Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 06-15-2002, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
No, he would not be a "God", because as I explained above, the notion of "God" conflicts directly with the laws of physics. As just one example (extraneous to my above exposition anyway), that gods are necessarily non-physical, whereas the laws of physics are an aspect of the physical world.

Based on the definition of a non-sentient omnipresent god, the laws of physics are supreme. The objects which exist within the universe are physical, but what runs the universe (laws), can be said to be either physical or non-physical by anyone. There's no proof for either notion.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]

Automaton · 06-15-2002, 11:56 PM

Quote:

It has logical evidence. Your birth had to be caused by someone, which had to be caused by someone else, which had to be caused by something else. There had to be first cause. There's no other logical answer. Someone (I think you) mentioned that the universe is finite. A finite universe without a beginning is a contradiction. If you believe in a finite universe, you have to believe in an intial cause. That is the only logical answer.

Everything in the universe had a cause, therefore the universe had a cause, is the fallacy of composition.

Quote:

It equals a creator in a finite space-time continuum.

Why does it equal a creator and why must this creator be finite? All it equals is a cause, which does not conflict with atheism or naturalism.

Quote:

Calling this creator "God" is acceptable.

You can call it God, but it does not prove God, and that is the whole point!

Quote:

The first cause theory, yes, is a self-refutation to the conclusion the original theorists were trying to arrive at. It was originally used to refute atheism; but if a creation had to occur, then the creator had to of been created. Hence, it contradicts both atheism and theism.

If an argument against atheism contradicts itself, and therefore is not valid in showing atheism to be false, how can it still refute atheism?

Automaton · 06-16-2002, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Based on the definition of a non-sentient omnipresent god, the laws of physics are supreme. There objects which exist within the universe are physical, but what runs the universe (laws), can be said to be either physical or non-physical by anyone. There's no proof for either notion.

So it was you all along, Twixbiscuit!

Don't you ever consider what you are actually saying? Where does the word "physics" come from? "Physical"!

Totalitarianist · 06-16-2002, 12:06 AM

Everything in the universe had a cause, therefore the universe had a cause, is the fallacy of composition.

Exactly. The first cause theory contradicts theism.

Why does it equal a creator and why must this creator be finite? All it equals is a cause, which does not conflict with atheism or naturalism.

It equals a first causer. Call it whatever you like.

You can call it God, but it does not prove God, and that is the whole point!

But to disprove the Trebaxian (my) Pantheistics notion of God, is to disprove the laws of the universe. I call the laws of the universe "God", and it fits the definition of an omnipresent, omnipotent, non-sentient... "thing". Whatever you want to call it. I call it God, and it fits the definition.

If an argument against atheism contradicts itself, and therefore is not valid in showing atheism to be false, how can it still refute atheism?

By contradicting itself, it condtraditcs atheism. Atheism is definately the logical choice of the two, as you cannot infer a design until you can define a designer.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]

Totalitarianist · 06-16-2002, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
So it was you all along, Twixbiscuit!

Don't you ever consider what you are actually saying? Where does the word "physics" come from? "Physical"!

You mentioned the word "physical". I merely suggested that perhaps the laws themselves are not physical, which you alleged.

Totalitarianist · 06-16-2002, 12:12 AM

I ask you this:-- Is an omnipresent being a contradiction?

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]

Typhon · 06-16-2002, 12:12 AM

OT:

Ahhhhhh.... Tin Tin, is Trebax!

It now makes more sense...here I thought the poor blond haired detective had simply gone mad.

Back to Topic:

So Trebax, are you satisfied yet? I looks clear to me that you've been told how Pantheism is "untrue."

.T.

Totalitarianist · 06-16-2002, 12:13 AM

No. My oponents have yet to refute the Trebaxian notion of an omnipotent, omnipresent, non-sentient God.

Totalitarianist · 06-16-2002, 12:15 AM

A question: What is the only notion that can be defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, and non-sentient? The laws of physics?

Automaton · 06-16-2002, 12:16 AM

This is just getting absurd.

Quote:

Exactly. The first cause theory contradicts theism.

No not exactly. Just because an argument for theism doesn't work, does not mean it is contra to theism! The fact that "Cats are green, therefore Australia exists" is not valid, does not negate the conclusion!

Quote:

It equals a first causer. Call it whatever you like.

Fine. First causer is not God. Atheism is not refuted.

Quote:

But to disprove the Trebaxian (my) Pantheistics notion of God, is to disprove the laws of the universe. I call the laws of the universe "God", and it fits the definition of an omnipresent, omnipotend, non-sentient... "thing". Whatever you want to call it. I call it God, and it fits the definition.

I call the coffee mug on my desk "God". Do you deny that the coffee mug on my desk exists? Arbitrary word shifting is meaningless, for your pantheism to be worthy of talking about, it must be somehow different to naturalism, besides what one calls things.

Quote:

By contradicting itself, it condtraditcs atheism.

Uhm...

Quote:

Atheism is definately the logical choice of the two, as you cannot infer a design until you can define a designer.

Huh???

Lay off those Ritalins man.

06-16-2002, 12:06 AM	#54
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Everything in the universe had a cause, therefore the universe had a cause, is the fallacy of composition. Exactly. The first cause theory contradicts theism. Why does it equal a creator and why must this creator be finite? All it equals is a cause, which does not conflict with atheism or naturalism. It equals a first causer. Call it whatever you like. You can call it God, but it does not prove God, and that is the whole point! But to disprove the Trebaxian (my) Pantheistics notion of God, is to disprove the laws of the universe. I call the laws of the universe "God", and it fits the definition of an omnipresent, omnipotent, non-sentient... "thing". Whatever you want to call it. I call it God, and it fits the definition. If an argument against atheism contradicts itself, and therefore is not valid in showing atheism to be false, how can it still refute atheism? By contradicting itself, it condtraditcs atheism. Atheism is definately the logical choice of the two, as you cannot infer a design until you can define a designer. [ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

06-16-2002, 12:12 AM	#56
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	I ask you this:-- Is an omnipresent being a contradiction? [ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

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

06-16-2002, 12:12 AM	#57
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	OT: Ahhhhhh.... Tin Tin, is Trebax! It now makes more sense...here I thought the poor blond haired detective had simply gone mad. Back to Topic: So Trebax, are you satisfied yet? I looks clear to me that you've been told how Pantheism is "untrue." .T.

06-16-2002, 12:13 AM	#58
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	No. My oponents have yet to refute the Trebaxian notion of an omnipotent, omnipresent, non-sentient God.

06-16-2002, 12:15 AM	#59
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	A question: What is the only notion that can be defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, and non-sentient? The laws of physics?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.