Is There A God?

[ding]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

 

[GaryDog]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

 

[ding]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

 

[Czernobog]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

 

[Czernobog]

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

 

[ding]

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

 

[Czernobog]

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

Wrong. If every event requires a cause, there is no first cause, only an infinite string of events, and causes. You want to invent a "first cause", in oder to justify your irrational belief ina Creator.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[GaryDog]

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

Wrong. If every event requires a cause, there is no first cause, only an infinite string of events, and causes. You want to invent a "first cause", in oder to justify your irrational belief ina Creator.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Bingo.

 

[GaryDog]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

 

[ding]

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

Wrong. If every event requires a cause, there is no first cause, only an infinite string of events, and causes. You want to invent a "first cause", in oder to justify your irrational belief ina Creator.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Which is why the first cause is eternal. In fact the best definition for the first cause is objective reality or truth or final state of fact. For everything there is a final state of fact that once it is discovered it is known that it was always true even when it was believed otherwise and that it will always be true. In effect the final state of fact or objective truth is eternal.

 

[Czernobog]

Which dictates the the creation of your For must also have been caused. By what?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

Wrong. If every event requires a cause, there is no first cause, only an infinite string of events, and causes. You want to invent a "first cause", in oder to justify your irrational belief ina Creator.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Which is why the first cause is eternal. In fact the best definition for the first cause is objective reality or truth or final state of fact. For everything there is a final state of fact that once it is discovered it is known that it was always true even when it was believed otherwise and that it will always be true. In effect the final state of fact or objective truth is eternal.

Wrong. There is not first cause. You keep talking about a "First Cause" while simultaneously insisting that every event must have a cause. You are inventing a thing that does not exist. Period. You can keep referring to this imaginary "First Cause" all you like, but the existence of a "first cause" simply cannot be reconciled with your contention that every event must have a cause.

 

[ding]

That would be like saying it is turtles all the way down. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal.

No, logic dictates that can be no "first cause",l since it is your premise that every event must have a cause.

No. Logic dictates that the first cause must be eternal. Otherwise you end up in an infinite loop of first cause which in effect proves that the first cause is indeed eternal because that is what an infinite loop is. Furthermore all of our equations of space and time at the event horizon. How do they break down? They don't calculate to undefined values. They yield infinite values. Infinity = eternal.

Wrong. If every event requires a cause, there is no first cause, only an infinite string of events, and causes. You want to invent a "first cause", in oder to justify your irrational belief ina Creator.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Which is why the first cause is eternal. In fact the best definition for the first cause is objective reality or truth or final state of fact. For everything there is a final state of fact that once it is discovered it is known that it was always true even when it was believed otherwise and that it will always be true. In effect the final state of fact or objective truth is eternal.

Wrong. There is not first cause. You keep talking about a "First Cause" while simultaneously insisting that every event must have a cause. You are inventing a thing that does not exist. Period. You can keep referring to this imaginary "First Cause" all you like, but the existence of a "first cause" simply cannot be reconciled with your contention that every event must have a cause.

Inside this universe every effect does have a cause, with the key world being "inside." What we are discussing is outside the universe. Who knows? What we can know is that if the first cause needed a first cause then by definition that is eternal in and of itself. So either way the answer is the cause of the first cause is eternal. Which ironically is what the calculations yield.

 

[Mudda]

There is no proof of a god, nor is there any proof that a god is not possible. Therefore, agnosticism is the thinking person's position.

 

[ding]

See post #387, #467 and #475. I have nothing else to add.

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

 

[GaryDog]

See my post #476 and its cited previous posts.
It demonstrates:
1) your inability to provide a reasonable teleological argument for a god (itself a naive explanation);
2) that you are a "weak atheist" relative to ALL religions other than your own; and
3) you cannot even adequately conceptualize your religious perception of "God" to explain anything rational beyond a child's simplistic view à la "he did it".

A philosopher you are not.

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

Because you believe in a creator, but you have no cause for it.

 

[ding]

I never claimed to be a philosopher. I only claimed to be logical. By your idiotic logic everyone must at least be some form of an atheist. I don't accept that because belief in God precludes that. No human can accurately conceptualize the nature of God. That would be like asking an ant to concepialize a human. It just isn't possible to do so with any precision or accuracy. I am not arguing any aspect of God with you. Your comment about analyzing the DNA of your shit told me all I needed to know about you.

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

Because you believe in a creator, but you have no cause for it.

There is no cause needed for a Creator as the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal... like our Creator. Time does not exist outside of our universe. In fact, some would argue that time does not exist at all.

 

[GaryDog]

lol, no one can claim this, and yet believe that an invisible sky daddy tells him what to do.

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

Because you believe in a creator, but you have no cause for it.

There is no cause needed for a Creator as the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal... like our Creator. Time does not exist outside of our universe. In fact, some would argue that time does not exist at all.

This is made-up bullshit. Received wisdom, repeated by the brainwashed. It has all the evidentiary backing of Zeus, Thor, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Above all, it's not "rational" and therefore proves my statement correct.

 

[ding]

Sure I can. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. It would be illogical not to believe that there was no cause and given what we do know about our universe that cause would need to be eternal.

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

Because you believe in a creator, but you have no cause for it.

There is no cause needed for a Creator as the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal... like our Creator. Time does not exist outside of our universe. In fact, some would argue that time does not exist at all.

This is made-up bullshit. Received wisdom, repeated by the brainwashed. It has all the evidentiary backing of Zeus, Thor, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Above all, it's not "rational" and therefore proves my statement correct.

No, Gary, it is not made up bullshit. It is logic and reason. You do realize that you can test received wisdom, right? Cause and effect are useful tools for testing received wisdom. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. We can observe outcomes to determine the difference between successful and failed behaviors, thus confirming or denying received wisdom.

 

[GaryDog]

This makes zero sense in the context of your claim of a creator.

How so?

Because you believe in a creator, but you have no cause for it.

There is no cause needed for a Creator as the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal... like our Creator. Time does not exist outside of our universe. In fact, some would argue that time does not exist at all.

This is made-up bullshit. Received wisdom, repeated by the brainwashed. It has all the evidentiary backing of Zeus, Thor, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Above all, it's not "rational" and therefore proves my statement correct.

No, Gary, it is not made up bullshit. It is logic and reason. You do realize that you can test received wisdom, right? Cause and effect are useful tools for testing received wisdom. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. We can observe outcomes to determine the difference between successful and failed behaviors, thus confirming or denying received wisdom.

Which, again, totally undercuts your unsubstantiated wild guess that some immensely complicated force formed out of nothing to create the universe.