Freethought & Rationalism Archive

irichc · 01-10-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
If everything that needs a cause needs also an effect, and causes and effects, leaving the time factor out, are equivalent
If something being its own tendency can't move then lightening cannot be it's own cause�therefore there must be a Thor.

Call it 'Thor' if you like. �Is it omnipotent, eternal, completely simple and spiritual? Then it's the ONLY God.

Daniel.

Philosophy forum (spanish):

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

SRB · 01-10-2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irichc
If everything that needs a cause needs also an effect, and causes and effects, leaving the time factor out, are equivalent
If something being its own tendency can't move
Assuming that Universe moves, then
The Universe is neither its own ending nor its own cause.

What is written above does not make any sense. The first two lines are not grammatical and do not form a sentence, let alone a proposition. The same goes for the third line. I think something has been lost in translation here because there is no argument contained in what is written above. I suggest making more accurate use of capital letters, full stops and "if...then" clauses.

As for the final sentence, I agree that it expresses a true proposition. The universe (or the existence of the universe, to be more precise) is not its own ending or its own cause. I don't see how that implies anything that atheists need to worry about, however. Maybe the universe exists uncaused, or maybe it was caused to exist by something other than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. There are infinitely many conceivable things that fit such a description. Maybe one of those caused the universe to exist.

SRB

Biff the unclean · 01-10-2003, 10:38 AM

Call it 'Thor' if you like

I don't call it "Thor" I call it "static electricity."
As for "omnipotent, eternal, completely simple and spiritual" you forgot one more attribute; "imaginary."
God is a fictional character that you invoke to save you the embarrassment of admitting that you just don't know how everything began, and spare you the effort of actually finding out. God exists only between the covers of the Bible.

irichc · 01-10-2003, 10:46 AM

My syllogism concerned universe, not lightening.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean · 01-10-2003, 11:17 AM

My syllogism concerned universe, not lightening

So what? You were still doing the same thing that any primitive does, you were ascribing the unknown cause of a natural event to a god. You may have a better vocabulary that some Papua New Guinea mud hut dweller but your view of reality is clouded by the same superstitious mind set.
Gods, evil spirits or whatever you want to call them have never, ever, not once in all history, been the correct explanation of any natural phenomenon. And yet you drag out the same ridiculous proposition yet again and expect to be taken seriously.
:banghead:

MrDarwin · 01-10-2003, 11:33 AM

Daniel, stop trying to think so hard. Don't you see that, in order to exist, the possibility of existence must exist, and for the possibility of something to exist, time and space and matter (i.e., the universe) must exist, therefore in order for God to exist, the universe must have existed first. The universe created God.

Keith Russell · 01-10-2003, 11:53 AM

Daniel said:
"Assuming that Universe moves, then
The Universe is neither its own ending nor its own cause."

The universe is neither its own cause, or its own ending--
--because the universe has neither cause nor end.

Keith.

Keith Russell · 01-10-2003, 11:58 AM

Mr. Darwin said:
"The universe created God."

Not entirely true.

The universe created creatures, some of whom posited the notion of 'God', nothing more.

Keith.

irichc · 01-10-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
My syllogism concerned universe, not lightening

So what? You were still doing the same thing that any primitive does, you were ascribing the unknown cause of a natural event to a god.

The primitive seeked an explanation through the myth as we seek it through the reason. I'm not reasoning this way: "I don't know what's beyond the first physical cause of the Universe, so i'm going to call it God". I'm saying: "I know that God has to be presupposed in the creation of the Universe, although I can't offer any empirical proof of it". Are you able to prove me you can count to infinite? So you're deifying ignorance, not me.

Daniel.

Philosophy forum (spanish):

http://boards1.melodysoft.com/app?ID=isegoria

Dr Rick · 01-10-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irichc
The primitive seeked an explanation through the myth as we seek it through the reason. I'm not reasoning this way: "I don't know what's beyond the first physical cause of the Universe, so i'm going to call it God". I'm saying: "I know that God has to be presupposed in the creation of the Universe, although I can't offer any empirical proof of it".

irichc, you are not reasoning at all; you're just posting your conclusion as your premise by titling the thread "Necessity of God" and then saying you "know" one has to be presupposed though you offer no explanation as why to why this is the case.

Your posts in this thread are not arguments; they are merely a series of unsubstantiated assertions.

Rick

01-10-2003, 11:17 AM	#15
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	oy vay My syllogism concerned universe, not lightening So what? You were still doing the same thing that any primitive does, you were ascribing the unknown cause of a natural event to a god. You may have a better vocabulary that some Papua New Guinea mud hut dweller but your view of reality is clouded by the same superstitious mind set. Gods, evil spirits or whatever you want to call them have never, ever, not once in all history, been the correct explanation of any natural phenomenon. And yet you drag out the same ridiculous proposition yet again and expect to be taken seriously. :banghead:

01-10-2003, 11:33 AM	#16
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Re: oy vay Daniel, stop trying to think so hard. Don't you see that, in order to exist, the possibility of existence must exist, and for the possibility of something to exist, time and space and matter (i.e., the universe) must exist, therefore in order for God to exist, the universe must have existed first. The universe created God.

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

01-10-2003, 10:38 AM	#13
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Call it 'Thor' if you like I don't call it "Thor" I call it "static electricity." As for "omnipotent, eternal, completely simple and spiritual" you forgot one more attribute; "imaginary." God is a fictional character that you invoke to save you the embarrassment of admitting that you just don't know how everything began, and spare you the effort of actually finding out. God exists only between the covers of the Bible.

01-10-2003, 10:46 AM	#14
irichc Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 425	My syllogism concerned universe, not lightening. Daniel.

01-10-2003, 11:53 AM	#17
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Daniel said: "Assuming that Universe moves, then The Universe is neither its own ending nor its own cause." The universe is neither its own cause, or its own ending-- --because the universe has neither cause nor end. Keith.

01-10-2003, 11:58 AM	#18
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Mr. Darwin said: "The universe created God." Not entirely true. The universe created creatures, some of whom posited the notion of 'God', nothing more. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.