Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:57 pm
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
how do you come to that conclusion? and how does the who created God argument not apply to the eternal and self-existent thing that caused our universe or caused the thing that caused our universe and so on
I can't make it any clearer. If god already existed, he cannot have created existence.
You didn't say "our universe." You said "existence."
I knew what you meant. But your mistake reminds me of one Christian who told me that "Jesus sacrficied his ony son for you."
Same kind of cunfusion.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:50 pm
kmisho wrote:
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
how do you come to that conclusion? and how does the who created God argument not apply to the eternal and self-existent thing that caused our universe or caused the thing that caused our universe and so on
I can't make it any clearer. If god already existed, he cannot have created existence.
You didn't say "our universe." You said "existence."
I knew what you meant. But your mistake reminds me of one Christian who told me that "Jesus sacrficied his ony son for you."
Same kind of cunfusion.
point taken, but I don't think that clarification changes the thrust of my argument. Theists contend God (intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of existence that is not God. atheists contend god aka thing (non=intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of all existence that is not same in substance. Do you agree?
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:01 pm
[quote="Raskolnikov"]
Quote:
I dont claim invisible things =P I claim to not know how the universe began. Unlike theists.
That was the point of my premise that by lumping all possible supernatural causes and denying their validity you are making a positive claim that the omni-verse contains the means to sustain itself and is therefore self-existent and eternal same as God
romans120 wrote:
Because the visible universe does not posses the atribute of eternality or self-existence so it must have derived it's cause from out side of itself (you and I agree on this one though you might not realize it)
Quote:
Prove that statement.
The universe - all that is obsevable is obviously not self-sustaining so we all search for meaning and existence beyond it's borders either spiritual or dimensional
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Nimitz Grand Poster
Joined: May 10, 2004
Posts: 2899
Location: OKC OK
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:37 am
You're STILL stewing this same kettle if fish Romans?!
You're still stuck at the VERY FIRST POST you made at AF.
You're still trying to shift the burden.
Raskolnikov The Learned
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 114
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:50 am
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
I dont claim invisible things =P I claim to not know how the universe began. Unlike theists.
That was the point of my premise that by lumping all possible supernatural causes and denying their validity you are making a positive claim that the omni-verse contains the means to sustain itself and is therefore self-existent and eternal same as God
There are no supernatural causes, atleast no evidence of them anyway. Sounds to me like you are delving into pantheism there (or as I like to call it sexed-up atheism).
romans120 wrote:
Because the visible universe does not posses the atribute of eternality or self-existence so it must have derived it's cause from out side of itself (you and I agree on this one though you might not realize it)
Quote:
Prove that statement.
romans120 wrote:
The universe - all that is obsevable is obviously not self-sustaining so we all search for meaning and existence beyond it's borders either spiritual or dimensional
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:19 am
[quote="Raskolnikov"]
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:22 am
Nimitz wrote:
You're STILL stewing this same kettle if fish Romans?!
You're still stuck at the VERY FIRST POST you made at AF.
You're still trying to shift the burden.
Hey it's been a while since you've actually made a point about one of my arguments I've been stewing on this "atheist hypocrisy" thing for a while. What point do you think I'm trying to make?
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Raskolnikov The Learned
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 114
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:43 pm
[quote="romans120"]
Raskolnikov wrote:
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
And this is where Cyclic Theory comes in. Everything may be reset at the point of singularity (or near singularity I should say). But, this is all theory. We don't really know what happened in the beginning (well theists apparently do and that is why the Burden is on them), but I think it is safe to rule out an invisible sky genie.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:57 pm
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
how do you come to that conclusion? and how does the who created God argument not apply to the eternal and self-existent thing that caused our universe or caused the thing that caused our universe and so on
I can't make it any clearer. If god already existed, he cannot have created existence.
You didn't say "our universe." You said "existence."
I knew what you meant. But your mistake reminds me of one Christian who told me that "Jesus sacrficied his ony son for you."
Same kind of cunfusion.
point taken, but I don't think that clarification changes the thrust of my argument. Theists contend God (intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of existence that is not God. atheists contend god aka thing (non=intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of all existence that is not same in substance. Do you agree?
Now that you have said "god is the source of all that is not god" I agree this is what the standard theist says.
But that doesn't make it make any more sense than it did before. What does self-existent even mean? I see the phrase used, but to me it is meaningless. And use of the word "substance" is confusing. Am I supposed to believe now (for no reason whatsoever) that there are 2 types of substance, one for god and one for everything else? As I see it, implying a second kind of substance serves no purpose other than to prop up the god hypothesis which is itself in doubt. This has the earmarks of begging the question.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:06 pm
kmisho wrote:
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
romans120 wrote:
kmisho wrote:
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
how do you come to that conclusion? and how does the who created God argument not apply to the eternal and self-existent thing that caused our universe or caused the thing that caused our universe and so on
I can't make it any clearer. If god already existed, he cannot have created existence.
You didn't say "our universe." You said "existence."
I knew what you meant. But your mistake reminds me of one Christian who told me that "Jesus sacrficied his ony son for you."
Same kind of cunfusion.
point taken, but I don't think that clarification changes the thrust of my argument. Theists contend God (intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of existence that is not God. atheists contend god aka thing (non=intelligent, eternal, self-existent) is the source of all existence that is not same in substance. Do you agree?
Now that you have said "god is the source of all that is not god" I agree this is what the standard theist says.
But that doesn't make it make any more sense than it did before. What does self-existent even mean? I see the phrase used, but to me it is meaningless. And use of the word "substance" is confusing. Am I supposed to believe now (for no reason whatsoever) that there are 2 types of substance, one for god and one for everything else? As I see it, implying a second kind of substance serves no purpose other than to prop up the god hypothesis which is itself in doubt. This has the earmarks of begging the question.
do you agree with "brandon's" proposition about the eternality of existence?
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:08 pm
[quote="Raskolnikov"]
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
And this is where Cyclic Theory comes in. Everything may be reset at the point of singularity (or near singularity I should say). But, this is all theory. We don't really know what happened in the beginning (well theists apparently do and that is why the Burden is on them), but I think it is safe to rule out an invisible sky genie.
before we go any further do you get what I mean when I say your using the term universe more broadly than I am?
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:32 pm
I don't know what you're referring to with this:
Quote:
do you agree with "brandon's" proposition about the eternality of existence?
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9832
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:50 pm
[quote="romans120"]
Raskolnikov wrote:
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
I've never encountered the "Laws of theromodynamics" in the OT or NT for that matter? Do you have an original copy with those scientific laws in detail in ancient Hebrew, or Greek?
No, what you do have are hocus pocus claims. Claims of talking donkeys, talking snakes, sayters, unicorns, ghosts knocking up girls and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after three days.
Tell me where in any credible scientific community today that the Laws of thermodynamics would support such superstitious claims?
Thermodynamics will not suport these comic book claims anymore than they would support the utterance of Harry Potter flying around on a broom.
jcgadfly Grand Poster
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1422
Location: Bloomington IN
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:19 pm
[quote="Raskolnikov"]
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
And this is where Cyclic Theory comes in. Everything may be reset at the point of singularity (or near singularity I should say). But, this is all theory. We don't really know what happened in the beginning (well theists apparently do and that is why the Burden is on them), but I think it is safe to rule out an invisible sky genie.
Don't the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Or am I missing something?
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9832
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:28 pm
[quote="jcgadfly"]
Raskolnikov wrote:
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
Quote:
Nice try dodging the burden. Please prove that the Universe is not self sustaining. I see it working just fine atm considering I still exist.
The first law of thermodynamics or The law of conservation Means energy is neither created or destroyed
the second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy means that energy while not being destroyed is becoming less usefull. in other words the universe is winding down, which means at one time it was wound up and is not self-sustaining. (I'm sure you agree with me on this, I think your using the word universe in a broader way than I am)
And this is where Cyclic Theory comes in. Everything may be reset at the point of singularity (or near singularity I should say). But, this is all theory. We don't really know what happened in the beginning (well theists apparently do and that is why the Burden is on them), but I think it is safe to rule out an invisible sky genie.
Don't the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Or am I missing something?
You can entertain this diversion if you wish. I see it as nothing more than, "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain."
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
