The War on Religion

[matt0611]

So what you're saying is that every god that everyone has ever thought up is real?

No, I'm not saying that.

 

[Ender]

So what you're saying is that every god that everyone has ever thought up is real?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? He never said a word about "every god that everyone has ever thought up".

Matt gave you the answer: the name of God is "I AM".

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If nothing can move itself, how was God able to move himself? What is the source of his or its energy. Aquinas doesn't address the notion of being adequately. Heidegger said it best - Christian theology, when dealing with our ultimate concern, presupposes in every sentence the structure of being, its categories (existentialia), laws and concepts. Christian theology, therefore, cannot escape the question of being any more easily than can philosophy. The attempt of Biblicism to avoid non-biblical, ontological terms is doomed to failure as surely as the corresponding philosophical attempts.

God is not shackled by the material universe. He is outside of space, time, matter and energy. These things are finite. In order to exist, God does not need to be of a finite, material nature like we experience in this world. Evidence of His being is supported by the idea that the universe itself is finite and had to come from somewhere. We must presuppose the laws of being because there is simply no other way we can remain consistent. Atheism must presuppose the non-compliance of the universe with the laws of natural being, and must also answer the question of what triggered the first event if not an infinite intelligent source.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So what you're saying is that every god that everyone has ever thought up is real?

By definition, there can only be one infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent being.

 

[KingNothing]

When people try to use logic and reason to explain faith and things that are at this point unknowable they tend to sound really stupid. They just spew logical fallacies

 

[KingNothing]

Not necessarily, however, that still doesn't answer the question of where matter came from. The nexus of the whole issue is that there had to have been a beginning. If, indeed, there was a beginning, then there must have been a first event. This is true whether or not you believe the universe has existed infinitely, which is a flawed concept in and of itself. If there was a first event, what caused it? Where did the energy come from, where did the matter come from? These questions are not solved by the concept of anti-matter in any way, shape, or form. There is also the question of where the laws came from, and who made them?

As for the nature of God, it is that He is infinite. He is without a beginning or end, unlike the universe. God did not need to be created since He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

By the way, I don't need to "introduce" a creator. No God is not the default position. The universe cannot be a natural phenomenon because, remember, there was no "nature" in the beginning, so that means even the concept of the universe creating itself is just as supernatural as divine creation, if not more, considering all the questions it leaves. However, you are right that a creator does add questions, namely: Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

I appreciate that you've adopted a dark ages style of reasoning. "Oh this cant be explained now, and therefore can never be explained. QED, God did it."

 

[KingNothing]

If nothing can move itself, how was God able to move himself? What is the source of his or its energy. Aquinas doesn't address the notion of being adequately. Heidegger said it best - Christian theology, when dealing with our ultimate concern, presupposes in every sentence the structure of being, its categories (existentialia), laws and concepts. Christian theology, therefore, cannot escape the question of being any more easily than can philosophy. The attempt of Biblicism to avoid non-biblical, ontological terms is doomed to failure as surely as the corresponding philosophical attempts.

Thread winner! Very good post!

 

[KingNothing]

Not necessarily, however, that still doesn't answer the question of where matter came from. The nexus of the whole issue is that there had to have been a beginning. If, indeed, there was a beginning, then there must have been a first event. This is true whether or not you believe the universe has existed infinitely, which is a flawed concept in and of itself. If there was a first event, what caused it? Where did the energy come from, where did the matter come from? These questions are not solved by the concept of anti-matter in any way, shape, or form. There is also the question of where the laws came from, and who made them?

As for the nature of God, it is that He is infinite. He is without a beginning or end, unlike the universe. God did not need to be created since He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

By the way, I don't need to "introduce" a creator. No God is not the default position. The universe cannot be a natural phenomenon because, remember, there was no "nature" in the beginning, so that means even the concept of the universe creating itself is just as supernatural as divine creation, if not more, considering all the questions it leaves. However, you are right that a creator does add questions, namely: Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

God is not shackled by the material universe. He is outside of space, time, matter and energy. These things are finite. In order to exist, God does not need to be of a finite, material nature like we experience in this world. Evidence of His being is supported by the idea that the universe itself is finite and had to come from somewhere. We must presuppose the laws of being because there is simply no other way we can remain consistent. Atheism must presuppose the non-compliance of the universe with the laws of natural being, and must also answer the question of what triggered the first event if not an infinite intelligent source.

Special pleading does not win you this debate.

 

[Tankbot85]

I cannot wait until there is no more religion in America. This will be a much better country afterwards.

I still have no clue how someone can believe in god after getting educated and learning about how the entire story is ripped off from the Pagans.

I still find it funny that in the bible people saw god and they were prophets and visionaries and things like this. Today if you see god you end up in a straight jacket. lol

Something uncreated that is outside time and space and nature itself and is eternal does not need a creator. Something that has the very power of "being" within itself. That's the point.

God's personal name is "I AM".

Prove it.

 

[tttppp]

How would it tell you everything about history? How does that simple fact say everything that ever happened and all the conditions of the past that led to this point?

It gives you a pretty good idea of how the universe came into existence. If it is finite, there is a good chance of God. If its infinite, there is most likely no God. Additionally, infinity would explain explain everything since infinity would imply that all scenarios exist. That would tell you a lot more than reading some history books, which we all know are completly biased. You won't get any real history from them.

 

[bolil]

I appreciate that you've adopted a dark ages style of reasoning. "Oh this cant be explained now, and therefore can never be explained. QED, God did it."

So science is going to start giving us meaning soon, phew, didn't think the atom bomb was quite enough. Science will soon have more on its conscience than it will be able to pretend SHOULD have on its. Science is a fraud, a glory grabbing doppelganger of NATURE... Science follows nature, thus sciecne came from nature. What gave laws to nature? All your science has done is elaborate on how, nothing else. Who, What, Why, When... all you have are guesses, and science can't even agree upon those.

 

[Tankbot85]

So science is going to start giving us meaning soon, phew, didn't think the atom bomb was quite enough. Science will soon have more on its conscience than it will be able to pretend SHOULD have on its. Science is a fraud, a glory grabbing doppelganger of NATURE... Science follows nature, thus sciecne game from nature. What gave laws to nature? All your science has done is elaborate on how, nothing else. Who, What, Why, When... all you have are guesses, and science can't even agree upon those.

Science is a fraud? That has to be the most laughable thing i have ever read.

 

[matt0611]

I cannot wait until there is no more religion in America. This will be a much better country afterwards.

I still have no clue how someone can believe in god after getting educated and learning about how the entire story is ripped off from the Pagans.

I still find it funny that in the bible people saw god and they were prophets and visionaries and things like this. Today if you see god you end up in a straight jacket. lol



Prove it.

Prove what? If something is outside of time and space it can't have a creator. That's self evident by definition. It doesn't have a point where it came into existence. It's eternal.

Religion is basically non-existent in Europe and is already pretty much wiped out in America, it will be gone soon enough, just a bit more to go. Here is your results.

Hope you like it.

 

[bolil]

Science is a fraud? That has to be the most laughable thing i have ever read.

Funny, they said that about the Heliocentric model at one point too. We philosophers need reactionaries.

 

[tttppp]

Prove what? If something is outside of time and space it can't have a creator. That's self evident by definition. It doesn't have a point where it came into existence. It's eternal.

Religion is basically non-existent in Europe and is already pretty much wiped out in America, it will be gone soon enough, just a bit more to go. Here is your results.

Hope you like it.

Religion is not even close to being wiped out in America. There are tons of religious nuts, and the average may not understand anything about religion but they have been brainwashed there is a God so they believe it.

 

[bolil]

Hey tank bot, you think my tractors sexy?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Religion is not even close to being wiped out in America. There are tons of religious nuts, and the average may not understand anything about religion but they have been brainwashed there is a God so they believe it.

You mean people like Ron Paul. The man whose name is at the top of these forums?

I cannot wait until there is no more religion in America. This will be a much better country afterwards.

Ok, guys, what is wrong with you? Do you not even realize that Ron Paul is a devout Christian?

No one cares if you are not, but please have some decorum and stop insulting people who are.

 

[pcosmar]

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Derailed thread and pointless argument.

 

[sailingaway]

Religion is not even close to being wiped out in America. There are tons of religious nuts, and the average may not understand anything about religion but they have been brainwashed there is a God so they believe it.

Don't attack someone's beliefs. If you want to discuss why you believe what you do, fine, but tolerance of your atheism and tolerance of people's faith are both important here.

Have faith in your atheism that it would be persuasive without attacks. And the same goes for the other side.

 

[tttppp]

Don't attack someone's beliefs. If you want to discuss why you believe what you do, fine, but tolerance of your atheism and tolerance of people's faith are both important here.

Have faith in your atheism that it would be persuasive without attacks. And the same goes for the other side.

That wasn't meant to attack anyone. I appologize if it did.