A question for atheists and agnostics

[selfinflikted]

Two realities:

One: Scientists have never been able to create biological life from the inert. Yet that is exactly what people wish to believe "mother nature" achieved without thought.

Two: The Jew has existed for thousands of years as Jews and yet the world has continuously tried to absorb, disperse, and eradicate them. The Bible says this will not happen --------- and it hasn't.

So....?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Yes... I didn't realize it, but I suppose even if one could prove something could come into existence with no physical stimulae, it wouldn't prove something could come into existence based on nothing, would it?
Hence origin being in the realm of philosophy.

I do not think any modern cosmologies are true something-from-nothing paradigms. They all posit some radically different something which gave rise to space and time via vacuum fluctuation or what have you.

But even though it has no apparent cause, it has certain factors that must be present, like the presence of a quark?
So logically, there must be something happening with the quark to cause the boson.

I don't think so. I believe such events are considered causeless and entirely random.

 

[Nathan45]

...and this means that we can presume that - if we define "god" to be this uncaused cause - god either exists or doesn´t exist. Unless, of course, we define "god" to be this infinite regress, as well.

The next step would be to find some way to show that infinite regress is impossible...

which i don't know how to do, other than that it seems even more absurd than an uncaused cause.

Another question would be: Whence the conclusion that there can only be one ("an") uncaused cause? )It doesn´t seem to follow from anything - if we allow for the possibility that things can be uncaused there can be countless uncaused causes (gods).

Yes. i discusssed this a bit earlier...

if you believe in free will ( that is the belief that your mind is more than probabilistic or deterministic chemical reactions, and you are actually in control) then, that means that every whim you make is it's own uncaused cause.

As far as i know there is no reason to conclude from the cosmological argument that there is only one uncaused cause.

 

[Nathan45]

I suppose the boiled-down argument is:
God is the cause of us.
We cannot possess the perfections that the definition of perfection, the ultimate form, does not.
Intelligence is a perfection.
God is the definition of perfection.
He must possess it.

And you're still not making any sense. As far as i can tell, your basic argument is that God created us so God must be perfect.

This would be a non-sequitur, except you define perfection as God.

Since you define perfection as "God", you can keep going, until you hit the point "Intelligence is a perfection" which is an equivocation fallacy, because you already defined perfection as "God" not "Intelligence".

 

[b&wpac4]

Two realities:

One: Scientists have never been able to create biological life from the inert. Yet that is exactly what people wish to believe "mother nature" achieved without thought.

Two: The Jew has existed for thousands of years as Jews and yet the world has continuously tried to absorb, disperse, and eradicate them. The Bible says this will not happen --------- and it hasn't.

So...

Does that mean maybe the Jew is correct and the messiah has not yet arrived to lead them?

 

[LittleNipper]

So....?

Creation must be or have been a special act AND NOT NATURAL OR COMMON. The Jew as a peculiar people must be the result of supernatural intervention, and again: not the result of luck (which I do not believe exists but what seems to be the god of those who have problems with DIVINE intervention).

 

[cantata]

if you believe in free will ( that is the belief that your mind is more than probabilistic or deterministic chemical reactions, and you are actually in control) then, that means that every whim you make is it's own uncaused cause.

What if one doesn't believe in free will?

 

[TheBear]

Does that mean maybe the Jew is correct and the messiah has not yet arrived to lead them?

Good question, which was completely cut out of his reply. I'd be interested in his answer to that as well.

 

[LittleNipper]

So...

Does that mean maybe the Jew is correct and the messiah has not yet arrived to lead them?

No, it means that they maybe very wrong; however, GOD made a promise to Abraham and HE intends to keep it. The Jew is still GOD choosen. They will eventually come around ----------- GOD knows that. See Revelation Chapter 7.

 

[b&wpac4]

No, it means that they maybe very wrong; however, GOD made a promise to Abraham and HE intends to keep it. The Jew is still GOD choosen. They will eventually come around ----------- GOD knows that. See Revelation Chapter 7.

Jews aren't really all that impressed with Revelation chapter 7. Or any chapter... or the whole New Testament.

They are still waiting for the messiah to them. The one that would be their great king and lead them.

 

[LittleNipper]

What if one doesn't believe in free will?

You're free to believe that. However, one must also endure the consequences that go along with such.

 

[LittleNipper]

Jews aren't really all that impressed with Revelation chapter 7. Or any chapter... or the whole New Testament.

They are still waiting for the messiah to them. The one that would be their great king and lead them.

A worldly king and not a SPIRITUAL KING. Exactly, what the Jews were disappointled not to see in JESUS 2000 years ago... What man understands and what GOD understands are two different things.

 

[cantata]

You're free to believe that. However, one must also endure the consequences that go along with such.

What consequences?

 

[cantata]

No, it means that they maybe very wrong; however, GOD made a promise to Abraham and HE intends to keep it. The Jew is still GOD choosen. They will eventually come around ----------- GOD knows that. See Revelation Chapter 7.

It's interesting to see Jews used as an apologetic tool by people who are nevertheless unashamedly antisemitic.

I suppose they are liked and supported as long as they are useful.

 

[selfinflikted]

Creation must be or have been a special act AND NOT NATURAL OR COMMON.

Why?

The Jew as a peculiar people must be the result of supernatural intervention,

Why?

and again: not the result of luck (which I do not believe exists but what seems to be the god of those who have problems with DIVINE intervention).

And lastly, ... why?

 

[MaxP]

...and this means that we can presume that - if we define "god" to be this uncaused cause - god either exists or doesn´t exist. Unless, of course, we define "god" to be this infinite regress, as well.

Another question would be: Whence the conclusion that there can only be one ("an") uncaused cause? )It doesn´t seem to follow from anything - if we allow for the possibility that things can be uncaused there can be countless uncaused causes (gods).

Anything that has the possibility of being or not being is caused.

 

[b&wpac4]

A worldly king and not a SPIRITUAL KING. Exactly, what the Jews were disappointled not to see in JESUS 2000 years ago... What man understands and what GOD understands are two different things.

That doesn't explain why they must be wrong though.

 

[MaxP]

You seemed surprised when you learned that some of us atheists aren't against the idea of a god. What many are against, though, is certainty when there shouldn't reasonably be any. Subscribing to an untestable idea is one thing, claiming it is the absolute truth is another thing entirely.

Well, my intent in this thread was not to convince you all; but try to convince those who are against the idea of God as illogical, that it is not.
God requires a measure of faith to believe in, He Himself commands faith, so its logical that there can be no absolute proof(besides the number of people, saints, He has performed miracle through over the years).

In all honesty, though, I commend your determination, level-headedness, and typing speed. Lesser members would have gone into crazy or exasperated rants by now.

Thank you. A lot of discussions devolve into name calling and ranting, I hope to avoid that.

 

[cantata]

Anything that has the possibility of being or not being is caused.

What makes you think that matter has the possibility of not being?

 

[quatona]

Anything that has the possibility of being or not being is caused.

That may be an excellent answer - but to which question?
Plus: How do you determine what has this possibility and what hasn´t?