Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

No idea. We have no frame of reference to judge such a question.

Out of curiosity why do you limit to those two options as opposed to anything else that could be the cause?

philologos

Yes, one can postulate nothing if one wants to. I'm simply asking what's more likely. What are the alternatives to the two that I have presented. Claiming not to have any idea is giving up arguing as to why the position of causation is ludicrous. Why isn't it reasonable and why isn't it likely?

philologos wrote: »

Here's what I propose. We have situated our discussion in terms of likelihood. Which is more likely that God as a Creator exists or he doesn't. Here's the cosmological argument given both in its traditional terms and in the modern form of the argument. We can probe into whether or not it is more likely that the universe as a finite existence has a cause or whether it doesn't.

Traditional form:

Modern form:

If the universe is finite, it also must have had a cause. Finite things cannot cause themselves at least as far as I can tell. Therefore it seems more rational to believe that the universe had a cause rather than not.

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

Oh no not that WLC nonsense. This is a fallacious argument. I'm surprised at you, you should know better than that.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How could an adult be responsible for his choices, it must be all God's fault, the God that doesn't exist right ?

Which proves my point again . . .

What was your point again?

You claimed we choose hell. You now seem to realize that while such an idea might help you reconcile the idea of hell with an all loving God, it isn't an idea backed up by your own religion nor is it backed up by any logical argument.

The mere existences of hell itself demonstrates we don't choose it, since no one would choose that they want to exist in a state of eternal suffering.

Like I keep saying, it is not our fault the claims of your religion are nonsensical.

seeing_ie wrote: »

This is the first time I've looked at this forum and I must say the tone of some posts seems quite unchristian.

For meaningful discussion and clarification, can you point out exactly which ones you feel are "unchristian", thanks.

philologos wrote: »

Yes, one can postulate nothing if one wants to. I'm simply asking what's more likely.

What is more likely, that a creator made the universe, or string theory/m-theory.

philologos wrote: »

What are the alternatives to the two that I have presented.

Well anything. M-theory for a start. Multiple universe. Cyclical universe. A super particle. A super field. Something we haven't imaged yet.

We could go on and on speculating. The closest we have ever got is M-theory which is starting to have testable predictions.

philologos wrote: »

Claiming not to have any idea is giving up arguing as to why the position of causation is ludicrous. Why isn't it reasonable and why isn't it likely?

Sorry I'm not following what you are asking here.

b318isp

philologos wrote: »

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

There is strong proof that most of the matter of the universe was created within a few minutes of the "big bang". There are models that describe the possible state of the universe prior to this but the limits of human knowledge and evidence are being tested to establish this. This goes a long way to explaning how, but not why it exists.

In addition, the universe is visibly expanding - but into what?

seeing_ie

Quo Vadis wrote: »

For meaningful discussion and clarification, can you point out exactly which ones you feel are "unchristian", thanks.

No, frankly.

Also, so that you can lay off the quotation marks:

un·chris·tian (

n-kr

n)adj.1. Not in accord with the spirit or principles of Christianity.
2. Not Christian.
3. Uncivilized; barbaric.

philologos wrote: »

Yes, one can postulate nothing if one wants to. I'm simply asking what's more likely. What are the alternatives to the two that I have presented. Claiming not to have any idea is giving up arguing as to why the position of causation is ludicrous. Why isn't it reasonable and why isn't it likely?

You should judge the merits of you're hypothesis/theory on what it predicts. On Christianity nothing makes sense because reality clearly isn't what is predicted by the said hypothesis. On a neutral/agnostic/atheist/scientific position things make sense as we discover them and it's okay to say we don't know changing your theory as you go along, updating your priors with new evidence.

For example Christianity says we have free will the actual evidence points to the contrary. Christianity says there is more than the material this is unsupported perhaps unsupportable, but we can observe the material. Christianity says there is absolute morality this again contradicts all the evidence and if a deity exist would also be false so Christianity is also a paradox. To explain, if a deity existed then his subjective morality would be the law but it's still subjective. Argument form evil, Incompatible-Properties , need I go on? Logic is not on your side.

Wicknight wrote: »

What was your point again?

You claimed we choose hell. You now seem to realize that while such an idea might help you reconcile the idea of hell with an all loving God, it isn't an idea backed up by your own religion nor is it backed up by any logical argument.

The mere existences of hell itself demonstrates we don't choose it, since no one would choose that they want to exist in a state of eternal suffering.

Like I keep saying, it is not our fault the claims of your religion are nonsensical.

If you don't choose God, you choose what is not God, and whatever else goes with it.

After that you wish to argue what that the hell you don't believe in consists of :rolleyes:and that if God exists (the God you don't believe in) then your not responsible for your own adult choices he is. :rolleyes: Good luck with that.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

If you don't choose God, you choose what is not God, and whatever else goes with it.

After that you wish to argue what that the hell you don't believe in consists of :rolleyes:and that if God exists (the God you don't believe in) then your not responsible for your own adult choices he is. :rolleyes: Good luck with that.

Ultimately he is though? He created everything as you proclaim thus he is responsible for it.

seeing_ie wrote: »

No, frankly.

Also, so that you can lay off the quotation marks:

So you've made a claim that certain posts here being "unchristian", but you can't show which ones are ? Right oh.

seeing_ie wrote: »

un·chris·tian (n-krschn)adj.1. Not in accord with the spirit or principles of Christianity.
2. Not Christian.
3. Uncivilized; barbaric.

That's right, Good. Now you understand the concept of what you claimed, which posts here match that criteria and why ?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ultimately he is though? He created everything as you proclaim thus he is responsible for it.

Including the free will, by the grace of God, to do and choose as you please.
Try the God defence the next time you commit something illegal and say "it's all God's fault, not mine, ultimately I'm not responsible for my own actions and decisions, God could have stopped me if he didn't approve " and tell us how you get on with that . .

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh no not that WLC nonsense. This is a fallacious argument. I'm surprised at you, you should know better than that.

Why? William Lane Craig wasn't the first to use this argument.

As for universal morality - in most cases people are saying that it is universally binding on mankind. You are correct to say that it is subject to God, nobody would dispute that. I don't see how it is any less objective to humankind because it is subject to God.

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Including the free will, by the grace of God, to do and choose as you please.
Try the God defence the next time you commit something illegal and say "it's all God's fault, not mine, ultimately I'm not responsible for my own actions and decisions, God could have stopped me if he didn't approve " and tell us how you get on with that . .

But even if the state accepted that God made you do something, illegal is illegal. If I stone someone to death on the Sabbath for collecting sticks God's involvement or lack thereof doesn't come into deciding my guilt in the eyes of the State. I would have broken the law.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Including the free will, by the grace of God, to do and choose as you please.
Try the God defence the next time you commit something illegal and say "it's all God's fault, not mine, ultimately I'm not responsible for my own actions and decisions, God could have stopped me if he didn't approve " and tell us how you get on with that . .

I don't think you fully understand causality do you? He created everything... ...everything! If he didn't then he isn't omniscient then you have to ask yourself why he deserves to be called god if he's blind to causality.

ShooterSF wrote: »

But even if the state accepted that God made you do something . . .

Which the state never could because it accepts the concept of free will

ShooterSF wrote: »

If I stone someone to death on the Sabbath for collecting sticks God's involvement or lack thereof doesn't come into deciding my guilt in the eyes of the State. I would have broken the law.

Exactly

Quo Vadis wrote: »

If you don't choose God, you choose what is not God, and whatever else goes with it.

God choose that "not God" is hell, and God chooses to send me to hell. Both those things are his choice not mine, and his responsibility. I don't get a choice.

I appreciate that such an idea makes you very nervous, but that is just another reason why your religion is nonsense.

The concept of hell exists as a reason to kept people to follow Christianity, not as any sensible logical conclusion about what God would do.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

After that you wish to argue what that the hell you don't believe in consists of :rolleyes:and that if God exists (the God you don't believe in) then your not responsible for your own adult choices he is. :rolleyes: Good luck with that.

Indeed. If the best defense you can come up with for the illogical beliefs of yours is that I shouldn't point the illogical nature of them out because I don't believe in them, well good luck with that

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't think you fully understand causality do you?

As is often said atheists tend to understand religion more than religious people. Which is probably why they are atheists.

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Which the sate never could because it accepts the concept of free will

No. The state would require evidence to show for a start that God created us, something that doesn't exist.

You still haven't answered my question re: god interfering with Moses' freewill (can add Mary, Joseph and people his angels have appeared to etc..)

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't think you fully understand causality do you? He created everything... ...everything! If he didn't then he isn't omniscient then you have to ask yourself why he deserves to be called god if he's blind to causality.

Before you get too excited building your straw man, who's claiming any of that ?

philologos wrote: »

Why? William Lane Craig wasn't the first to use this argument.

As for universal morality - in most cases people are saying that it is universally binding on mankind. You are correct to say that it is subject to God, nobody would dispute that. I don't see how it is any less objective to humankind because it is subject to God.

The point is morality is subject no matter what your world-view. However one world-view has a better explanation of morality than the other.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Before you get too excited building your straw man, who's claiming any of that ?

So you don't believe the God of your religion is omniscient?

ShooterSF wrote: »

No. The state would require evidence to show for a start that God created us, something that doesn't exist.

It would ? why would it, if it accepts the concept of free will ? Has it ever done so in the past when people claimed to hear the voice of God ? Perhaps you can provide us with some trial records to show it would ?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So you don't believe the God of your religion is omniscient?

Where have I claimed that ?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Before you get too excited building your straw man, who's claiming any of that ?

You are, though I appreciate you don't seem to really have a clue what you claiming, you seem to be just parroting back Christian dogma.

Hell as it is doesn't just exist as it is. God made it. He must have made it because he made everything. He decided it will be as it is. He decided it wouldn't be a beach with cocktails, it would instead be a place of eternal suffering and pain.

The idea that we are choosing this is like saying Sophie in "Sophie's Choice" choose for the Nazi's to kill her daughter. Sophie given the choice wouldn't have chosen that any of her kids were killed. No one would choose hell.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Where have I claimed that ?

Oh pardon me I thought you were a Christian?

Wicknight wrote: »

You are

Where ?

Wicknight wrote: »

Hell as it is doesn't just exist as it is. God made it. He must have made it because he made everything. He decided it will be as it is. He decided it wouldn't be a beach with cocktails, it would instead be a place of eternal suffering and pain.

The idea that we are choosing this is like saying Sophie in "Sophie's Choice" choose for the Nazi's to kill her daughter. Sophie given the choice wouldn't have chosen that any of her kids were killed. No one would choose hell.

Yes, and for the atheist, as hell and God does not exist, any description of hell is irrelevant for them, as far as they are concerned they have chosen to believe there is no eternal consequences for their actions of lack of belief in God. That was their adult choice, and in the adult world if you're wrong you take the consequences that comes with your choices.

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

It would ? why would it, if it accepts the concept of free will ? Has it ever done so in the past when people claimed to hear the voice of God ? Perhaps you can provide us with some trial records to show it would ?

I haven't read of any nor do I plan to go googling them. What you are saying is that IF our state claims that we all have free-will then God must have created us with it and can't influence it?

Anywho I'm more interested in my other question that you still haven't answered