The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[Rossl15]

What I said is that the cause of something must be independent of its own effects. For example, a tree dropping a seed can be the cause of another tree, but it cannot be the cause of itself, because a tree that doesn't exist cannot engender its own seed. Just as matter and energy cannot be the cause of their own existence.

As far as God being the simplest and most probable explanation, I challenge you to come up with simpler and more probable cause that is independent of matter and energy.

 

[Rossl15]

Originally posted by XDaDePsak
By definition, CONVENTIONAL physics and science, and therefore logic, do not apply to the SUPERNATURAL

If this is true, then any attempt to disprove the existence of God through logic, or any presupposition based on the physical world is also meaningless. The whole point of an inductive argument is to argue from the observable to general principles, and so this whole type of argument would become meaningless in the face of religious argument.

 

[Nic64]

Rossl, the hole in you're argument is that you haven't proven god, you've just created a question. Others can argue with you on whether or not what you say is true, I don't feel like it, but even if it were then it doesn't prove a thing regarding god because there are more religions out there.

 

[Rossl15]

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Props for being the first one to argue against my conclusion rather than my precepts. Although I am a Christian, I'm arguing for the existence of A God, not necessarily the Christian God. I think that this proves that there is a God, although it fails to address the nature of that God.

 

[expletivedeleted]

If this is true, then any attempt to disprove the existence of God through logic, or any presupposition based on the physical world is also meaningless.

Exactly. Your point?

First of all, your "proof" assumes the existance of a god, by saying that something must have created matter and space in the first place. What about God? What created God? To assume that a being can exist that transcends the laws of time and space is leaving the arena of science, and thus you can assume anything. As has already been stated, it is logically fallacious to use logic to prove the illogical.

That is to say, to assume one instance where natural laws don't apply is to assume that they never apply.

Just as matter and energy cannot be the cause of their own existence.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, are you assuming that God (or whatever divine entity is in fact the supposed creator) is the cause of its own existance? Or that there was never a time when it did not exist? To assume the former, as I've stated above, is to invalidate your entire argument. To assume the latter, likewise, because to say that God has always existed, how do you know that space and matter have not similarly always existed?

The problem with religious argument, as I've said in a previous post, is that religious thinking cannot accept an unknown. Whereas science sees an unknown, admits that it is unknown, and then tries to make it known, religion fills every unknown with God. The more logical conclusion then, to your question, is that it happened somehow, and we just don't know how.

EDIT: game & kirby, congradulations on making it into my sig
That would make such a great pick-up line.

 

[DarkPhoenix87]

Originally posted by Rossl15
What I said is that the cause of something must be independent of its own effects. For example, a tree dropping a seed can be the cause of another tree, but it cannot be the cause of itself, because a tree that doesn't exist cannot engender its own seed. Just as matter and energy cannot be the cause of their own existence.

As far as God being the simplest and most probable explanation, I challenge you to come up with simpler and more probable cause that is independent of matter and energy.

You fail to take into account that more than one universe can exist, with laws of physics that differ from the ones we are familiar with. So, our universe, in which matter or energy can't be the cause and effect of itself, could've been created in a universe in which stuff can be the cause and effect of itself, and then made seperate.

 

[Rossl15]

Or that there was never a time when it did not exist?

I have shown that God cannot be a physical being as he must be independent of that which he created. Since he is independent of matter, he is not subject to the laws of time, as time is dependent on matter.

You fail to take into account that more than one universe can exist, with laws of physics that differ from the ones we are familiar with.

The laws of physics are based on logic, which is transcendent of the physical world. There cannot be a universe in which 2+2=5. Even so, I hardly see how not taking such a speculation into account can be considered a "failure."


Nice . . . I haven't had a good religious/metaphysics debate in a looooong time.

 

[DarkPhoenix87]

Originally posted by Rossl15
The laws of physics are based on logic, which is transcendent of the physical world. There cannot be a universe in which 2+2=5. Even so, I hardly see how not taking such a speculation into account can be considered a "failure."

Since I am not educated in the field of physics, I can't argue whether it is based on logic* (and therefore argue that different physics can exist, etc.), so I'll retract my point for the time being. Thanks for showing me the fallacy in my statement. I've been contemplating the implications of other universes on theological arguments for some time now.

Though it doesn't look very promising (based solely on common sense), if I come up with something about this I'll be sure to let you know.

*EDIT: Or whether logic is indeed transcendent of our physical world; I'll take your word for it.

NOTE: I'll be back online later, but for now I have to go. More posts from me are coming.

 

[XDaDePsak]

Sharks only bite when you touch their privates

You know how they used to think the world was flat....that it must have a begining and ending, because it would be impossible to go on forever? Well, by making it a shere it was finite, yet didn't have a starting or stopping point.

Though my theories, I have found Time to be the same. Time needs not be infinite, nor does it need a starting and stopping point. Time is constructed in a manner that allows that, and your brain wont be able to comprehend such a structure, so don't bother. I've been trying for a year.

It's through my theories on the 0 through 8th dimensions that I arrive at this conclusion. Mainly the 0 and 8th dimensions themselves, which I have theorized to be the exact same dimension.

To make things more clear, here are the basic 5 dimensions (there are 9 total):

0 - infinitely small point
1- line
2- square
3- cube
4- time

Anyways, after all the work, I've come to the conclusion that the 8th dimension is also the 0 dimension.

This works because the dimensions aren't linear, they sort of "loop back on eachother." And that's a really bad way of putting it....

...Do you know what a fractal is? Like the Mandelbrot Set? Go ahead and look it/them up on google.

It could be thought of as a sort of Picture-in-picture-in-picture...etc. For example, imagine pointing a video camera at a Television with the camcorder plugged into that Television. You'd see the Tv, then you'd see the TV inside of that TV, and it would go on forever, with TV in TV. This doesn't really work because the information feedback loops back the picture until the picture is just white. This is something like a fractal.

Another example would be in the movie Men In Black, at the ending. The camera zoomed away from the city, then earth, then solar system, galaxy, and universe, until everthing was inside a marble, which an alien was playing with. You could imagine the camera could zoom out further, off this planet, galaxy, and universe, until that was inside another marble, which could keep repeating.

Such is the 0 and 8th dimensions.
0 is an infinitely small point, the smallest dimension, (the marble, relatively) and the 8th dimension is the universe (largest dimension). Both the marble and the universe are the same thing, esentially.

Conclusion:
Because of the 0 dimension, there is always at least an infinitely small point that exists (possibly the point that was the subject of the big bang, which created the universe, the 8th dimension) . Also, because of the relation of the 0 and 8th dimensions, matter doesn't need to be "created" to exist, it doesn't need a 'cause". There is no need for a starting and stopping point, so to say.

for anyone who's interested in my theories:
I'd explain the 5-7th dimensions to anyone who's interested. Or if you want me to elaborate or explain how I arrived at my conclusoins. I could just e-mail you an AIM conversation I had where i explained all this to someone, and answered his questions. It'll be something like a FAQ. Or contact me if you want me to explain the Xth dimension (and no, it's not a joke or pun off my name)

 

[Rossl15]

Although your theories don't seem to be relavent to this topic, they are interesting nonetheless.

You should start a thread about this.

 

[expletivedeleted]

Although your theories don't seem to be relavent to this topic, they are interesting nonetheless.

Oh, but his theories are very much relevant. Your conclusion was entirely based on the assumption that time and space necessarily have a beginning. He is saying that they do not, or at least do not have to, a point I alluded to earlier. His theory necessarily refutes yours.

Though physics is not my forte, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're talking about, or at least at the very base level. However I would need those 5th-7th dimensions to actually make sense of it.

Recently I went back and re-read the first post in this topic. Maybe you all should too.

And I'm amazed at how much discussion this has been getting. Not more than a week ago this topic was getting one new post every two or three days, and now it seem every two or three hours an entire discussion has developed.

 

[Rossl15]

Originally posted by expletivedeleted

And I'm amazed at how much discussion this has been getting. Not more than a week ago this topic was getting one new post every two or three days, and now it seem every two or three hours an entire discussion has developed.

I know . . . it's great!

Time needs not be infinite, nor does it need a starting and stopping point. Time is constructed in a manner that allows that, and your brain wont be able to comprehend such a structure, so don't bother.

It seems to me to be needlessly complicated to try and impose a set of paradoxical rules on the flow of time. In addition, this theory does not account for the origin of the physical universe and the substance contained therein.

 

[McFox]

I'm curious, since you believe in God and all, which of the following do you accept: Creationism or Evolution? I'd love for that topic to bump up, if anyone's interested

here

 

[game & kirby]

that's because this thread is essentially the quintessence of the debate hall. I believe it's actually the longest running debate so far, and certainly the longest in page count. Anyways, on to Ross...

First of all, you contradict yourself. Rather, shall we say, you find the easy way out. You say that parallel universes cannot exist since there can be no universe where 2+2 = 5, i.e., where logical fallacies exist. You then go on to state that God is beyond time, beyond matter, the very foundations of all science. It is with logic that we codify the world into the collective conscience which is science. If you accept the existence of something beyond matter and time, you accept that logic is irrelevant.

The standing point of logic, the reason logic IS logic, is because it is ALWAYS relevant, and that everyone can come to the same conclusion through logic.

By saying that God is beyond this, you are in essence washing your hands clean of our ignorance as a human race.

Think of it this way... you come to the limits of the universe, that which mankind knows, and accepts. You peer and see a vast chasm, an endless expanse of shadowy wasteland. Not knowing what it is, your knowledge, or logic, not extending to cover this area, you arbitrarily define it to be 'God' something which does not need to be codified, something which is by nature above it.

Easy and clean, eh?

Now you can incorporate it into your extant pool of knowledge without making a ripple.

But no, as knowledge grows, as logic develops, the shadowy expanse brightens, and gets smaller. These are the current growing pains of religions worldwide now. This is the reason for the growing atheist trend. Science is beginning to give answers to what only religion could explain before, in its own small minded, escapist way.

Speaking of answers...

You challenged me to give you something simpler than God

you've already been given the theory that there are endless universes, and that the universe need not have 'started' both are equally valid, no? Indeed, your own conclusion concerns the giving of any knowledge not currently had by mankind to the realm of religion, and the acceptance into all areas of life that anything can happen at any time for any reason, by the inscrutable whims of an unkown God, capricious or otherwise.

Where's the science in that?

If you want to argue beyond the realms of science, Ross, there is nothing we can do, neither to stop you or to rebuke you, since beyond the arena of logic and rationale lie insubstantiated fantasies that cannot be proven or disproven. But if you want to argue within the confines of science, rest assured that the answer you seek has already been found.

Also, I noticed the thread is once again leaning on the way it always does. Many times on this thread I've seen the excuse that God cannot be disproven be proposed as proof of God. Excuse me, but this has been brought up time and again, and I will state it once more for all to see:

NOTHING is true until it is PROVEN.

It doesn't matter if I can't prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself RIGHT.

Refer to the theory of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


-game & kirby

 

[Rossl15]

Let me remind you that this is religious debate for the mature. I don't care how much more intelligent than me you think you are; don't patronize me.

You need to read other peoples' posts before you reply to them. If you refer back to my original post, you'll realize that the foundation for my argument is entirely based within the confines of logic and the natural world. There is nothing illogical about my statements, and by denying the truth of my precepts, you are admitting that it is you who is denying logic.

Neither does the existence of God defy logic, as it is completely logical that the source of the material universe must be independent of it.

The theory of an infinite universe does deny logic because it doesn't present any viable explanations for the existence of life.

If you will once again look back at my posts, you will notice that I did not deny the existence of multiple universes. I denied that a universe in which 2+2=5 could exist as logic is transcendent of the physical universe. Even so, I fail to see how multiple universes which are apart from everything we know about logic can possibly be a simpler or more probable occurence than a single universe created by God.

Please remove yourself from your high horse before you make another post.

 

[game & kirby]

I think I offended someone...

please, 'tis not a high HORSE, it's a pink unicorn...an invisible one at that.

Please take note, Ross, that none of my comments were personal in the least, neither were they intended to be. I'm sorry if my attitude or my opinions have caused offense, but I cannot change the former, and you should have been prepared for the latter, coming into this forum, no?

Anyways, it seems to me that it is you who presume.

You say that I repudiate logic because I disagree with your theorem...that sounds a BIT specious, no? I don't agree that your argument is logical in the first place, therefore it isn't much of a counterargument to state that your argument is irrefutable logic, and that I must be crazy not to agree with it. Hmph.

No, Ross, I do not agree that the basic precepts you put forth are irrefutable logic. I do not agree that the source of the material universe must be independent of it, either. Since I do not agree with said statements, you cannot in good faith quote them as arguments against me, since they are the very subject of discussion.

I would say something right now, but you would probably construe it (misconstrue it) as irredeemably arrogant, so I
won't

'The theory of an infinite universe does deny logic because it doesn't present any viable explanations for the existence of life.'

this is a really interesting statement, but there's no proof to back it up. How does an infinite universe not present explanations for life? Enlighten me.

The existence of God indeed does defy ALL principles of logic, since assuming that a God exists that is omnipotent first of all is a fantasy, i.e. we are assuming facts that cannot be proven (God's sentience, God's status as an entity and not a force, God's divine will, God's omnipotence) We are 'imagining' a being with all these traits which go beyond what is necessary to explain the universe's creation.

To explain the universe we have today, we have put forth a number of theories:
-That the universe is eternal, and was always there
-That there are infinite universes, and that this is only one in an infinite chain of universes stretching back in time forever
-That an omnipotent, omniscient deity with a divine plan and will has always existed and always will, and created this universe out of divine whim.

Now the third seems a bit a departure from reality, no? In fact it looks as if someone is trying to rationalise the fact that everything in our environment has a beginning and an end, and that the only thing that doesn't must be beyond us in every way, since we couldn't POSSIBLY conceive anything different.

As I said, escapism at it's finest.

If you want to argue that the universe was created by an unknown, not necessarily sentient, not necessarily omnipotent force, fine, it's a valid theory, the Greeks came up with it as well, it was called the demi-urgos, or demiurge, simply said a 'creator' nothing more, nothing less. To attach myriad subsidiary roles such as justicar, judge, and general keeper of the peace is wishful thinking, and as it does not contribute to the logical veracity of your theory of a creator entity, should play no part in the debate.

Allow me to clarify the basic process of logic I presented previously.

This is the accepted mathematical method of proof, for any given theorem.

You must assume that your theory is WRONG. Then proceed in logical steps, still assuming your theory is the complete opposite of what you want (i.e. There is no omnipotent God, and he did not create the universe) until you come to a logical fallacy, a contradiction in terms, or a paradox. At this point, you safely assume that since y is wrong, x , y's opposite, must be true. In essence, you are proving every possible result wrong, and coming up with the one right answer. This can also be done inversely, by proving your theorem is right, and proving that it is mutually exclusive (if it is right, nothing else can ALSO be right) since we are in a situation in which we have several theories, and none can be proven right or wrong, it's illogical to believe that your God IS in fact, logical, just as it is illogical to believe in any of the other theories.

The conclusion? WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET.

That's logic's two cents anyways.

I hope I haven't further offended you with my opinions.

If my opinions HAVE offended you, please refer to your first sentence in your last post.

-game & kirby
(again, nothing personal)

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Here is my proof for the existence of God:

It wasn't a proof, it was a conjecture. Proofs use logic to demonstrate why a relationship or statement has to be true. For example, if it is known that all Eggs are white, and I have an egg, it follows that my egg is white. I'm just being technical, but what you have is a conjecture. You can't argue with a proof unless the evidence supplied is false.

By the way, if everything must have a cause, what's the cause of God? I interpreted to mean that you said that a factor outside of the universe must exist to cause the universe; in the same way a factor outside of God must exist to create God then, perhaps a different God, which would mean the original God isn't really a god. but then a diff god needs toe xist to have caused this one, so that god isn't a god either, and the cycle is endless. BAsically I don't see the existence of this type of God existing because there is nothing to create that god himself..

 

[Rossl15]

I said all physical things must have a cause, and I showed that God isn't physical, as he must be independent of that which he created.

I also said that I was not here to prove anything about the nature of God.

Please READ my posts before you make comments.

 

[MasterFoot]

Rossl, the problem with you is that you are very vague, you stated that god is not physical, then what is he? Magical?

and bee I cant beleive you just banned SNEX he was one of the last intelligent posters that came here. either that or im confusing him with someone else with the same avatar (not myself)

The mods around this place make me want to vomit, you act as though your all powerful, over the forums maybe, but thats all the power you have. But you act as though that just because your an admin or mod, your a better person. The fact is, you banned him because of an unrelated matter not associated with the forums (im assuming this, if i am wrong, correct me and fill me in) but im very dissapointed, thats the main reason why i dont come here very much anymore. Now i understand that smashworld has a budget to keep, but your going mad with power, and i think many people will agree with me. Thats why LE created that "BBT worst mod/ human thread" And just because i posted this, your probably going to get all frustrated and give me a "warning!" oh my! you act like your the ****ing police, and oh no! i just swore! im sure youll just classify this as SPAM, but im sure it needed to be said, because sadly, these formus are practically dead, and theres nothing interesting going on. The melee discussion is now a minor part of this site and is hardly visited, by me anyway. So im sure many people will agree, that the mods around this place are a little high upon their pedestal.

 

[McFox]

MasterFoot:

With a smaller forum, there are less rules. But now that we're closing in on 15,000 members, we have to be strict. Think of it this way:

When the settlers originally came to America, they didn't have the constitution yet. You just kind of tried to live by what you thought was decent. Sure, "techincally" they were living under British law, but England didn't really actually have power. Then, after the war, we drew ourselves up a set of Global Rules, if you will. Since then, the rules have been amended and added to countless times, as the country held more people and order needed to be sustained.

And it really shows your own intelligence when you write something like:

The fact is, you banned him because of an unrelated matter not associated with the forums (im assuming this, if i am wrong, correct me and fill me in)

"The total, unequivocal truth is that you banned him for no apparent reason at all!

Or maybe there was a reason, I really just pulled that out of my *ss in an effort to dehumanize you."

We're strict because we have to be, deal with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ross, I'm confused when you say all physical things have a "cause." What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that our fates are predestined, and that there is a reason for our lives, and that everyone and everything has a purpose to play out? Honestly, I didn't understand what you were getting at.

 

[MasterFoot]

I was just assuming that because he spoke of being E-mailed several times, So im not 100% sure at all. And it really infuriated me the way bbt was like "Now your banned! have fun:D" like it was a joke. but lets try not to make this into a flame war, this should be the last of it.

 

[Rossl15]

Ross, I'm confused when you say all physical things have a "cause." What does that mean exactly?

I'm referring to cause as in 'cause and effect' - That which brings something into being. To use my earlier example, a tree can be the cause of another tree if it drops a seed to the ground.

I'm not referring to purpose or meaning here - that's a whole different topic.

 

[Barogrei]

Everything has to follow logic, regardless of whether it is physical or not. An alias, for example, is a nonphysical something... Yet an alias cannot have so many post counts that it exceeds itself. Besides, what would make something illogical? The ability to perform illogical operations? And by the way, the laws of physics are very different. A universe could still work if gravity operated inversely. Why? Because logic would fix the problem for us. It would see all of the causes, the actions, and the implications, so everything would be fine. You cannot have an illogical anything, because its essentially a violation of itself. And anything from which something physical can come from, is physical itself, in a way. I think.

Banning Snex was seriously a bad move. He has contributed a lot to the community. Let's see here... Two very successful tournaments. Constant trucking people around across the country, often insisting that we don't pay him for gas money. He's made nothing but intelligent posts in the debate hall, never flaming a person, only what they say. His posts are never painstakingly long, he cuts right to the chase, something few people have courage to do on this site where "cool" people post half pages of bull**** (sometimes). His actions for the community have been most altruistic in many cases. Seriously, reconsider this ban.

 

[XDaDePsak]

By some guy:
"The theory of an infinite universe does deny logic because it doesn't present any viable explanations for the existence of life."

Um, work backwards here:
Intelligent life came from lesser life forms, like bacteria.

Certain Bacteria can be made from a combination of Amino acids.

DNA is the simple (yet incomprehendably complex) molecule that acts as the CORE MEME. I hope you all know what memes are. If not, look it up on google.

Anyways, DNA is a combination of a few chemicals.

Simple short strands of DNA could have been created by chance from the combination of chemicals under the right conditions

Said chemicals are floating around everywhere in space.

Space and matter are the essense of the universe.

Said universe is infinite.

 

[game & kirby]

Ross, let me break it down for you here, since I think we have a communication problem.

You are arguing for the existence of a god which is not physical, beyond the laws of space, matter and time. Okay, you say you're not concerned with his nature. But look at what you're supporting. If you truly believe that this 'entity' is beyond matter and time, and beyond the physical, then there's no need to apply laws of logic, or rational reasoning, since you're speaking of something supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural, or physical)

In that realm, no laws of logic apply.

Hence your proof is irrelevant. You're trying to prove something which, by nature, CANNOT be proven. The non-physical is not a part of this universe. EVERYTHING, without exception, is composed of matter, interlocuted by space, running along a timeline.

Of course, there are theories of antimatter particles dispersed in space, but that's another thing entirely.

Also, I'm afraid you're misquoting the law of cause and effect. Yes, a tree can produce another tree with a seed. How does that in any way explain that a physical universe must have been created by something 'not physical'?

-game & kirby
(bring snex back!)

 

[Rossl15]

Also, I'm afraid you're misquoting the law of cause and effect. Yes, a tree can produce another tree with a seed. How does that in any way explain that a physical universe must have been created by something 'not physical'?

This is the last time I'm explaining this, it's becoming just too time consuming.

A cause must be independent of its own effects. The cause of physical matter, therefore, must be independent of physical matter, since something which is dependent on the physical for existence cannot possibly create the physical as it would be creating itself. For a cause to be dependent on its own effects for existence is paradoxical.

This is not metaphysics. This is logic. This is something we should both be able to agree on.

A tree cannot grow from a seed that it produced after it has already come into existence. The seed must come from an external source, i.e. another tree.

I hope I haven't further offended you with my opinions.

I didn't say your opinions offend me. What offends me is the patronization and arrogance that has been present in each one of your posts on my topic.

 

[XDaDePsak]

I d on't think I shouldn't not always never eat.

"

By that one dude:
The cause of physical matter, therefore, must be independent of physical matter"

You're still under the assumption that matter has to have a cause. Okay, the big bang. Happy?

Okay check this out.

Imagine the pre-big bang universe as a big bowl of soup.
The matter in this soup is neutral. (or cancelled out). When that same neutral matter becomes positive, it's anti-matter becomes negative, and when it becomes negative, it's anti-matter becomes positive. Then the matter is no-longer neutral, and it exists in the normal sense.

Think algebracially:

1 + -1 = 0

so

0 = 1 + -1

also

Something can be created by nothingness by imbalance. So it's not necessarily being created, but it's existence is merely a side effect of variables being altered on the physical level. There's no need for an external source to create this matter, it's "created", so to speak, from the physical level. No God necessary.

 

[Rossl15]

I see you made a thread out of the dimensions post, and I look forward to hearing the rest of your theory.

Okay, the big bang. Happy?

There is some solid evidence (i.e. red shift) supporting the idea of a 'big bang', to say the least, and I'm not going to argue that it could be a possibility. It's the problem of cause I'm going to have to point out once again. Even if the universe has existed for all time, what is it exactly that caused the big bang? What exactly was happening in the universe before it?

When that same neutral matter becomes positive, it's anti-matter becomes negative, and when it becomes negative, it's anti-matter becomes positive. Then the matter is no-longer neutral, and it exists in the normal sense.

This implies that matter was one with antimatter at some point, but this really can't be a possibility since contact between matter and antimatter would theoretically result in annihilation.

Something can be created by nothingness by imbalance. So it's not necessarily being created, but it's existence is merely a side effect of variables being altered on the physical level. There's no need for an external source to create this matter, it's "created", so to speak, from the physical level.

Matter constantly moves toward a state of entropy. Just as flowing water takes the path of least resistance, matter 'acts' to become inert. That's why magnets eventually lose their charge, stars burn out, and a fire leaves ashes. Stable atoms or molecules will not simply split into unstable ones.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Originally posted by MasterFoot

and bee I cant beleive you just banned SNEX he was one of the last intelligent posters that came here. either that or im confusing him with someone else with the same avatar (not myself)

If he was so smart, perhaps he could have deduced that I would ban him when I told him "If you report another post, I will ban you", then he reported another post. It's really quite simple. I asked him politely to stop, he didn't, then I gave him ample warning, and he still didn't stop. He apparently considers it his God-given right to spam my inbox. The best part was how he IMed me *****ing and complaining right after I banned him. I warned him first, so really, he only has himself to blame.

If you think we should change our policy so that we no longer punish people for breaking the rules, that's fine. You are free to start your own moderator-free board and see how that goes.

EDIT: Yes, I did consider it fun to ban snex, Masterfoot. You see, it's always funny to see people who think they are untouchable lose. Snex thought that my threat was hollow, that he was above the rules. Guess what? He wasn't! Ha, ha! I think it's pretty ****ing hilarious.

-B

 

[XDaDePsak]

Bee, you should be ashamed of yourself! I declare Shenanegins!

But seriously, you should reconsider his ban. Consider this his ultimate warning. Besides it only takes like 5 seconds to delete a bunch of PMs, and I know it's all a matter of principle that you ban him, but he wont do it again. If he does, THEN, it would follow even with me that it's necessary to keep him banned. Come on, when'd you become such a grouchy mod!
LOL, isn't that funny! The master of bannation (only 2nd to Treget) showing compassion!

 

[famousmirage]

A cause must be independent of its own effects. The cause of physical matter, therefore, must be independent of physical matter, since something which is dependent on the physical for existence cannot possibly create the physical as it would be creating itself. For a cause to be dependent on its own effects for existence is paradoxical.

This seems to be a misapplication of the rule. "A cause must be independent of it's own effects" simply means that something can not cause itself. Matter would not cause itself, it would cause other matter. There may be a supernatural cause, but it is not the only possible cause.

 

[Dodongo]

I was always under the impression that there is no way or need to prove God's existence. The theories and law that we base everything upon: space, time, matter..all of them are things that we have concluded upon as humans. While they may make sense to us because they fit in with everything else we see, that still doesn't make them right. Suppose it were like dimensions, there could be countless other planes of existence and knowledge for us to use, but we have no way of accessing them. The laws that man has made are just that, made by man. Therefore nothing outside the laws of man can be proven or denied by these laws.

 

[Lumbro]

Originally posted by Rossl15
In formal logic, certain conditions are assumed to be givens. I assume a few simple conepts in this argument, such as the law of cause and effect. Whether you choose to ignore the obvious characteristics of the world you live in isn't my responsibility. I'm not here to prove to you that the physical universe comprises space, matter, and energy, just as I'm not trying to prove to you that 2+2=4. The givens in my argument are what most people would call common sense.

Maybesome or even most of your premises are fair, that doesn't mean they all are. For instance:

-Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).

-The physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe must have a cause.

But there's a problem. When you say "everything that physically exists has a cause" you can only really say that and mean "everything that exists in its current form was caused to be in its current form." Yes a tree grows from a seed, can be said to be caused by the seed, but the elements that make up the tree were not caused by the seed. We NEVER see matter/energy created where there was none before, but that's exactly what you're assuming as a premise. The state of the universe was such that the existent atoms and energy formed that tree. Have you ever seen evidence of something causing matter/energy to exist where there was neither before? No, every physical cause we see today is the result of matter and energy changing form.

-Since the physical universe comprises matter and space (time is dependent on matter) it must have a cause which is independent of matter and space.

-Matter and space are the essence of all physical things, so the cause of physical existence cannot be something physical, since that would imply that the physical universe can be simultaneously the cause and the effect of itself.

These assumptions are by no means obvious. You're assuming existence requires a cause. I don't see that as necessarily true at all.

-The only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause which is independent of space, matter (and consequently time) is God.

HUGE PROBLEMS with this statement.

First you say "only conceivable" which is just wrong. I can conceive of other ways. Maybe there was a host of several super-powerful beings, or maybe one evil being, or maybe some non-sentient nature of the supernatural surreality required the universe's existence. Or maybe the universe wasn't caused (always existed), or maybe the cause is something simply inconceivable to humans. In any case, the statement only works if you define the cause of universe to be God regardless of what it is found to be.

Second is the assertion that God is the simplest probable cause. What??? Hold on. You assume that existence has a cause (because it could not simply have always existed?). So you then call existence "physical existence" and assert there exists a being outside of physical existence which caused physical existence, and this supernatural being has always existed? It's just not at all simpler. Why is this supernatural existence exempt from a cause? what really makes it the simplest explanation? Wouldn't it be simpler to say "the universe has always existed?"

Ohh, and if Snex was banned simply because he was spamming BBT with email/AIM that would be wrong. If he was banned because he was spamming and harrassing with PM/reporting/posting then that would be a legitimate banning. That actually violates rules directly associated with SWF. It IS the latter case, right BBT?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

snex is banned because of repeatedly reporting posts that did not warrant reporting, after being warned not to report posts anymore. Specifically, he was told that if he reported one more post, he would be banned, and then he reported one more post and was banned. It is not a very complicated thing. He received his last warning already, XDade. It was very specific: Do this again, and you will be banned. He did it again. If Gideon wants to give him another chance (Gideon usually does give second, and third, and fourth chances...he's too nice), then that's peachy. Meanwhile, I couldn't unban him even if I wanted to, I'm not an admin.

-B

 

[expletivedeleted]

It wasn't a proof, it was a conjecture.

I agree with EdreesesPieces here. It can't be a proof because you're assuming (to use your own words, "the only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause") that God is the answer. It's Occam's razor with a religious slant. Not a proof.

 

[game & kirby]

See now, Ross, people are repeating to you over and over (and over) that your so called 'logical progression' leading to the conclusion that God exists and that he created the universe, is not logical at all, and the existence of such a being cannot be debated within a framework of rationale and logic. And yet you persist.

You said once that you did not want to debate God's nature, only his existence. Can you not see that God's nature is essential to this debate? If God truly is omnipotent, then that in itself places him beyond the realm of logic, and beyond the realm of US debating is. (debating about illogicism is fun but kinda pointless, a bit like Cruel Melee )

You said over and over that something must have a cause independent of itself. A tree cannot be produced by it's own seed. But a tree can be produced by another tree. You see the connection?

PHYSICAL is not an entity. Of course the universe could not create itself. The universe IS physical. The hole in your argument is that this does not preclude something ELSE which is also physical from creating the universe. You see, 'physical' is a status, a state of being, to say. And everything in this universe, nay in existance, by definition, is physical. So this physical universe cannot have created itself, but it must have been created by something else physical, or it must have been eternal. That is, if you want to work within the realms of logic.

The thing I don't get is why you don't understand that trying to logically prove God is impossible and futile, since the concept of God patently isn't logical. It boggles the mind.

- game & kirby

P.S. Kewl Posts, Expletive deleted, Lumbro, Donkey Dong, Famous Mirage .

P.P.S AMAZING name, Donkey Dong. rofl

 

[Nic64]

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Props for being the first one to argue against my conclusion rather than my precepts. Although I am a Christian, I'm arguing for the existence of A God, not necessarily the Christian God. I think that this proves that there is a God, although it fails to address the nature of that God.

Well everyone else already proved that wrong, I needed something to argue with <_<

A god? What proof does your theory have that polytheism is not correct?

And just to repeat what everyone else has said, you can't prove gods existance by lack of evidence against god or holes in other theories.

 

[Shadowfury333]

I'm now going to respond to some earlier posts considering the lack of historic records of Jesus.

In the time of Jesus, Palestine (The land Jesus lived in) was no more than a speck of the Roman Empire. They wouldn't have cared about some so-called Messiah (I'd like to point out that this view would be from the Romans point-of-view, not mine) enough to bother with making records of him.

BTW I'm a die-hard Roman Catholic.

 

[expletivedeleted]

BTW I'm a die-hard Roman Catholic.

Awesome. I was just watching Hellsing (the anime).

That's my random quota for the day.

As this thread currently does not have the posters that were here from the beginning, I'll re-post the original question: it comes straight of Bazooka Lucca's post, and you can read the rest of it at the beginning.

I basically wanna know what most aetheists hope to accomplish.

Do you guys think you'll change everyone by disproving anything bible related?

~Bazooka Lucca~

I'll reply later with my own thoughts.

PS: sorry to detract from your line of discussion, Shadowfury333, but I think a discussion of the above is more appropriate than sorting out the facts of Christ's life--however I skipped the middle of this topic and if you all think that it makes a good debate, go for it.

 

[Rossl15]

I was out of town this weekend, sorry if it seems like I've just been ignoring you. Hmm . . . it looks as if about 60 people have posted since I was here last. As I don't have the time or desire to respond to each person's arguments, I'm going to go ahead and close this particular topic (for me at least) with this.

-There is nothing wrong with using logic to discuss or attempt to prove the supernatural. Since all my foundational statements are within logic, I can come to a conslusion that may involve the supernatural or intangible. This is not flawed logic.

-You guys have shown me that the biggest problem with my argument is that it doesn't prove the existence of an actual God. Since Occam's Razor isn't scientific law, it is not fit to be used in scientific arguments.

-Without this point in my argument, the largest implication is that the cause of the universe must be supernatural. This is certainly not proving that there is a God, but I hope it has at least given everyone something to think about.

This has been a great discussion, and I thank everyone who participated in it, but for now, I'm finished with this, as it's becoming just too time consuming.

When I come up with a better proof, you guys will be the first to know.