Some atheist arguments which I do not care for.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

MFaraz_Hayat

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

I think the recent scientific developments state, that time had a beginning.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But if God created universe from nothing, then didn't he just make 0=1? Doesn't that defy logic too?

MFaraz_Hayat

Yes it does. I never argued it didn't. In fact, that's an important part of my counter-argument. ;)

But then, doesn't this imply that God can easily accomplish that which human mind considers illogical and impossible?

who said God made 0=1. He did no such thing. He just used his power to create crap. Not just crap though. He did not make 0 and 1 equal. he brought one into existence period.

It's hardly a cop-out; it's the conclusion we inevitably reach if we assume the definition of omnipotence to be "the ability to do absolutely anything."

I prefer Aquinas' definition.

Theokhoth

... which is why I think it's silly to believe anything can be omnipotent. The ability to do absolutely anything is itself a logical contradiction, because it would demand that what is impossible be possible. So it IS a cop-out, because it resorts to the good old "it's beyond our comprehension" notion. For us something can not be simultaneously possible and impossible. I see no reason whatsoever why ANYTHING would not be subject to that notion. The terms are mutually exclusive.

But then, doesn't this imply that God can easily accomplish that which human mind considers illogical and impossible?

MFaraz_Hayat

No. It implies nothing. If we KNOW that God created the universe from nothing, then we would also know that it is not illogical that something can come from nothing. The problem is we don't know that. You can only ASSUME that God created something from nothing, because His existence in the context of your religion demands that.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

htekemerald

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

I think the recent scientific developments state, that time had a beginning.

Are you talking about the multi-verse thing?

Well as long as we're posting these I might as well add another.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But then, doesn't this imply that God can easily accomplish that which human mind considers illogical and impossible?

pianist

No. It implies that the universe probably didn't come from nothing. If we KNOW that God created the universe from nothing, then we would also know that it is not illogical that something can come from nothing. The problem is we don't know that. You can only ASSUME that God created something from nothing, because His existence in the context of your religion demands that.

But if God created something from nothing, then how would we know that it is not illogical that something can come from nothing? The universe created runs on"cause and effect".......

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

MFaraz_Hayat

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

I think the recent scientific developments state, that time had a beginning.

Are you talking about the multi-verse thing?

Well as long as we're posting these I might as well add another.

domatron23

Blasphemer! blaaaaaaspheeeeeemer!!

But if God created something from nothing, then how would we know that it is not illogical that something can come from nothing? The universe created runs on"cause and effect".......

MFaraz_Hayat

If we know that God exists (tangible proof) and He tells us that is what He did, then it's not illogical. In fact, it would be illogical to claim that something can't be created from nothing, because something was created from nothing. But you see the problem here, right? This all presupposes that God exists in the first place. If you can't even get that far - if you can't prove that He exists - what is the relevance of arguing how He can bend logic?

Quite simply put, if God created the universe from nothing, it logically follows that something can be created from nothing. We have no reason to believe this, though, because there is no evidence that this actually happened. We've never seen something tangible created from nothing.

Based on what standards?

The standards by which we judge anything else which either exists or does not.

I would first ask "how would you like me to prove my ideas?". Most people ask for proof completely blindly, expecting no answer, and thus have no rational standard of proof to actually apply in the first place.

If what they wanted was some way for me to prove to them that it was true, then his objection, that I believe in unproven ideas, is false, as my ideas are merely unproven to him, and his standards of proof could be flawed.

I'm left wondering, by what standard could you exactly prove your ideas? As humans, we have finite ways of knowing and determining probability. If a belief does not meet the standards of science, logic and reason it is by every acceptable measure we know of, completely irrational.

Denying logic and stubbornly admitting to being close-minded may be logical in the sense that is an honest self-analysis, but that's the extent of the logic being used, as the worldview itself is the antithesis to logic. "Logical" does not equal "objectively knowable"; therefore belief in God is, theoretically, just as logical as disbelief, especially if it involves personal experience with the supernatural.

I agree. I just see this as being the best alternative for a believer.

And that's perfectly rational. Just as if nobody believed me if I said I saw a crime being committed. They wouldn't believe me, but then, does that change the fact that I did see a crime be committed?

No, it doesn't change the objective fact. However, in a debate that's irrelevant as it's the objective fact that's being contested.

Of course not. It can't. Science, in order to function properly, requires methodological naturalism, which presupposes the event in question to be natural. Science, by definition, can't recognise any event as supernatural. Science is not the governor of logic, either.

Science can, however, determine that certain events are not explainable ny natural phenomenon. Most of the time this can be explained by our lack of knowledge about the natural processes in the universe. It is possible though that some events would be seen as probably not natural by the scientific community.

Subjectively, yes, but just as the people who don't believe I saw a crime, they are wrong in the simple, objective fact that I did see an actual event occur.

Theokhoth

Dear pianist,

have you ever tried to say your username 10 times really fast, because I just entertained myself for a good 15 minutes doing it.

I believe in a greater force, if not a being. Science, perhaps. I view the bible as something you should read for guidance in your life, but it shouldn't be interpreted word for word, especially since it's been translated at least once after being told many years ago, and who knows how they talked back then. Like how shakespeare only makes half sense? Yeah....

The only strong views i have on religion are that people should let others decide what they believe in, not try to force one's beliefs on others.

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]

One: You kept on about it, even after he corrected himself. You attacked him for changing the wording of his argument.

Two: Yes, he did correct himself. "And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist." He is referring to the burden of proof, which says that he who makes the positive claim is he who had to provide proof.

Three: If that is true, then he would contradict what he said previously, because he corrected himself to exactly what I thought he meant.

Four: I did not claim that it wasn't a bad debate style. But attacking someone's petty mistakes as opposed to addressing their point is equally bad as being rude.

Theokhoth

One: He did not correct himself.

Two: That is not a correction; that is a contradiction to his first statement. He never said anything along the lines of "I stand corrected" or "Oops, I made a mistake" and the fact that he restated his first statement once again shows that this was more likely than not the mistake and not his first statement.

In addition to this, it is also a misrepresentation of the burden of proof.

Four: Mistakes in grammar or sentence structure can make the difference in the outcome of a debate, and are hardly petty. The way a statement is worded changes a person's interpretation of it, as you and I have clearly demonstrated, so one is supposed to be as clear as possible.

Two: It does not contradict it. It is a correction. He originally said: "One must prove something exists before it can exist." His later statement said: "And to for human knowledge things must be proven before they are accepted to exist." I do not see a contradiction.

The burden of proof, if I remember correctly is defined as, ""the need for proof lies with he who complains." I see no misrepresentation of the burden of proof in his statement or mine.

Four: An honest observer would see what he meant. Attacks on one's grammar mistakes are useless; the best way to debate is to address the other's points. I am simply trying to give my thoughts on the way you handled this debate. :)

Well as long as we're posting these I might as well add another.

domatron23

Nice. ;)

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

But if God created something from nothing, then how would we know that it is not illogical that something can come from nothing? The universe created runs on"cause and effect".......

pianist

If we know that God exists (tangible proof) and He tells us that is what He did, then it's not illogical. In fact, it would be illogical to claim that something can't be created from nothing, because something was created from nothing. But you see the problem here, right? This all presupposes that God exists in the first place. If you can't even get that far - if you can't prove that He exists - what is the relevance of arguing how He can bend logic?

Quite simply put, if God created the universe from nothing, it logically follows that something can be created from nothing. We have no reason to believe this, though, because there is no evidence that this actually happened. We've never seen something tangible created from nothing.

I would love to see the look on a physicist's face, if he see something being created from nothing.....

Anyways, I thought that for sake of argument, everyone agreed that God exists..... I mean thats where the discussion started from...... The question that "can God create a rock he can't lift?".

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Deihjan"]

I'm an atheist myself, but I find that funny... now, can we get all this Atheist vs. "real" christians off of Gamespot? please?

htekemerald

I don't know the religious "argument" about it. But I think, that if God was there before the universe was created, God is not limited to the "cause and effect" thing and hence can exist without a cause.

I think the recent scientific developments state, that time had a beginning.

Are you talking about the multi-verse thing?

Once again, the original question "how did God come into existence"showed that we were discussing under the agreement that God exists.

Obviously, you have the multi-verse theory and this loop-theory too. You can believe in any...........

people should let others decide what they believe in, not try to force one's beliefs on others.

paullywog

Amen.

[QUOTE="paullywog"]

people should let others decide what they believe in, not try to force one's beliefs on others.

harashawn

Amen.

I really don't know how beliefs can be forced.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="paullywog"]

people should let others decide what they believe in, not try to force one's beliefs on others.

MFaraz_Hayat

Amen.

I really don't know how beliefs can be forced.

You can't force somebody to believe something, ever.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="paullywog"]

people should let others decide what they believe in, not try to force one's beliefs on others.

-Jiggles-

Amen.

I really don't know how beliefs can be forced.

You can't force somebody to believe something, ever.

Though so many people try...

I would love to see the look on a physicist's face, if he see something being created from nothing.....

MFaraz_Hayat

This is, um, 'above my pay grade', but according to quantum physics, even 'nothing' itself is unstable.