Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[heavenlyboy34]

Atheism vs Theism are terms describing belief in a God, or lack thereof. Theism is a belief in one or more "God". Atheism is the absence of the belief in any "God".

Agnosticism is with regards to knowledge instead of belief. If one does NOT KNOW f there is or isn't a God, they are Agnostic. If one KNOWS there is or isn't a god, they are Gnostic.

Agnosticism is not an alternative to theism/Atheism. You can have Agnostic/Gnostic Atheists, and Agnostic/Gnostic theists.

How close / far off am i so far?

Quite right. There are a number of gnostic gospels, fwiw.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There are a number of gnostic gospels, fwiw.

What do you mean by gnostic gospels? Example?

 

[low preference guy]

Nor where the matter involved came from. It obviously did not create itself out of nothing, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If it existed in another state, then what was it prior to that? And prior to that? At its inception, Science finds itself painted into the same corner as Religion.

I disagree. Prior to this moment matter exited. But when you go far enough, there is one moment that doesn't have any prior moment, the first instance of existence. At that point it isn't valid to ask what existed before that moment, because no such moment existed (it was the first moment).

 

[low preference guy]

True. It's at this point where science and religion effectively merge. Both have unprovable hypotheses, and a great deal of faith in them.

That seems to be a comment unrelated to the topic. A thought the topic was whether the universe as a whole had a cause, and I was arguing against that. I don't see how your post is related to the topic.

 

[MelissaWV]

I disagree. Prior to this moment matter exited. But when you go far enough, there is one moment that doesn't have any prior moment, the first instance of existence. At that point it isn't valid to ask what existed before that moment, because no such moment existed.

Except that would totally shatter the basic assertion that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Science is wrong?!?

 

[low preference guy]

Except that would totally shatter the basic assertion that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Science is wrong?!?

I don't see how it shatters that assertion. Can you explain?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What do you mean by gnostic gospels? Example?

The gnostic gospels (see also gnosticism)were written by people who did not know Yeshua's teachings (for the most part). They are apocryphal in nature. The word gnostic comes from the word gnosis(knowledge). Examples: The gospels of Judas, Mary, and Thomas. See the Nag Hamadi library. These texts are not used by any major denomination except for academic studies of things like history and theology.

 

[Dustancostine]

I disagree. Prior to this moment matter exited. But when you go far enough, there is one moment that doesn't have any prior moment, the first instance of existence. At that point it isn't valid to ask what existed before that moment, because no such moment existed (it was the first moment).

False time is a measurement of the change of one form of matter relative to another, time is a human measurement of matter, no matter no time...... therefore no moment before matter...... existence exist, not created or began, just is.

 

[low preference guy]

False time is a measurement of the change of one form of matter relative to another, time is a human measurement of matter, no matter no time...... therefore no moment before matter...... existence exist, not created or began, just is.

I disagree. Passage of time exists independently of matter. It my fingers don't move for a few minutes, time still passes.

 

[Dustancostine]

I disagree. Passage of time exists independently of matter. It my fingers don't move for a few minutes, time still passes.

I am telling you are wrong, think very hard about what time is, it is the measurement of the change of one form of matter relative to another, though your fingers stay still other matter is changing, if no matter at all changed time would "stand still". Everything is always in the present, time does not exist, its a description, like length or colors.... For example when you say in a day, your not describing time, you ate describing the movement of the earth relative to the sun.

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

Atheism vs Theism are terms describing belief in a God, or lack thereof. Theism is a belief in one or more "God". Atheism is the absence of the belief in any "God".

Agnosticism is with regards to knowledge instead of belief. If one does NOT KNOW f there is or isn't a God, they are Agnostic. If one KNOWS there is or isn't a god, they are Gnostic.

Agnosticism is not an alternative to theism/Atheism. You can have Agnostic/Gnostic Atheists, and Agnostic/Gnostic theists.

How close / far off am i so far?

Right on the dot I do believe.

 

[robert68]

False time is a measurement of the change of one form of matter relative to another, time is a human measurement of matter, no matter no time...... therefore no moment before matter...... existence exist, not created or began, just is.

If a mind exists, there’s a before and after every thought it has, and act it exercises.

 

[low preference guy]

If a mind exists, there’s a before and after every thought it has, and act it exercises.

i think that even if that mind decides to take a break and not think for a while, time would still pass

 

[thedude]

lulz @ itsnobody for the good troll by presenting the challenge and then walking away...

There aren't any logical bases for any of the arguments on the origins of matter. Anything from science is theory and anything from religion is faith. In the end, nothing is really known. So to debate the unknown in the realm of logic is pointless.

I am agnostic for I can admit I don't know. I am a philospher of sorts in that I need not any proof to support my position. That is for scientists and theists to sort out.

Pass the popcorn Theocrat....

 

[Maximus]

I disagree. Prior to this moment matter exited. But when you go far enough, there is one moment that doesn't have any prior moment, the first instance of existence. At that point it isn't valid to ask what existed before that moment, because no such moment existed (it was the first moment).

Well what made it the first moment? What set off the first event? How could the first event have happened if nothing was there to make it happen with? If the first event did happen, how did those two parties come into existence? In order to have an action you must have a force acting upon an object. Who is the "unmoved Mover" of "science"?

Science is the empirical study of the observable universe. To say "why" something exists, or the ultimate purpose of something (like the universe), is not in the realm of science, but philosophy.

 

[low preference guy]

Well what made it the first moment?

Again, the first moment has no cause, because nothing existed before it that could have caused it.

How could the first event have happened if nothing was there to make it happen with?

There are things which have no cause. Otherwise, you have that A is caused by B, which is caused by C, which is caused by D, ad infinitum, which is absurd.

Science is the empirical study of the observable universe. To say "why" something exists, or the ultimate purpose of something (like the universe), is not in the realm of science, but philosophy.

I didn't claim I was talking about science when I said that the universe as a whole doesn't have a cause. Also, I wasn't talking about the observable universe, but about the universe.

 

[Kade]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

There are hundreds. When you refute the Logical Impossibility of Causation found here: Infidels-Causation
We can find another one for you.

 

[Theocrat]

Back From the Dead

There are hundreds. When you refute the Logical Impossibility of Causation found here: Infidels-Causation
We can find another one for you.

Kade! My old nemesis! Welcome back to the forums.

 

[Maximus]

Again, the first moment has no cause, because nothing existed before it that could have caused it.



There are things which have no cause. Otherwise, you have that A is caused by B, which is caused by C, which is caused by D, ad infinitum, which is absurd.

What has no cause? I've always heard that everything must have a cause.

The infinite regression is absurd and is cited by St. Thomas Aquinas as one of his 5 proofs of God.

 

[low preference guy]

This:

I've always heard that everything must have a cause.

contradicts this:

The infinite regression is absurd