There Is No God

[J.W.]

 

Seriously, the apologist argument that makes the most sense is the argument from complexity. Ever the skeptic, I still marvel at the human body and brain and the amazing things that make us work.

 

 

Self assembly does exist. For me proving it exists is as good as proving a life form self assembles, because when you prove self assembly happens all you need is a long enough period of time. I could swing more Darwinism but I will save that for the true Christians that want to throw down

[RabbleRabble]

Something set off the Big Bang. Whatever that "first cause" was is what I call God. Therefore God exist

 

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch. The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

 

You say that as if it is established fact, but as I understand it The Big Crunch is only one of many scenarios. It doesn't change the argument either. Even if it's true I would just point to it as God.

 

You can't randomly change the definition of God that is equivocation. You cant prove God was the initial cause, that is just one possibility, and an archaic one that is not supported by the scientific community.

 

What?! No redefinitions? So I guess you won't accept "God is love" either huh? damn

[Mriana]

No, no. Love IS God.

[J.W.]

No, no. Love IS God.

[Mriana]

No, no. Love IS God.

 

Whaaaat? Hey, I already said I was no good at this and look what I did for the animals? I made it so they are in heaven, show evidence of being related to us, and can now talk. It would be a boon. The lion gets ticked off with humans, he can now say, "Bite me!" AND he can talk it out with the lamb and they can be best friends.

 

Oh wait! That was another thread I did that for the animals.... *Gilda Radner's voice* Never mind!

[Ouroboros]

Something set off the Big Bang. Whatever that "first cause" was is what I call God. Therefore God exist

 

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch.

It's not proven. It's one out of several possible scenarios.

 

The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

Actually, the Universe is expanding in an increasing speed. The dark energy seems to win the battle over the dark mass. That means that the end of the Universe will be that the fabric of space will be stretched until even the atoms break apart to particles, and particles to quarks.

[Ouroboros]

The universe is god. Prove that the universe isn't real.

 

Takes off pantheist hat.

 

Equivocation is a fallacy and you will be listed under semantic shift. A different definition of God can not be used in the same context.

So pantheists do not exist?

 

I think you are making a false assumption by claiming that the definition of God must match only the definitions you have established; hence, it's not a fallacy of equivocation.

 

What is God? First you have to stipulate exactly what attributes you are considering for the God you are disproving. The fallacy of equivocation can only occur when a word has clear distinct meanings, but the meanings are different. Like "ass" which means both butt and donkey. Both meanings well established. Not like the word "blob" meaning blob-this-kind or blob-that-kind. In the latter case the problem is clear and precise definition of the word you are discussing, not the problem of using it in different ways (since neither way is clearly established at the beginning).

 

Let me be more specific. You didn't say, "Prove the Christian God does exist--a personal, thinking, living being, kind of God." Not at all. You just said, "Prove God exists."

 

Which God? What kind of God? What parameters? What attributes? What are the limiting factors on this word which means so many different and contradictory things through history?

 

Some people believe God and the Universe is One. You don't. But you can't say those people have not proven God just because they are defining God in the "wrong" way according to you. Do you follow?

 

It's like me saying, "prove that you are a human." And then you start giving me all the evidence that you are a human, but in the end I'll say that the definition of human is "every person who is not you." It's a surprising ending to the discussion because you didn't expect that to be part of the definition.

 

So to compare that example to this discussion here. You didn't define God, and then you claim someone broke the definition. How could they? They didn't read your mind or know what definition you were using.

 

Or put it this way, you committed "moving the goalpost" fallacy and the "incomplete comparison" fallacy by invoking the "equivocation" fallacy in the middle of the debate without a stipulation to support it.

[Ouroboros]

But you would agree that God: 1. has to be greater than a human to be a God to a human 2. Has to have intelligence 3. Has to interfere in the affairs of men

Ah. Now, here's your definition finally.

 

Theism is when people believe in that kind of God. Deists don't believe God interfere, so point 3 must be removed.

 

Regarding point 2, my question is: What is intelligence? How do you define it? Who has it? How do they have it? Can a complex machine have it? How do we have intelligence? If intelligence arise from complexity in Nature, doesn't it mean that intelligence is natural and part of it? How can we be sure that there are no other forms of intelligence?

 

Have you read Stanislav Lem's "Solaris"? I think it expresses the problem of understanding what intelligence is and how to communicate with it.

 

And for point 1, Nature and the world is greater than all human beings. Just watch some educational videos about the Universe. It's extremely big and powerful.

 

In other words, I don't think you have disproved the Universe to be God. It's not a fallacy of equivocation at all.

[PK!]

Archaeology has time and time again proven the bible to be a very historically accurate. Therefore, the bible can be trusted as the word of god.

 

There is not a shred of evolutionary evidence. None. Evolution is a religion that only exists because scientists do not want to face the alternative; GOD!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too easy? This is the kind of shit I get on a daily basis. Some of my friends refuse to read/study anything that is not "of god". Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[Rev R]

Can I have my five minutes back please?

[RabbleRabble]

The Bible itself is proof of God and His divinity. A book that has been written over such a large period of time and by so many different authors and yet is so perfectly without flaws or contradictions and with one uniform message..... it can only be from God as claimed!

[J.W.]

The universe is god. Prove that the universe isn't real.

 

Takes off pantheist hat.

 

Equivocation is a fallacy and you will be listed under semantic shift. A different definition of God can not be used in the same context.

So pantheists do not exist?

 

I think you are making a false assumption by claiming that the definition of God must match only the definitions you have established; hence, it's not a fallacy of equivocation.

 

What is God? First you have to stipulate exactly what attributes you are considering for the God you are disproving. The fallacy of equivocation can only occur when a word has clear distinct meanings, but the meanings are different. Like "ass" which means both butt and donkey. Both meanings well established. Not like the word "blob" meaning blob-this-kind or blob-that-kind. In the latter case the problem is clear and precise definition of the word you are discussing, not the problem of using it in different ways (since neither way is clearly established at the beginning).

 

Let me be more specific. You didn't say, "Prove the Christian God does exist--a personal, thinking, living being, kind of God." Not at all. You just said, "Prove God exists."

 

Which God? What kind of God? What parameters? What attributes? What are the limiting factors on this word which means so many different and contradictory things through history?

 

Some people believe God and the Universe is One. You don't. But you can't say those people have not proven God just because they are defining God in the "wrong" way according to you. Do you follow?

 

It's like me saying, "prove that you are a human." And then you start giving me all the evidence that you are a human, but in the end I'll say that the definition of human is "every person who is not you." It's a surprising ending to the discussion because you didn't expect that to be part of the definition.

 

So to compare that example to this discussion here. You didn't define God, and then you claim someone broke the definition. How could they? They didn't read your mind or know what definition you were using.

 

Or put it this way, you committed "moving the goalpost" fallacy and the "incomplete comparison" fallacy by invoking the "equivocation" fallacy in the middle of the debate without a stipulation to support it.

 

Genuine points, I did move the goal post by not defining God first. Im not used to the idea of a pantheist God. To me just going of #1 [greater than human] could reduce a God down to an Orca, so I don't think the #1 in my definition is enough. A different God was presented that what I considered "standard" and so evoked equivocation as different gods can not be spoken of in the same context. By "standard" I mean 3 billion or more people believe in a god thats 1. Greater than human 2. Intelligence greater than human 3. Interferes with men

 

I would also like to point out that if we go by the Deist god #1 and #2-- I would like to exclude Aliens now as they may fit the definition since I was flexible enough not to evoke the supernatural.

 

Because I am not educated enough in a pantheist god-- I will have to stop short of saying it exists but admit my wrong. I should have defined god clearer.

[J.W.]

Something set off the Big Bang. Whatever that "first cause" was is what I call God. Therefore God exist

 

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch.

It's not proven. It's one out of several possible scenarios.

 

The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

Actually, the Universe is expanding in an increasing speed. The dark energy seems to win the battle over the dark mass. That means that the end of the Universe will be that the fabric of space will be stretched until even the atoms break apart to particles, and particles to quarks.

 

 

The point was to illustrate the possibility of "No First Cause". Since if I say the Big Bang they say "God did it". Then who made God? They say "He always existed". I say the universe always existed. They say "Then how do you explain the Big Bang. Where did the material come from and how did it get to one spot?" And thats when I say "The Big Crunch. Its a cycle there was no beginning."

 

In short-- the possibility of no first cause exists and if you use Occams razor it will be the most likely explanation.

[J.W.]

Can I have my five minutes back please?

 

No, in fact you will waste much more in here

[J.W.]

But you would agree that God: 1. has to be greater than a human to be a God to a human 2. Has to have intelligence 3. Has to interfere in the affairs of men

 

Have you read Stanislav Lem's "Solaris"? I think it express the problem of understanding what intelligence is and how to communicate with it.

 

 

Going to put a library hold online right now, and will try to squeeze it in after What does it mean to be Human, The New Humanist, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

 

I like psych books

[Mriana]

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point?

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

[J.W.]

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point?

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

 

It open to christians Mrian, but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it.. A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

[Mriana]

It open to christians Mrian,

 

I know, but they don't seem to be jumping into the conversation.

 

but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

I'm not one for sports.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it..

 

They haven't yet.

 

A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

Well apparently when they (Xians) open their mouths (or post), they show they do not know anything.

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

 

Well, I must admit, I'm having a bit of fun sitting back and playing the female version of the Old Men from the Muppet Show and alike deals. Maybe I'll have some more Classic SNL, Laugh-In moments, and alike stuff it the thread keep going.

[Ouroboros]

Genuine points, I did move the goal post by not defining God first. Im not used to the idea of a pantheist God. To me just going of #1 [greater than human] could reduce a God down to an Orca, so I don't think the #1 in my definition is enough. A different God was presented that what I considered "standard" and so evoked equivocation as different gods can not be spoken of in the same context. By "standard" I mean 3 billion or more people believe in a god thats 1. Greater than human 2. Intelligence greater than human 3. Interferes with men

Apology accepted.

 

I think it's more like 5 billion people who believe in the theistic God.

 

I would also like to point out that if we go by the Deist god #1 and #2-- I would like to exclude Aliens now as they may fit the definition since I was flexible enough not to evoke the supernatural.

Very true.

 

Here's food for thought: by any means, isn't God an alien per definition? Alien as in, a being not born or existing on this planet.

 

Because I am not educated enough in a pantheist god-- I will have to stop short of saying it exists but admit my wrong. I should have defined god clearer.

Very good.

 

I make the same mistake too. Forget or don't know about some particular definition or variation of what I'm discussing. No harm done.

[Ouroboros]

The point was to illustrate the possibility of "No First Cause". Since if I say the Big Bang they say "God did it". Then who made God? They say "He always existed". I say the universe always existed. They say "Then how do you explain the Big Bang. Where did the material come from and how did it get to one spot?" And thats when I say "The Big Crunch. Its a cycle there was no beginning."

Sure. And there are multiple other ways it could have come to be. My favorite version is the multiverse. The idea that our universe is just one in an infinite amount of universes within some superverse. The ekpyrotic/brane theory is also pretty cool.

 

In short-- the possibility of no first cause exists and if you use Occams razor it will be the most likely explanation.

Agree.

 

First Cause is, to me at least, a bad argument for God. It completely removes the idea of multiple causes.

 

If the premise is based on our observations in this universe, then the First Cause must be natural, since we're comparing natural cause-events to the First Cause. It has to be in the same category.

[Mriana]

OK OK I got one... God is like the wind. In Hebrew thought: ruach, the very breath of God, the mighty wind. You can't see God, but you know God's there because you can feel God. Secondly, if you take/borrow from the Jews, God is the Breath of Life/life breath- Nephesh. The spirit. The source of life.

 

How's that? Better than "Love IS God"? Does it give you something to work with?

 

I have to run, but I'll be back later to see what you do with that one. If you need some help with what I just said, go take on Spong (or maybe even a Jew) while I'm gone.

[J.W.]

OK OK I got one... God is like the wind. In Hebrew thought: ruach, the very breath of God, the mighty wind. You can't see God, but you know God's there because you can feel God. Secondly, if you take/borrow from the Jews, God is the Breath of Life/life breath- Nephesh. The spirit. The source of life.

 

How's that? Better than "Love IS God"? Does it give you something to work with?

 

I have to run, but I'll be back later to see what you do with that one. If you need some help with what I just said, go take on Spong (or maybe even a Jew) while I'm gone.

 

Life is animation. Its ultimate source is movement. If it doesnt move its dead. Movement ultimately comes from attraction [gravity, polarity ect.]. There is no spirit-- the source of life is movement, and the source of movement is attraction, and the source of attraction is a property of mass itself, and mass has always existed

[Mriana]

OK OK I got one... God is like the wind. In Hebrew thought: ruach, the very breath of God, the mighty wind. You can't see God, but you know God's there because you can feel God. Secondly, if you take/borrow from the Jews, God is the Breath of Life/life breath- Nephesh. The spirit. The source of life.

 

How's that? Better than "Love IS God"? Does it give you something to work with?

 

I have to run, but I'll be back later to see what you do with that one. If you need some help with what I just said, go take on Spong (or maybe even a Jew) while I'm gone.

 

Life is animation. Its ultimate source is movement. If it doesnt move its dead. Movement ultimately comes from attraction [gravity, polarity ect.]. There is no spirit-- the source of life is movement, and the source of movement is attraction, and the source of attraction is a property of mass itself, and mass has always existed

 

No insult intended, but that made about as much sense as Fundie thinking and just as circular. Also sounds like you are saying such a god is alive because it moves. Therefore, when you lift a stone, you see "God" because there is life under the stone. (I'm putting my mind in Spong's line of thinking) The theistic god is dead, but to him the non-theistic god is very much alive because it does move.

[Kathlene]

OK, but um... Stupid question here... What is this thread? Practice for when a Fundie gives you hell for being an atheist?

 

Sorry, I know I haven't been much fun through this whole thread and maybe at times sound like the female version of the old men from The Muppet Show, but it does seem like batting practice to me. I haven't seen any Xians join this thread and throw any balls your way. Seems to me the OP, JW, is just wanting a little practice batting practice at debunking Xian statements. So what's the point?

 

Here, for example, is what I love best to do when Xains start talking tripe on the bus: "Meh." then stick my iPod headphones on/in my ears and turn it up loud enough that I can't hear them. At best, I can read their lips, but they aren't bothering me with what they are saying, even if they are trying to preach to everyone on the bus. I don't have to join in on the conversation that arises. Then I get off the bus and do my thing, all by myself and return home in the same manner. No weirdo Xian bothers me then and I don't have to practice anything. I can go about business without talking to anyone except the bus driver, those at the destination, or maybe by chance someone I know.

 

It open to christians Mrian, but to answer your question I like practice as much as the real thing. If you go prepared you don't loose as much. I like the batting cages in real life for that reason as well.

 

Its open to a Christian, but I don't think they will take it.. A far as what you are insinuating-- why would any true Christian be in here unless 1. They are on their way leaving Christianity or 2. They want to battle to prove to themselves and the world that there is evidence for God or 3. They want to bring people back to God

 

If you removed the hypothetical I think a lot of the forum would go away but not every thread is for everybody. If its not worthy, and it may not be-- it will die

 

 

Whoa dude I resent this implication a bit. I am a so called christian and I come in here to enjoy the company of people and to read the posts and ocassionally write something. I don't come in here all aggressive like some others who dump their stuff and run. In fact I find those christians to be offensive. Sure, they want to debate, but do they actually know you guys and your lives and stories? Ive come to know lots of people's stories in here from reading the posts as people write a lot about themselves. I am tired of being accused of being some sort of soft sasquatch in here by some because Im not this gungho christian debating and carrying on.

 

In fact I highly doubt Jesus ranted and raved with foam at his mouth preaching to the types of people he hung out with. He just was, and was there with them. He had dinner with them, he sat around chatting with people. Sure there were lots of instances in the Bible where he preached, I don't deny that, but mostly we was just a humble people person. I do the same thing and I get accused of being lame and soft.

 

Tell me, after all the christians come trumping in here displaying their wares and debating skills, does it change any of your minds and go aha, I now believe in God! NO.

 

What sort of respect levels do you have for them? nada.

And yet apparently I am a soft lame christian because I dont do the same.

So my agenda is not to preach, not to carry on foaming at the mouth, it is to just be here listen and interact, with no hidden agenda of you guys going whoa God must be real cause look at her! That is not the case either. I do not come in here to enjoy being so called belittled and persecuted as some have accused me of doing. I come in here as a HUMAN being, that just happens to have a christian label. Sure this is an EX-christian site, but I personally love the gang in here that I have come to know and it would sadden me a lot to think that my label of christian would exclude and draw lines in the ground for friendship. I dont carry that label as some bashing tool or badge to shout about it every time I post or whatever. Yes there have been occasions I have posted in the christian capacity and failed miserably. So I rarely do it.

 

Sorry JW this rant isn't directed at you. Its at a lot of the foolish things that constantly get thrown at me on a daily basis in here by some. Sorry this post is so long too.

 

Cheers.

[J.W.]

OK OK I got one... God is like the wind. In Hebrew thought: ruach, the very breath of God, the mighty wind. You can't see God, but you know God's there because you can feel God. Secondly, if you take/borrow from the Jews, God is the Breath of Life/life breath- Nephesh. The spirit. The source of life.

 

How's that? Better than "Love IS God"? Does it give you something to work with?

 

I have to run, but I'll be back later to see what you do with that one. If you need some help with what I just said, go take on Spong (or maybe even a Jew) while I'm gone.

 

Life is animation. Its ultimate source is movement. If it doesnt move its dead. Movement ultimately comes from attraction [gravity, polarity ect.]. There is no spirit-- the source of life is movement, and the source of movement is attraction, and the source of attraction is a property of mass itself, and mass has always existed

 

No insult intended, but that made about as much sense as Fundie thinking and just as circular. Also sounds like you are saying such a god is alive because it moves. Therefore, when you lift a stone, you see "God" because there is life under the stone. (I'm putting my mind in Spong's line of thinking) The theistic god is dead, but to him the non-theistic god is very much alive because it does move.

 

Nope I am saying there is no god, and that life springs from movement. Your heart beats and blood flows and when it does not you are dead. God is not a part of it. I am using one basic thing in common with religion though... they claim god has been around forever... I think the universe [matter and attraction] has been around forever and has always been moving and therefore has always been pushing torwards life.. it is a sort of life in its own way.. the sun is moving.. fire is moving and it breathes and it grows and it reproduces