This is why I think God exists.

Sam Vimes · 26-08-2010 06:50PM

raah! wrote: »

I hope that isn't directed at me. If it is I applaud your strawmaning abilities. If you'd like verification of the inaccuracy of that interpretation just read over my posts.

And if that is directed at me, then I'll just assume anytime we have an argument that you are incapable of actually reading what it's said but merely lead the thread off in your own direction, and then in a direction different to this , pretending they are the same, and then around in circles.

Yes that's exactly what happened :rolleyes:

raah! wrote: »

All the same, I had a grand time arguing, but perhaps it's best that this is the last.

Perhaps so

MagicMarker · 26-08-2010 06:52PM

saywhatyousee wrote: »

that is assuming the big bang actually happened?

It's a safe assumption. Then again, if there was no beginning then no ''creator'' is necessary.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 06:57PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

You argument is that something can't come from nothing, therefore there must be a supernatural (God) creator.

Am I missing something here?

I know that you're substituting ignorance for the supernatural, erm, because you don't know what happened before the big bang. Pretty simple really.

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

saywhatyousee · 26-08-2010 06:58PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's a safe assumption. Then again, if there was no beginning then no ''creator'' is necessary.

really i thought the big band was just a theory?funny thing about this is where all goin to find out for sure one day.i bet you a coke there is a god;)

Ush1 · 26-08-2010 07:00PM

use logic please wrote: »

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

MagicMarker · 26-08-2010 07:05PM

use logic please wrote: »

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you start listening? You don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know what instigated the big bang. That's that.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:05PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

26-08-2010 07:07PM

saywhatyousee wrote: »

really i thought the big band was just a theory?

Just... no.

:mad:

use logic please wrote: »

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

Since it's your argument I'm sure you can answer yes or no

Ush1 · 26-08-2010 07:07PM

use logic please wrote: »

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

From post 278, you said that something had to happen before the big bang and ergo, this something has to be supernatural?

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:10PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you start listening? You don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know what instigated the big bang. That's that.

"Before the big bang" does not make sense! I never said I knew anything, I put forward an argument I think was reasonable. Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific! You cannot end a post with "That's that" unless you've proven something.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:12PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Just... no.

:mad:

Since it's your argument I'm sure you can answer yes or no

I'd have to read the whole article then, I don't have time now, I'll do it later.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:14PM

Ush1 wrote: »

From post 278, you said that something had to happen before the big bang and ergo, this something has to be supernatural?

"Before the big bang" doesn't make sense as time only existed after the big bang. I'm saying that, given "axiom op," supernatural creation is a reasonable possibility.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:16PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

I've read it. This says some things I don't say, so it's not my argument.

MagicMarker · 26-08-2010 07:23PM

use logic please wrote: »

"Before the big bang" does not make sense! I never said I knew anything, I put forward an argument I think was reasonable. Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific! You cannot end a post with "That's that" unless you've proven something.

Okay, let me rephrase.

You don't know how the big bang came about.

Is that better?

You're still substituting ignorance with the supernatural.

Ush1 · 26-08-2010 07:25PM

use logic please wrote: »

"Before the big bang" doesn't make sense as time only existed after the big bang. I'm saying that, given "axiom op," supernatural creation is a reasonable possibility.

I'm not familiar with axiom op, can you enlighten me?

Also, I assume you're referencing something that created the big bang? Which would infer time, as creation would had to have happened first.

Nemi · 26-08-2010 07:28PM

This must be trolling, its too blatent.

use logic please wrote: »

Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific!

The flaw in your argument has already been pointed out, in several posts. Most succinctly in this one

bnt wrote: »

even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".

Replacing the word "God" with "supernatural" does not make much of a difference, particularly when you've signalled your intention is to then suggest that "God" can be deduced from "supernatural".

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:34PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not familiar with axiom op, can you enlighten me?

Also, I assume you're referencing something that created the big bang? Which would infer time, as creation would had to have happened first.

Nothing can have happened "before the big bang." as without the big bang there'd be no time. Post 270 gives what axiom op, it's not something that created the big bang. It's the statement "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
It's explained better in my post 270. It's basically what I think is the best thing to base this discussion on, it has to be based on something.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:36PM

Nemi wrote: »

This must be trolling, its too blatent.The flaw in your argument has already been pointed out, in several posts. Most succinctly in this oneReplacing the word "God" with "supernatural" does not make much of a difference, particularly when you've signalled your intention is to then suggest that "God" can be deduced from "supernatural".

i guarantee i'm not trolling. I know people have problems with what I'm saying, but i have to know exactly what they are before I address them.

MagicMarker · 26-08-2010 07:42PM

use logic please wrote: »

i guarantee i'm not trolling. I know people have problems with what I'm saying, but i have to know exactly what they are before I address them.

Everyone's has told you what the problem is, you just keep ignoring everyone and repeating ''there is no before the big bang''.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:44PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're still substituting ignorance with the supernatural.

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

MagicMarker · 26-08-2010 07:46PM

use logic please wrote: »

I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

It's the part where you make shít up.

Zillah · 26-08-2010 07:47PM

use logic please wrote: »

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

Please explain why a first cause has to have the qualities people associate with a God, ie, omnipotence, sentience, benevolence, interest in human affairs etc.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:49PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's the part where you make shít up.

Clearly you're not interested in a logical discussion. That is plainly obvious.

liamw · 26-08-2010 07:53PM

use logic please wrote: »

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

No but you've basically said "we don't know so it must be a supernatural entity" and then implied that the entity is God (your god I guess...).

I wrote out a logical expression to show why your argument is illogical! You start with a premise that X1->Xn-1 all need to be 'created' and then just say that xn 'created itself'. It entirely illogical.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 07:56PM

Zillah wrote: »

Please explain why a first cause has to have the qualities people associate with a God, ie, omnipotence, sentience, benevolence, interest in human affairs etc.

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

Nemi · 26-08-2010 08:02PM

use logic please wrote: »

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

So you are abandoning your argument?

That's fair enough. I mean, we could see from the start you were going nowhere. Its not as if you were the first person to try to find some 'proof' for the existence of god.

use logic please · 26-08-2010 08:06PM

liamw wrote: »

No but you've basically said "we don't know so it must be a supernatural entity" and then implied that the entity is God (your god I guess...).

I wrote out a logical expression to show why your argument is illogical! You start with a premise that X1->Xn-1 all need to be 'created' and then just say that xn 'created itself'. It entirely illogical.

Read my first post again, you'll see that I say this in the context of "if it were true, then that would be a logical problem," and then I continued with my argument. I did not say "Xn created itself" and then just leave it at that.
(I revised my original post in post 270.)

use logic please · 26-08-2010 08:07PM

Nemi wrote: »

So you are abandoning your argument?

That's fair enough. I mean, we could see from the start you were going nowhere. Its not as if you were the first person to try to find some 'proof' for the existence of god.

I'm not abandoning it, read post 270.

Ush1 · 26-08-2010 08:15PM

use logic please wrote: »

Nothing can have happened "before the big bang." as without the big bang there'd be no time. Post 270 gives what axiom op, it's not something that created the big bang. It's the statement "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
It's explained better in my post 270. It's basically what I think is the best thing to base this discussion on, it has to be based on something.

Okay, I've read post 270 and it sounds suspiciously like "a" cosmological argument.

How is any of what you said evidence for the supernatural?

Zillah · 26-08-2010 08:17PM

Ok. Axiom op is a load of horseshit. That's the point where you stopped using logic (I lie, even the very first post makes no sense)

"I hereby arbitrarily define everything that exists within space/time as natural and anything else as supernatural. I arbitrarily and baselessly assert that all natural things must have an cause that is outside of space/time, which as I have said is now called supernatural, and because it is supernatural I can make up whatever I want about it, so I now assert that it can cause itself to exist, and for no reason whatsoever is an intelligent personal God".

It is absolute gibberish that has no bearing on reality. It really is that simple. Your arguments are completely based on tautologies and baseless assumptions.

use logic please wrote: »

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

Even if we accept your argument as to the existence of the supernatural (we can't, it's insane), your axiom op does not in anyway address the God question. Please explain, in a clear and logical fashion, why the cause of the universe which exists outside space/time must be a sentient and personal God.

This is why I think God exists.

Comments