Vibr8gKiwi

Huh? Are you even reading the thread? First off, I don't believe a first cause is a "known fact." Secondly even if we assume for argument that it is, why is it more probable that some all powerful human-like sky-being was the cause rather than any of an infinite number of other possibilities either natural or super-natural? Why is sky-daddy more probable than quantum vacuum fluctuation (or whatever), some other non-sentient cause, or even a supernatural cause unlike our ideas of god? I look around and see so many naturally occurring cause-effects and none of them are caused with purpose by sentient beings except for a tiny tiny tiny minority done by humans. It's about to rain, maybe the god of thunder is getting restless.

How can you look at one possibility out of an infinity of possibilities (known and unknown) and sit there and claim it's the "probable" one????

GunnerJ

SOMMS-

No, actually, it does not. It only speaks of a first cause knowledgable enough to know how to make a universe, and powerful enough to be able to do it. The second half of your statement betrays that you have not at all graped the problem of special definitions I outlined.

"Is it pure coincidence that the Islamic concept of God outlines a sentience of omnipotence and omniscience existing outside of our time-space and who created our space time?"

"Is it pure coincidence that the Bobbist concept of God outlines a Bob of omnipotence and omniscience existing outside of our time-space and who created our space time?"

"Is it pure coincidence that the Hindu concept of God outlines many sentiences of omnipotence and omniscience existing outside of our time-space and who created our space time?"

Furthermore, there is no need to explain a "coincidence" when we have no two incidents that coincide. First Cause does not suggest any properties of god besides the ability to be the first cause. Therefore, the whole argument is spurious. And even if it did, it probably would not be a "pure coincidence." More than likely, Xian dogmatists invented their concept of God fit their theological constructs.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: religious thought is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

Sure it does, as long as we're talking about the fictional athiests you invent with absurd arguments to easily knock down, in a bizzare universe where logic is completely unheard of.

This assertion is pretty much all you have. And that's really sad.

No reason, just show that it's probable that, one, a first cause is nessisary, and second, that this somehow proves your god concept, and third, recognize the actual topic of this thread and save you arguments for a first cause for somewhere else.

Amos

Who said something about human life? Was that not a preconceived notion I warned you about?

Amos

Edited to add that whatever can be measured in the human brain is not love but an extraction of it because God is not part of the hu-man brain.

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]

Datheron

Cybershy,

Define what you mean by "our dimension". The space-time continuum is truly just "our" four-dimensional existence, but there's nothing that restricts our Universe to just four dimensions; the basic theories of superstring propose 10 or 26 dimensions, if not more. My point is that you're using a combination of two ad ignorantiums (assuming that something out of our dimension is non-contingent and that our Universe has to be) to work your argument, and it just isn't working.

Howay the Toon

An Atheist version of the above exchange:

Theist: Everything has a cause so the universe must have had a cause and that must be God.
Atheist: Ok what caused God.
Theist: Don't be silly he's eternal and uncaused.
Atheist: Er.... But you just said that everything..... oh never mind.

"Theist: Sure...but there's a whole bunch of indication that it was God.
Atheist:Granted...but we cannot absolutely know that God was the first cause because this was our reference of time-space."

Eh.... when have you ever heard an atheist accept that there are "a whole bunch of indication[s] that it was God."

i_am_the_head

Oh, lordy, are you a Scientologist or something?

Allow me to give you a complete frontal lobotomy and then, since love isn't of the brain (in your opinion), attempt to express love to someone. Good luck, soldier.

Amos

God is not part of the frontal lobe and therefore not part of the love you have in mind.

You fail to realize that our humanity is not part of God.

Howay the Toon

Has anyone here ever understood a single sentence uttered by this wacko?

All the words make sense but the sentences appear to be gibberish.

i_am_the_head

So you ARE a Scientologist? Just asking since you didn't reply to that part of my post. If you are, please let me know so I can write you off - ok?

Amos

Could you give me your definition of a Scientologist?

On second thought, just write me off since you do not see why the frontal lobe is different.