Still trying to shift the burden.
Still trying to put atheism and theism on equal footing.
It's still on your shoulders to show proof of your claims. You have failed to do so, just like every other theist. Until you can show evidence of your claims they remain unproven.
Quote:
To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
Still using circular logic? You haven't make one inch of progress Romans. Your still stuck at the very first posts at AF. So much for growth.
This thread is going to be as worthless as the one you started in AF.
Last edited by Nimitz on Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Raskolnikov Confident Learner
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 85
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:55 am
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
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?
It doesn't matter. Prove that God exists.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:59 am
kmisho wrote:
I don't know what you're referring to with this:
Quote:
do you agree with "brandon's" proposition about the eternality of existence?
When neo-mystics challenge the concept of “entity” and announce that “naive” reason notwithstanding,
all that exists is change and motion
they are sweeping aside the fact that
only the existence of entities makes the concepts “change” and “motion” possible
; that “change” and “motion” presuppose entities which change and move; and that the man who proposes to dispense with the concept of “entity” loses his logical right to the concepts of “change” and “motion”: having dropped their genetic root, he no longer has any way to make them meaningful and intelligible.
I for one if I'm reading him correctly agree with him. We obviously observe existence as being in change and in motion. It is illogical to say when was or how was existence caused. It must be eternal and self existent. So we are not debating eternality we are debating is the eternal thing that initiated change and motion intelligent or unintelligent.
_________________ 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:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:13 am
[quote="Brian37"]
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)
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.
None of those things have any bearing on my proposition. You deny outright or are biased because you claim I'm begging the question by not first proving the existence of God before I make claims based on His revelation.
I contend that God's revelation is the proof of His existence and the order and power of the natural universe shows us it is possible for Him to exist. The purpose of this thread is to debate the validiy of the "who created God" argument. my point is both theist and atheist must begin from a presupposition of an eternal or self-existent thing that is the source of change and motion.
Biblicaly speaking the root definition for God is "self-existent one" so we are not arguing over whether or not God exists but rather what His compsition is and whether or not God is intelligent
_________________ 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.
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:04 am
Hello Romans 120
Quote:
The only thing that can explain existence is that existence be sourced in something that is eternal (self-existent). This is the definition for God.
Definition for God? I would be interested in hearing a coherent, non-contradictory definition of a god or goddess.
Quote:
So we are not arguing if there is a God or not. We are arguing about God's composition. Brandon makes the positive claim that God exists as eternal physical objects invisible from our perspective in the universe.
I used the quote of Brandon, but I know too little of him to argue his position. My position is that existence needs neither explanation nor cause, because I experience it and it seems contiguous. 'God' requires evidence because I don't experience 'god'. Believers require a god's existence to support their creations myths and power structures, wheras I have no need of a 'god'. Most people appear to reify 'god' using a variety of characteristics, progressively more anthropomorphic, but it's all gibberish to me, so I conclude that each person 'creates' his own 'god' out of whatever characteristics appeal to them.
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
Last edited by corynski on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:31 am; edited 1 time in total
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:20 am
corynski wrote:
Hello Romans 120
Quote:
The only thing that can explain existence is that existence be sourced in something that is eternal (self-existent). This is the definition for God.
Definition for God? I would be interested in hearing a coherent, non-contradictory definition of a god or gsoddess.
Quote:
So we are not arguing if there is a God or not. We are arguing about God's composition. Brandon makes the positive claim that God exists as eternal physical objects invisible from our perspective in the universe.
I used the quote of Brandon, but I know too little of him to argue his position. My position is that existence needs neither explanation nor cause, because I experience it and it seems contiguous. 'God' requires evidence because I don't experience 'god'. Believers require a god's existence to support their creations myths and power structures, wheras I have no need of a 'god'. Most people appear to reify 'god' using a variety of characteristics, progressively more anthropomorphic, but it's all gibberish to me, so I conclude that each person 'creates' his own 'god' out of whatever characteristics appeal to them.
What you claim to be gibberish, un-provable or self-contradictory definitions for God are when we attribute certain qualities to God. However, the sine qua non of God is that which is eternal (no beginning or cause) and self-existent (exists in and of and for itself)
_________________ 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.
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:36 am
Romans120 said:
Quote:
What you claim to be gibberish, un-provable or self-contradictory definitions for God are when we attribute certain qualities to God. However, the sine qua non of God is that which is eternal (no beginning or cause) and self-existent (exists in and of and for itself)
You can't attribute contradictory characteristics and attributes to some 'thing' that doesn't exist. Do you not understand reification? Your 'god' sub-strate is an assumption that a 'god' must exist.
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:49 am
corynski wrote:
Romans120 said:
Quote:
What you claim to be gibberish, un-provable or self-contradictory definitions for God are when we attribute certain qualities to God. However, the sine qua non of God is that which is eternal (no beginning or cause) and self-existent (exists in and of and for itself)
You can't attribute contradictory characteristics and attributes to some 'thing' that doesn't exist. Do you not understand reification? Your 'god' sub-strate is an assumption that a 'god' must exist.
Something does exist that is defined as being eternal and self-existent can we agree on that?
_________________ 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.
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:52 am
Reification:
Quote:
Or hypostatization, is a language fallacy that involves ascribing existence, substance, attributes, and behavior to mental constructs or concepts, then talking about these constructs and concepts using language that presupposes them to be real.
When applied to fantastic entities or gods, it is similar to anthropomorphism. While it is useful to be creative and employ metaphors and abstractions in our language, unless we are mindful of the symbolic (albeit
artificial
) properties of words we risk the danger of treating abstact entities as 'real' solely through the attributes we metaphorically use to describe them.
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:00 am
Quote:
Something does exist that is defined as being eternal and self-existent can we agree on that?
And what is that something?
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:11 am
corynski wrote:
Quote:
Something does exist that is defined as being eternal and self-existent can we agree on that?
And what is that something?
that is the big question isn't it? But it is the most proper place to begin don't you think?
_________________ 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.
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:33 am
Quote:
that is the big question isn't it? But it is the most proper place to begin don't you think?
Ok, it is a place to begin. And definitions would be required. What does self-existent mean to you? What other kind of existant is there? And a definition of existant? And those are the only two requirements, eternal and self-existant?
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:59 am
[quote="corynski"]
Quote:
that is the big question isn't it? But it is the most proper place to begin don't you think?
Quote:
Ok, it is a place to begin. And definitions would be required. What does self-existent mean to you?
A thing that does not depend upon anything else to exist.
Quote:
What other kind of existant is there?
A thing that depends upon another thing to exist
Quote:
And a definition of existant?
something as opposed to nothing
Quote:
And those are the only two requirements, eternal and self-existant?
Yes, these would be the irreducible minimum for our primary source or priori of our observable 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.
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:16 am
Romans120 said:
Quote:
Quote:
Something does exist that is defined as being eternal and self-existent can we agree on that?
No, I don't possess that knowledge. I can imagine eternal universes, but would have no idea if they were self-existent.
Quote:
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.
'Invisable attributes', such as eternal power and divine nature, exist only in your head, not clearly perceived.
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9362
Posted:
Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:23 am
romans120 wrote:
Brian37 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)
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.
None of those things have any bearing on my proposition. You deny outright or are biased because you claim I'm begging the question by not first proving the existence of God before I make claims based on His revelation.
I contend that God's revelation is the proof of His existence and the order and power of the natural universe shows us it is possible for Him to exist. The purpose of this thread is to debate the validiy of the "who created God" argument. my point is both theist and atheist must begin from a presupposition of an eternal or self-existent thing that is the source of change and motion.
Biblicaly speaking the root definition for God is "self-existent one" so we are not arguing over whether or not God exists but rather what His compsition is and whether or not God is intelligent
zzzzzzz......and might I add, If I may.......zzzzzzzzzzzz
This is just another ambigous hollow pontification to say, "I know I dont have evidence, but I will pretend I do, because the thought of being wrong might bruse my fragile ego".
The atheist does NOT start from a presuposition. The atheist compairs the best data we have to date to the claims presented to them. The "god" concept was not started with today's data. It was started by tribalistic nomads who were completely scientifically brain dead compaired to todays's advances. Unfortunatly , god belief is still popular, not because a deity is real, but because the idea is appealing to humans.
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
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file