ex-preacher

I have read these books. Could you tell me the last five pro-atheist books you have read?

-=Vagrant=-

Do you believe in pink dragons?
You mean that world which some claim exists, but no one can prove scientificly?
If we can't comprehend God, how are we going to know whom to worship and love? Most importantly, why should we worship something we can't comprehend? (irrationality is quite common among believers)

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: -=Vagrant=- ]</p>

John R

Enrious wrote:

"Damnit, now I'm confused. I guess I'll just randomly worship one god a day. "

That's a smart idea. What we need is a little web-thingy (technical term) that would give you the name and details of a random deity and tell you what you have to do to worship them.

Gemma Therese

"Theists have never given a sufficient defintion of God."

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

hezekiah jones

That's a necessary definition. We want a sufficient definition.

Ron Singh

Vagrant said:
You comprehend concepts, not 'things'. 'Things' can not be comprehended per se, the only thing that you can possibly comprehend is being. You comprehend concepts, which encompass attributes of your perceptions. Comprehension is merely the integration of concepts in respect to other concepts, while being, and hence is knowledge.
This being said, you do not comprehend anything, outside of being yourself. You comprehend your limited perceptions, and the limited attributes that you relate with your other concepts. This being said, all that you supposedly 'comprehend' is only as good as the other 'things' that you comprehend by your limited perceptions.
What you comprehend exists in a gradient. You comprehend some concepts in greater degree than other concepts. Hence, your rejection of God is merely due to the fact that you comprehend the concepts of God, a.k.a God's attributes, in less of a degree than other 'things', and hence you conclude that this is not worthy to be acknowledged. This is faulty reasoning however. Since concepts such as omniscience and omnipotence are consisted in the essence of God, this is a more rational type of knowledge, opposed to perception. Obviously being is more concrete than perception.
Worship is a shady word. Worship encompasses other activites that may not specifically connotate the word itself. I recommend you rephrase.
Irrationality common amongst believers? Atheists worship Satan!

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

[editted for UBB code]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: sikh ]</p>

Gemma Therese

Arguements for the Existence of God:

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

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

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

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.

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 emboodied His law in the very nature of things, is God.

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.

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.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

daemon

There are known apparently uncaused events, so it is not known if causality is completely true. Beyond this, this argument has been rehashed repeatedly; it establishes nothing. For example, how do you get from an uncaused phenomenon to that phenomenon being God?
You know the universe cannot exist independently... how?
Hmm. So how do you explain spontaneous particle generation? This appears to be argument from ignorance.
Another argument from ignorance.
Given that the "moral obligation" felt by different people is different, this leads to a rather incoherent lawgiver. Also, this ignores evolutionary theories on the development of morality as a result of natural selection.
Perfections are a human assignment based on some set of criteria; they are produced by humanity.
Some people hold that the Apollo moon landings never occurred, but I do not listen to them. (Arguementum ad populam)

Hmm... 0 for 7. You'll have to do much better than that.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

Ron Singh

The law of causality in regards to the universe is ALWAYS true. What you allude to is quantum events, which do not circumvent the law of causality. Logic leads the rational to believe that the elements of the universe obey the laws of causality, what you are conducting is the fallacy of ignorance. Moreover, if things did not obey the law of causality, then we would run into the problem of infinite regression, not mentioning contradicting the first law of thermodynamics.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh

Ion

How do you know this, outside of claims made by religious propaganda?
Religious propaganda is old folklore sentiments, with no scientific proofs.