The War on Religion

[tttppp]

So you honestly believe the modern science, which is adhered to by most atheists, is only being used to justify religion? WTF?

No. I'm saying the science that does not support religion is not mainstream. How often do you hear of a new company starting up based on pricinples of infinity? Almost every new business is based on the idea the universe is limited, and they try to solve the smallest of problems.

I'm sure there will be plenty of new theories. The establishment will pick one and determine its correct and supports God.

 

[1stAmendguy]

Because everything that begins to exist must have had a cause. Otherwise, it would not exist. We began to exist, therefore, there must have been a cause. This is novice level philosophy. It's not complicated.

Everything must have a cause except your God.

 

[1stAmendguy]

This thread = Christians (Rationalists) vs Atheists (Empiricists)

The need to prove that independent objects exist outside of our thinking subject is irrelevant when you can just take it as it is. You can't doubt that you are conscious of something.

 

[1stAmendguy]

That's an argument from ignorance. You are saying that because we can't possibly understand the universe, it is safe to assume that God does not exist.

Vice versa.

 

[1stAmendguy]

Descartes was wrong. What is the "I" that is thinking?

 

[1stAmendguy]

This Life is not biological life defined by objective and exterior properties, nor an abstract and empty philosophical concept, but the absolute phenomenological life, a radically immanent life which possesses in it the power of showing itself in itself without distance, a life which reveals permanently itself. A manifestation of oneself and a self-revelation which doesn’t consist in the fact of seeing outside of oneself or of perceiving the exterior world, but in the fact of feeling and of feeling oneself, of experiencing in oneself its own inner and affective reality.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can believe in God if you want but God would just be a hypothesis at this point. There is not enough evidence to prove his existence.

What I was saying is we just don't know and may never know.

You're not understanding. Both options are equally viable. I don't have to prove God exists any more than you have to prove He doesn't exist. Both belief in God and belief in no God require substantial evidence because both are supernatural beliefs. You can't say "I won't believe in God until I see evidence" and remain consistent because you would have to say the same for no God, i.e. "I won't believe there's no God until I see evidence." They are both equally valid beliefs until the the question is examined in any depth.

Now, I believe in God because of the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes. All that means is that there had to be a first cause that led to all the other causes that finally resulted in us being here. Atheism cannot answer the question, "Why are we here?" It has nothing to offer, so it reverts to arguments from ignorance by saying the universe is so vast and impossible to understand that there may not be a God, and therefore, that's what I'm going to believe. It's fallacious at its very core.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around time, but one thing I am convinced is that time does not travel in a straight line as most scientists believe.

I really don't have a clue what you are talking about. In one post you are telling me scientists have a grasp on infinity. In another post you are telling me scientists have a grasp on a finite universe.

Scientists who believe in a finite universe don't have a clue what they are doing. Their estimates are complete shit.

So you must believe in infinity before you can understand in infinity? That's circular reasoning.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I already explained how the concept of infinity can undo the grasp of the elite. You completly ignored it and are now trying to attack me on the same issue I already addressed. Please read my posts before you post shit like this. And we are not stuck on this planets forever. You are just being shortsighted. Additionally, are lives can eventually be expanded forever. Once again you are being shortsighted.

I have already explained the bias finite scientists have. Once again you ignored what I wrote and attacked me anyways.

I have no faith, like you. I have beliefs based on reason. If I find a better explanation for the way things are, I have no problem changing my beliefs. But I'm not going change them just because you disagree with me.

That is not at all what I meant by time not traveling in a straight line. It has to do with infinity, not the apparent laws of the universe you are using.

Again you have not read what I stated on infinity. It does not have a beginning or end.

Please read people's post before you posts crap like this. I'm not saying this because you disagree with me. I'm saying this because you ignored everything I wrote but that didn't stop you from writing an attack post.

You have explained nothing. Your belief is just dogma. I'm done with this thread. People never change their minds.

Your entire belief is based on, "It could happen in the future, therefore, it must be true."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-of-beginnings-stephen-hawking-says-yes-.html

Did the Universe Have an Infinite Number Of Beginnings? Stephen Hawking Says "Yes"

But it still had a beginning. And you can't have a beginning without a cause. The universe can't just spontaneously begin.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

When people say the universe is infinite, that generally means everything is infinite. You can't have some things that are infinite and some things that aren't. That contradicts infinity. The guy you showed assumed atheists believe some things are infinite and some things aren't, then used it to say all atheism is bullshit and there is no third option.

I'm not going to say this guy is an idiot, but he's got no chance of convincing me until he addresses the facts of this topic.

Well, that's progress. Maybe you should spend a few days surfing the site. It's www.carm.org

Also, I never saw the assumption you say he is making.

 

[tttppp]

So you must believe in infinity before you can understand in infinity? That's circular reasoning.

When did I say that?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not arguing that an infinite God can't act outside the laws of time. I'm arguing that infinity can act outside the apparent laws of the universe. My disagreement with you is that you assume that this can only happen if infinity is God, when it is just as possible for infinity to exist without a God. If infinity can exist without God, why would it need God to create it?

You still are not thinking big enough. The apparent rules of the universe you see are not absolute. They are not needed for the universe to exist. So you can't say these rules are needed to exist. Additionally you are placing these rules on infinity but not an infinite God.

You just said it. God IS infinity. Infinity, devoid of any intelligence, cannot spontaneously begin moulding the universe. Only a personal, intelligent source can do that.

I know they're not needed to exist. That still doesn't solve the problem. The difference between infinity and God is that God can act. God is personal. Your idea of infinity is impersonal. No matter how infinite your infinity is, it cannot accomodate the spontaneity of beginnings. That is logically impossible, not just impossible according to the laws of the universe. If you believe the universe has always existed, that brings back the infinite regression of causes problem.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No. I'm saying the science that does not support religion is not mainstream. How often do you hear of a new company starting up based on pricinples of infinity? Almost every new business is based on the idea the universe is limited, and they try to solve the smallest of problems.

I'm sure there will be plenty of new theories. The establishment will pick one and determine its correct and supports God.

What's your idea of a business based on infinity? Let's hear your idea.

Also, it's ludicrous to say the establishment supports God. Everything in modern science is secular. It is also mainstream because it is taught in all public schools. It is adhered to by nearly every atheist. That makes it pretty mainstream. I can only believe the establishment supports religion if I see ONE example of the established scientific community supporting a non-secular conclusion. I have never seen that in any magazines, any studies, any textbooks (especially not textbooks).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Everything must have a cause except your God.

Correct, because God is personal and infinite. He is the original cause. If you can tell me how it is possible to have an infinite regression of causes, then I will listen to you. But it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression of causes, so you can't.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Vice versa.

I never made that argument.

 

[tttppp]

You have explained nothing. Your belief is just dogma. I'm done with this thread. People never change their minds.

Your entire belief is based on, "It could happen in the future, therefore, it must be true."

I have developed the only theory I've seen that adequately explains why the universe exists. That includes all religious and atheist theories. I'm not going to swtich to your beliefs based on your "because I said so" arguments.

My beliefs came from thought, nothing else. I don't hold any beliefs that I know of that are not based on thought. I always go with works best, and if I find something else that works better, I go with that.

You were not paying attention to the discussion I had with that poster. He was arguing stupid stuff like we are stuck on this planet forever and we have short lives and acting like none of that could ever be changed in the future. Even many people who believe in a finite universe believe we can someday travel to another planet.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

After reading the remainder of the posts, like I said before, I am done with this thread.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have developed the only theory I've seen that adequately explains why the universe exists. That includes all religious and atheist theories. I'm not going to swtich to your beliefs based on your "because I said so" arguments.

My beliefs came from thought, nothing else. I don't hold any beliefs that I know of that are not based on thought. I always go with works best, and if I find something else that works better, I go with that.

You were not paying attention to the discussion I had with that poster. He was arguing stupid stuff like we are stuck on this planet forever and we have short lives and acting like none of that could ever be changed in the future. Even many people who believe in a finite universe believe we can someday travel to another planet.

And yet you won't tell me what the theory is. Gotcha.

My arguments are based on logical absolutes, not on "because I said so." Everything I said is logical.

 

[KingNothing]

Correct, because God is personal and infinite. He is the original cause. If you can tell me how it is possible to have an infinite regression of causes, then I will listen to you. But it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression of causes, so you can't.

Unless your entire fallacy is wrong.