.
We could say 1+x where x is extremely small, but there will always be another number, y which is less than x. An infinite recursion.
There is no first.

 

[Tumah]

As you know, some religious practices and beliefs lead to harm. Sam Harris, for instance, has argued that faith -- which is not in itself a belief, but rather a basis for belief -- can and sometimes does provide a means of justifying harms that would not otherwise be justifiable; thus encouraging them. Supposing Harris were right, would there not be a moral burden imposed on people who valued the well being of themselves and others to at least in some cases oppose faith?

Supposing X religion were right, would there not be a moral burden imposed on people who valued X's religious creed to at least in some cases oppose non-X's?

Also: how many days were you born on?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel sad for you with that belief.

Whatever for? It is far more freeing to know that there is absolutely, positively, without a doubt NOTHING to fear about death - because literally nothing happens. What's sad about it? That I don't somehow expect to exist forever? I couldn't even pretend the amount of conceit it must take to feel that the universe somehow "owes" a person that.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

When something doesn't exist u can't expect from it to have some effects. But anti matter exists and have effects on matter.

If matter = existence - and in a way, it does; matter is what all of existence is made from, every atom that makes every molecule that every thing both living and inert is made from - then anti-matter = non-existence. The effects of anti-matter on matter is the same effect as an empty canvas is on a painting; it defines what is the painting (existence) and what is not (non-existence).

There is no existence that can be shown - proven - to exist infinitely. Even our universe, which houses everything that is, is expanding and will eventually (according to scientists) collapse and end.

 

[interminable]

I have edited my response. Take another look.
The End of Religious Debates

I will add to this. Very simply a binary system (A,B) where

1) A runs when B runs and
2) B runs when A runs

will have two stable configurations.

Configuration one is when both A and B are stationary for infinity.
Configuration two is when both A and B are running for infinity.

Both are perfectly stable and consistent configurations. Your logical mistake is to believe that somehow the state of rest must be a more natural state than the state of movement, and hence configuration two must have a beginning point. This is false. Both configurations (A,B at rest) and (A,B are running) are beginningless and endless configurations and are mutually exclusive. They cannot transform from one to the other and they have no beginning or initial condition. Both configuration one and configuration two are perfectly possible ways (A,B) can exist and neither is more likely than the other.

Actually to be honest I tried to understand but I think I should ask some questions

We are talking about two or more existents that created each other right??

To understand easily let's imagine they are two existents.

My assumption is that if A has created B it's impossible that B could create A.

If B created A it's impossible that A could create B.

If both simultaneously created each other this is impossible too
Because when A wants to created B the A itself wasn't created yet because its existence depends on B.

If u wanna say that A and B had no beginning it means they haven't created each other. This is another issue.

Here we're talking about existents that are possible existents and have beginning

 

[interminable]

If matter = existence - and in a way, it does; matter is what all of existence is made from, every atom that makes every molecule that every thing both living and inert is made from - then anti-matter = non-existence. The effects of anti-matter on matter is the same effect as an empty canvas is on a painting; it defines what is the painting (existence) and what is not (non-existence).

There is no existence that can be shown - proven - to exist infinitely. Even our universe, which houses everything that is, is expanding and will eventually (according to scientists) collapse and end.

I searched Wikipedia and some websites

U are wrong at definition of anti matter

Anti matter exists and in laboratory they produced some of it. But it's so expensive