Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ion · 05-28-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
Arguements for the Existence of God:

1.
...
That prime cause is God.

2.
...
That independent being is God.

3.
...
That prime mover is God.

4.
...
That supreme intelligence is God.

5.
...
That supreme Lawgiver, Who emboodied His law in the very nature of things, is God.

6.
...
That perfect being is God.

7.
...
Some hold it would be difficult to explain this tesimony if a Supreme Being did not exist.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

Now, Gemma, go get a Nobel prize in Physics, with this 'understanding' of nature's works.

Automaton · 05-28-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

"God is the perfect Being, Creator of heaven and Earth."

I have already refuted this definition previously, it is internally inconsistent. God fulfulls the maximum qualities for being itself, God is the ultimite perfect situation. A perfect God would not need, nor want, anything outside of the perfect situation. Therefore if God exists he would not create neither heaven or earth.

Besides, do you believe that Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe God is all good? All powerful? All knowing? Omnipresent? Why are these not included in your definition?

Quote:

1. The principle of causality. Every effect must have an adequate cause.

Yes, because included in the definition of "effect" is necessity for a preceeding cause. *Something* must only have a sufficient cause if it is first defined as an effect. You have given us no reason why the universe should be defined as an effect, to do so would be assuming what you're trying to prove.

What is the "sufficient cause" of radioactive decay, where atomic nucleii spontaneously and acausally emit alpha particles, or quantum vacuum fluctuations, where virtual positive/negative particles spontaneously and acausally flicker in and out of existence in every vacuum?

Quote:

The entire universe, therefore, must have an adequate cause --

This is known as the fallacy of composition. "Every human in the human race had a parent, therefore the human race itself had a parent." It is flawed reasoning.

Quote:

since it could not produce itself.

What about a spatially and temporally infinite, flat spacetime void that existed "before" the universe, and spontaneously fluctuated, according to the rules of quantum mechanics and relativity, to produce universes?
[quote]Further, that adequate cause of the universe must itself be uncaused, self-sufficient, and eternal.

Quote:

That prime cause is God.

God is NOT defined as merely "uncaused, self-sufficient and eternal". God is, according to you, "a perfect Being, creator of heaven and earth." You have "proven" something entirely different.

Quote:

2. The contingency of the universe. The universe does not exist of itself, independently.

Baseless asssertion. You have given us no reason to accept that the universe does not exist of itself, independently.

Quote:

A contingent universe cannot produce itself but must be produced -- ultimately by a being that exists of itself, without dependence on any other being. That independent being is God.

Again, this does not show God, this merely shows something that is independent. If this is sufficient for God's definition, why is yours not simply "independent"?

Quote:

3. Movement and change in the universe.

This is exactly the same as number 1, only using a specific type of causality, whereas 1 had ambiguity. Are you always redundant always?

Quote:

Any movement or change derives from an original motive force or mover.

Absolutely wrong. What is an explosion? A rapidly expanding ball of hot gas that can overcome its surroundings. Broken down, it is merely a lot of very fast moving particles. Now, exactly, what exactly is the movement that sets off a stick of dynamite? Also, what is the movement that pushes an alpha particle out of the atomic nucleii?

Quote:

Ultimately, all the movement or change in the universe must be referred back to a prime mover which is itself unmoved and unchanging.

Fallacy of composition.

Quote:

That prime mover is God.

Again, this is not the definition of God. You have "proven" a prime mover, not God.

Quote:

4. Design in the universe. There is order in the universe. Such order could not exist without plan and design -- and ultimately a mind or intelligence. That supreme intelligence is God.

This argument refutes itself. If complexity requires a designer, then how could that designer be infinitely complex itself, without requiring a designer himself?

Quote:

5. Conscience. Man is conscious of moral obligation.

Not serial killers I might add.

Quote:

Moral obligation is impossible without law,

No, it is not. Morals are necessary truths, existing independent of any being, including God. If morals are just laws, then they are merely commands, and they would have no value (ie., if God said raping babies was morally good, would you consider it so?)

Quote:

and law is immpossible without a lawgiver.

Only if you assume what you're trying to prove. Why must a "law giver" be a transcendental, supernatural force anyway? You have given no reaosn to accept this.

Quote:

That supreme Lawgiver, Who emboodied His law in the very nature of things, is God.

All you have proven is some being that arbitrarily decides what is wrong and what is right. This is not the definition of God.

Quote:

6. Perfection in the universe. There are many perfections in the universe, and none of them is sufficient to produce itself. Therefore, they all derive from a being Who possesses all of them in an ent and causative manner. That perfect being is God.

Another self-defeating argument. If perfection requires a perfect cause, then the Perfect Being, God, must too require a perfect cause. If not, you must accept that at least some perfections are sufficient in and of themselves, and then you must prove to us which perfections in the universe are not as this.

Quote:

7. There is a widespread human testimony concerning the existence of a Supreme Being, although different opinions are adavnced regarding his nature and attributes. Some hold it would be difficult to explain this tesimony if a Supreme Being did not exist.

People claim to be abducted by UFO's all the time too. Will you thus believe in UFO's, or rather believe that deep enough cultural brainwashing can manifest itself in various self-induced hallucinations?

Your "arguments" are all hopelessly flawed, and even if their were valid and sound, they would not prove God.

Gemma Therese · 05-28-2002, 04:20 PM

I have read these books. Could you tell me the last five pro-atheist books you have read?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Gladly.

Subject to Debate (Katha Pollitt)
Sleeping with the Extra-Terrestrials (Wendy Kaminer)
The Case Against God (George Smith)
Basic Writings of Nietzche
The Philosophy of Aristotle

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

David M. Payne · 05-28-2002, 04:58 PM

Quote:

by ex-preacher; Your god is so merciful and just that he devised a system whereby he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for having created sinful people himself. And anyone who doesn't believe this will burn in hell for all eternity.

Pretty good ex, I would add to that, the whole thing about Noah and the genocide that this perfect God visited on humanity for the sin of corruption. Oh, by the way Gemma Therese, what was it exactly that the babies and little children of these people did to be drowned like a bag of unwanted puppies by your just and merciful God? Also what was it all the animals on this planet did to deserve the same fate? Looks like your God is a bit of a thug.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

05-28-2002, 05:52 PM

David Payne,

Her God is not a thug. Her God is kind, just and loving.

It just so happens that her God is not the God of the bible who is undoubtedly wrathful as he is negligent.

Gemma Therese · 05-28-2002, 06:23 PM

Ion wrote ...

"What does "...a Trappist monk..." know about scientific interpretations of nature's forces?
Not much, I bet."

Dear Ion,

So, is your problem with Thomas Merton, monks, Trappist monks, Trappist monks who write books, all cloistered religious orders, Roman Catholics in general ...

So all cloistered religious are ignorant of intellectual theory and advancement. Fascinating. It's a good thing St. Edith Stein slipped through the system, because she entered Carmel after earning her doctorate in philosophy.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

Gemma Therese · 05-28-2002, 06:41 PM

Dear Vagrant,

An answer to your questions.

<<Do you believe in pink dragons?>>

No.

<<You mean the world which some claim to exist, but you can't psorve [sic] scientifically>>

Yes.

<<If we can't comprehend God, how are we going to know who [sic] to worship and love?>>

Have you ever been in love? Did you totally comprehend the situation, and the person with whom you were in love?

Were you any less in love because of this limitation?

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Liquidrage · 05-28-2002, 06:54 PM

Gemma,

Many people have faith, and in many different things. Although I've found nothing new in what you offer nor how you present it I thank you for coming here and trying to share your faith.

However, you have at times tried to present your faith as logical evidence and that I find to be either dishonest or ignorant. Please remember what faith is.

Gemma Therese · 05-28-2002, 06:55 PM

<<Now, Gemma, go get a Nobel prize in Physics, with this 'understanding' of nature's works.>>

Ion, was that facetious?

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Jobar · 05-28-2002, 07:47 PM

With slight modifications by Jobar-

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
Arguements for the Existence of The Invisible Pink Unicorn:

1. The principle of causality. Every effect must have an adequate cause. God therefore, must have an adequate cause -- since it could not produce itself. Further, that adequate cause of God must itself be uncaused, self-sufficient, and eternal. That prime cause is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

2. The contingency of God . God does not exist of itself, independently. A contingent God cannot produce itself but must be produced -- ultimately by a being that exists of itself, without dependence on any other being. That independent being is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

3. Movement and change in God . Any movement or change derives from an original motive force or mover. Ultimately, all the movement or change in God must be referred back to a prime mover which is itself unmoved and unchanging. That prime mover is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

4. Design in God . There is order in God . Such order could not exist without plan and design -- and ultimately a mind or intelligence. That supreme intelligence is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

5. Conscience. Man is conscious of moral obligation. Moral obligation is impossible without law, and law is immpossible without a lawgiver. That supreme Lawgiver, Who embodied Her law in the very nature of things, is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

6. Perfection in God . There are many perfections in God , and none of them is sufficient to produce itself. Therefore, they all derive from a being Who possesses all of them in an ent and causative manner. That perfect being is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

7. There is a widespread human testimony concerning the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn, although different opinions are adavnced regarding her nature and attributes. Some hold it would be difficult to explain this tesimony if an Invisible Pink Unicorn did not exist.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]

05-28-2002, 04:20 PM	#63
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	I have read these books. Could you tell me the last five pro-atheist books you have read?[/QB][/QUOTE] Gladly. Subject to Debate (Katha Pollitt) Sleeping with the Extra-Terrestrials (Wendy Kaminer) The Case Against God (George Smith) Basic Writings of Nietzche The Philosophy of Aristotle In God's Love, Gemma Therese [ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

05-28-2002, 06:23 PM	#66
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	Ion wrote ... "What does "...a Trappist monk..." know about scientific interpretations of nature's forces? Not much, I bet." Dear Ion, So, is your problem with Thomas Merton, monks, Trappist monks, Trappist monks who write books, all cloistered religious orders, Roman Catholics in general ... So all cloistered religious are ignorant of intellectual theory and advancement. Fascinating. It's a good thing St. Edith Stein slipped through the system, because she entered Carmel after earning her doctorate in philosophy. In God's Love, Gemma Therese [ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2002, 05:52 PM	#65
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	David Payne, Her God is not a thug. Her God is kind, just and loving. It just so happens that her God is not the God of the bible who is undoubtedly wrathful as he is negligent.

05-28-2002, 06:41 PM	#67
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	Dear Vagrant, An answer to your questions. <<Do you believe in pink dragons?>> No. <<You mean the world which some claim to exist, but you can't psorve [sic] scientifically>> Yes. <<If we can't comprehend God, how are we going to know who [sic] to worship and love?>> Have you ever been in love? Did you totally comprehend the situation, and the person with whom you were in love? Were you any less in love because of this limitation? In God's Love, Gemma Therese

05-28-2002, 06:54 PM	#68
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Gemma, Many people have faith, and in many different things. Although I've found nothing new in what you offer nor how you present it I thank you for coming here and trying to share your faith. However, you have at times tried to present your faith as logical evidence and that I find to be either dishonest or ignorant. Please remember what faith is.

05-28-2002, 06:55 PM	#69
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	<<Now, Gemma, go get a Nobel prize in Physics, with this 'understanding' of nature's works.>> Ion, was that facetious? In God's Love, Gemma Therese

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.