Theist:Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?

Started by John Paul, November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

John Paul

Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
so you don't think that the very babble which you wholly believe is telling the truth when it tells us that your almighty could not beat puny humans who had iron chariots......or that your almighty god always needed 3 tries to beat any other army at the cost of always 2/3rds of "his" armies?  Yer not quite "up" on your babble are you?

Good question, I just put my faith in God in the hope that God knows all best.

Shiranu

QuoteAnything that exists needs a cause...

Only if you view the world from a popular Western point of view.

QuoteLikewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

What questions does it raise, might I ask? And why are those questions a concern when the idea of a creator does not apparently create any other important questions? To quote you...

QuoteYou ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Who toasted the toast that is Yahweh? And to preemptively respond to the, "He didn't need one, he is constant and eternal!", do you not see the logical flaw o saying nothing (the universe) can come from nothing but god can?
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Why would we need to accept that whatever preceeded THE universe functions by THE same rules, Logic and physics as THE universe we live in? Quantum-mumbo aside, cause and effect does seem to rule within our universe, to me. But I see no reason to see I Apply outside this universe or in another one if it had different internal rules. And if you believe god is uncaused and outside this universe, I suspect you are actually on agreement on that part. You just then give up and claim god did it.
Cause this is very telling, imo. It's not THE idea of "iTS just there" which raises other questions as to Why it is THE way it is. It's the intellectual honesty of not having a definite answer that makes us ask Why it is THE way it is. But then, Why is that bad? Are questions supposed to be frightening? Why should we not be happy to have such questions? Of course you already have your anwser. God. It doesn't add anything. It doesn't really solve anything. But it keeps you from questioning further and deeper. It saved you THE trouble of making THE effort. But you can have your unwarrented and void certainty: I Like wondering Why things are THE way they are.

Quote
Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.

See what I wrote above.

PS, how's about you making a proper introduction thread and following forum-policy before making threads Like these. Partcipating in and Reading THE rest of THE forum may also help you get your answer, if you truly are interested in getting our replies. You are not THE first to make this particular case. Nor Will you be THE last.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

AllRight

I don't believe in anything I have never seen proof of. Just because I don't understand how something works or how it came to be does not mean that I have to attribute it to a genocidal maniac who works in "mysterious ways".

Baruch

Love your icon, Mr Bean ... just don't park you car in the wrong place at the military base ;-)

"You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God."

Aristotle noted 4 different kinds of causes ...

Material Cause = matter in general (matter without form, so unknown to modern science)
Formal Cause = structure in general (aka physics and chemistry)
Efficient Cause = how something comes about (aka energy and process)
Final Cause = only applies to sentient beings, why something comes about

Aristotle also invented the "unmoved mover" aka the impersonal principle, which substitutes for G-d

Modern science and atheists don't accept Final Cause ... for Aristotle it is teleological (you want to go to Disney World, so Disney World causes you to go on vacation).  Aristotle had a problem with the chicken-egg conundrum.  He opted for the future egg causes the mother hen, he was thinking of intention.  But modern science has a problem, called Quantum Mechanics ... which throws a spanner into this ... while there is little evidence that the future causes the past, even if we accept that the mother hen causes the future egg (more common sensical) we have to ignore intention (which Aristotle considered so important).  The problem is that Classical Mechanics assumes that the observer has no impact on what is observed ... and Quantum Mechanics says that when a scientist does an observation or sets up an experiment ... that this changes everything (but in statistically predictable ways).  So the intention of the scientist, still sneaks back in.

"Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way it is? Etc."

That which exists now, has a cause in the past, even if it is unchanged?  All things change, except for physical law (which ideally is unchanged and universal in space as well).  So what does change, does have a cause.  But what is unchanged doesn't have a cause, it just is.  But the question of how change happens is answered by science.  And science uncovers the unchanging (Heraclitus was almost right).  Even the 3.5K radiation form the Big Bang is slowly changing, under rules that are unchanging.  We don't actually know what happened before that ... we speculate ... and people take the speculations of science too seriously.  If we ask why, we are asking about sentience.  If I am typing, you can ask why ... if a book falls off my shelf, you don't ask why (nobody pushed it) you ask how, and the answer is gravity (but that as you point out, still begs the question).

"Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense."

Correct, temporality makes sense, because we are temporal sentients ... eternity doesn't make sense, in spite of the efforts of theologians.

"Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible."

People see patterns in clouds, and the romantic see a dragon in the sky.  But that pattern isn't real (aside from the human imagination).  Some patterns we call real, because while they depend on the human imagination, they are objective, not just subjective.  That is the scientific method, to separate the objective from the subjective (peer review, re-observation, repeat of experiment, tendency to measurable quantification).

Personally, I do take the position that science is man-made, not a Platonic Ideal ... but then I am empirical like Aristotle, not mathematical like Plato.  I don't think reality is rational ... only that some aspects of human experience are objective, but mostly subjective ... that chaos is more common than order, illogic more common than logic.  For me, ultimately the universe (as an idea of humans) is incomprehensible.

Things "just happen" all the time (in the sense that most often no sentience is involved, human or animal).  Again, that confusion is due to misapplication of Final Cause.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aitm

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom I think is a God, as I cannot accept nor understand science and besides I must be special"er" than a damn rat.

Fixed if for you.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Solomon Zorn

Quote from: John PaulAnything that exists needs a cause,
Yes.

Quote from: John Paulthe universe needs a cause,
Yes.

Quote from: John Paulthe cause is God,
Non-sequitor. It does not follow, that the cause is God.

Quote from: John Paul"All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me since we know that matter, space, and time had a beginning, and that nothing in the order of creation can cause itself.  Hence, the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter.
"All powerful matter/energy" makes no sense to me either, and I have no idea where you came up with the notion.

We assume that time had a beginning, but we don't know anything about the beginning of the universe, or whether matter has a beginning.

Once again you fall back on a non-sequitor. It does not follow that “the universe must have a cause transcendent of itself: it must be caused by something outside of time, space, and matter.” Matter and space, and their effect on one another, are not completely understood yet. Our information will likely always be incomplete.

You want to jump to the answer without actually working the problem. We  don't know how it happened, therefore God did it, is a non-sequitor as well.


Quote from: John PaulIf it is mindless, it wouldn't have any power or self-awareness. And if it's all-powerful, then it certainly isn't mindless. 
Power and mind, are to completely different things. Nothing and no one is “all powerful.”


Quote from: John PaulOnly God can be the cause of the universe. If it were something other than God, then that would imply one of two things: one, God would have created this intermediary being, which in turn triggered the universe; or two, there is some powerful rival to God out there, which would undercut the idea of God's omnipotence. And this would be mean God isn't really God, because there is someone or something who exists independently of him.
You are so quick to dismiss the notion that the universe had a natural prime mover, but so ready to accept that God didn't need one.

The only thing that defies the laws of physics, is imagination. Which is why God can do anything: he is imaginary.


Quote from: John PaulThe upshot is: It doesn't seem likely than anyone other God created the universe.
It's true, that it doesn't seem likely that anyone other God created the universe. But it is equally unlikely that God did it.


Quote from: John PaulAquinas also demonstrated that God's essence is His existence, which means He is Being, not simply "a" being.  All beings in the realm of space-matter-time participate in being, but are not eternal infinite being itself, by its very nature, as is "I Am" (Ex 3:14).
Well then! He demonstrated it, did he? I guess there's no more room for doubt.


Quote from: John PaulThe answer is simple; if you say that something else caused the universe, then you must answer what caused that, and eventually you must admit to an uncaused cause. 
Possibly. But the same problem exists with God.


Quote from: John PaulThe chief attribute of God relevant to this question is His uncaused nature.  God is not contingent on anything.  You will end in a string of causality with any other solution.
Imaginary beings can possess any attributes you wish to assign them. That doesn't mean you have solved the math.


Quote from: John PaulThe only uncaused thing that there is evidence for in our universe is God, inasmuch as humans have been aware of Him, having an intrinsic religious nature that transcends all cultures and history (earliest archeological research shows rituals for the dead--expecting some sort of post-death existence).   
Human myths are not, in the slightest way, evidence of God. They are only evidence of the human imagination.


Quote from: John PaulWhile this evidence may seem circumstantial, think about a house, you don't see the builder or architect within it, but it's very reality attests to it.  One can be inferred by the other. 
If I were a simple-minded primitive, I might think the correlation was the same between a house and the universe. But reasoning by analogy, is not actual reasoning. It just sounds cute.


Quote from: John PaulGod is not part of the universe, therefore you will not find evidence for Him in the same manner as other things,
Of course not. Imaginary things usually function that way.

Quote from: John Paul...but you will find His influence felt, particularly in the moral dimension of Man.  This aspect of our nature seems to be unique.  We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions. 
So, I don't kill my neighbor for farting, therefore God created the universe. Understood.


Quote from: John PaulThe Bible says God exists.
OH! Well then! I can't argue with that one. I guess you convinced me!


If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

popsthebuilder

#22
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 27, 2016, 01:26:08 AM
The argument of intelligent design again. Since you're new, I'll remain civil because maybe you haven't heard from atheists on this issue before. Consider this, if creation is intelligently designed, what makes the house stand out? If all that exists is intelligently designed, then the house created by humans is just one creation out of many. Your pointing out the obviousness of the design behind the house actually hurts your argument.

Also, claiming that everything must have a cause doesn't help you either. Claiming that God is "outside time and space" does not excuse him from the rule. I find it much more believable that there is a source of energy, with no personality or self-awareness, that creates universes. Such a non-intelligent creator could just as easily exist. Creationism's own arguments work against the likelihood that there was an intelligent creator. Creationists claim that because humans are intelligent, a greater intelligence must have been responsible for designing us. So then, what designed the intelligence of God?

It makes no sense for an intelligent God to just exist without a cause. Why would such a being have a personality? Why would such a being prefer one thing over another? Humans are that way because of a mix of biological and environmental influences. So then what determined that God would care about human lives? What prevented him from being an evil tyrant, entertaining himself by torturing his creation? Unless you can give a solid reason why an all powerful being must be the way you believe him to be, I have no more reason to believe in him than in the infinite other concepts of gods who are just as likely to exist.

I have a question for you. Why do you focus so hard on the past when trying to prove God exists? Why not look to the one short time frame you actually have experience with; the present? This is why I no longer believe in God. Imagine your life being exactly the same except for one thing: God doesn't exist. What else would change? If you're honest with yourself, you will know the answer. It's nothing. God or no God, his existence has no impact on my life at all. His "answered prayers" were random change, just as his unanswered prayers were random chance. If you talk to God, God does not talk back. If an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator exists, he has purposefully hid himself so well as to cause some to doubt he even exists. And those who do believe he exists have formed countless religions trying in vain to discover his nature. An active God would have no doubters, and religion wouldn't exist because his nature would be clear.

I also find it ironic that you would choose Rowan Atkinson as your avatar. It's funny, considering the comedy sketches he's performed, making fun of Christianity.
Can you show evidence of things being random or chance?

Also; from a creationists perspective, like the house, all creation hints to an intelligent omnipotent cause. Example you say?

All observable existence is exactly definable through mathematics. This is the hint to intelligent design.
We can, in part, observe the laws that bind all existence but cannot begin to know the actual cause of these binding laws.

If all was utter chaos then I think you would have a more valid argument, but all is set on a course, and not chaotic as far as I can tell.

peace

Mike Cl

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.
I follow your argument.  But, apparently, you don't!  God is the first and only uncaused first cause???? Why god?  Why not the universe?  Or even the system that produced the universe?  There must be a beginning sometime--or does there?  Maybe our limited viewpoint makes it feel better if there is a beginning to everything.  That, by itself, does not make it true.  I think your god is simply a construction made my man to answer all those unknowable (for the time being, anyway) things we want to know about.  Your god (and all others) is a fiction.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

aitm

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

But it makes perfect sense that something existing before anything else did had knowledge of how the things that never existed looked and acted and then create that which had never existed prior to ever knowing that which it could not know as it never existed.

Makes sense when you say it that way.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

sdelsolray

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
Let's start with your first mere assertion, which, not surprisingly, was the opening of your post.  No need to go further until you demonstrate "[a]nything that exists needs a cause."

Please do so.  And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

Quote from: John Paul on November 27, 2016, 03:17:25 AM
You ask where the piece of toast at breakfast came from. You could trace it back to the bakery, back to the wheat farm, back to the farmer who sowed the wheat, back to the parents of the farmer who brought the farmer into the world. Those parents had parents, etc. Eventually there has to be uncaused Causer -- whom we know as God.

Likewise the universe, being an effect that we can easily see, must have a cause. The alternative would be to say that it "just there" for eternity, which would only raise other questions. Why is it the way itmis? Etc.

Even if there was a "big bang," that too would need a cause. To say it "just happened" isn't very satisfying; it doesn't make sense.

Things "just don't happen." If things just happen without reason or a cause, then the universe would be incomprehensible. There would be no order to it. Science itself would be impossible.


You repeat your mere assertion (the Universe must have a cause), add another one (God is the cause of the Universe), introduce a two false dichotomies and conclude with hasty generalizations.

Let's stick with your first mere assertion - that the Universe has a cause.  By (a rather poor) analogy, you state that events within the universe have causes therefore the Universre itself has a cause.

Please study the Composition Fallacy because you are using it in your argument, which renders your argument fallacious.

Now, to the second item, of which you failed to respond:

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 26, 2016, 06:20:14 PM
...
And, while you are at it, demonstrate how your God was caused without using the special pleading fallacy.

Put another way, if everything is caused, what caused your God?  You are not allowed to use the Special Pleading Fallacy.

Let me help:  Define the "Universe" as containing all that exists, including your God.

sdelsolray

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effectthere is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect. Your thoughts, behaviors and actions create specific effects that manifest and create your life as you know it
...

A better analogy than the OP's analogy, but still a composition fallacy.  An example:

P1:  Atomic elements are not alive
P2:  Human beings are composed of atomic elements.
C1:  Human beings are therefore not alive.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
...
GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT.
...

Put another way, God requires no cause because I blindly assert so. 

Using a mere assertion fallacy to justify your special pleading is a cute trick.

You should study William Lane Craig's atte3mpt to get around this.  He argues that things that begin to exist have a cause and that things that have always existed do not.  It's turtles all the way down.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 26, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
...
Does that make any sense?

Be honest....please.
..

Your arguments are fallacious and that makes sense.

Honesty is the best policy.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: sdelsolray on November 27, 2016, 01:20:31 PM
A better analogy than the OP's analogy, but still a composition fallacy.  An example:

P1:  Atomic elements are not alive
P2:  Human beings are composed of atomic elements.
C1:  Human beings are therefore not alive.

Put another way, God requires no cause because I blindly assert so. 

Using a mere assertion fallacy to justify your special pleading is a cute trick.

You should study William Lane Craig's atte3mpt to get around this.  He argues that things that begin to exist have a cause and that things that have always existed do not.  It's turtles all the way down.

Your arguments are fallacious and that makes sense.

Honesty is the best policy.
It wasn't an analogy. It was copied and pasted from Google when I searched law of cause and effect.

My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy.

You are stretching friend.

peace

Poison Tree

Quote from: John Paul on November 26, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
We do not find evidence of animals making moral and ethical decisions.
Animals discriminate between in-group and out-group individuals, free each other from traps, share food, establish social norms, punish rule beakers, help injured group members, demand equal treatment, ect. They've never debated the trolley problem, that doesn't mean they don't make moral and ethical decisions.
"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

sdelsolray

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PMIt wasn't an analogy. ...

It's an analogy because you attempt to apply what happens inside of the universe to the universe itself.  That is a classic composition fallacy.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PM...
It was copied and pasted from Google when I searched law of cause and effect.
...

Impressive.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 27, 2016, 02:07:12 PM...
My assertion that a thing that created a thing isn't bound to the limits of said created thing is not a fallacy....


Moving the goalposts, but just a bit.  This is the first time you have made this precise claim.


Go back and read what you actually said before:

Quote..."GOD being uncaused is not special pleading because the law is based on the observable universe and as discussed; GOD encompasses the universe so to speak, is outside of it, where it's laws, the ones Created for that universe by that force or existence, don't constrain IT."
...

I said that the above claim (in italics) was a mere assertion, which in itself is a fallacy.  I also noted you used it (the mere assertion) in an attempt to justify your special pleading for your God claim.

Your claims are rejected for the reasons stated.