Has God ever said something, only for it not to happen?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Prayer is ridiculous
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
Has God ever said something, only for it not to happen?
Werbung:
Dr. Who, thats a nice analogy and ties in quite closely with the cosmological argument. However, what the cosmological argument and your argument fail to bring to light is why anyone should pick a certain religion.
Sure, I can accept that every action in the universe has a cause, and so the very creation should therefore require a cause. What I cant accept is why thats the Christian God, or Allah, or Vishnu.
So far, I stand by my statement:
I have never had a religious experience or felt contact with any God, and so for me to pick an organised religion and follow it is totally irrational and the various religions cannot show me how they are the truth.
Sure, I can accept that every action in the universe has a cause, and so the very creation should therefore require a cause. What I cant accept is why thats the Christian God, or Allah, or Vishnu.
So far, I stand by my statement:
I have never had a religious experience or felt contact with any God, and so for me to pick an organised religion and follow it is totally irrational and the various religions cannot show me how they are the truth.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
The cosmological argument was discredited years ago.
The fallacy that it had to start somewhere so therefore god is circular reasoning.
It just poses the question 'where did god come from?'.
For some reason chistians expect people to accept this as some kind of proof of god's existence.
So, 9sublime not only does it not point to anyone's specific god, it doesn't point to god at all.
The fact is that we don't know what started it all and making up answers that defy logic and are unsupported by evidence is not helpful.
In fact it is worse than that as it promotes ignorance and superstition.
Like believing in a talking snake
The fallacy that it had to start somewhere so therefore god is circular reasoning.
It just poses the question 'where did god come from?'.
For some reason chistians expect people to accept this as some kind of proof of god's existence.
So, 9sublime not only does it not point to anyone's specific god, it doesn't point to god at all.
The fact is that we don't know what started it all and making up answers that defy logic and are unsupported by evidence is not helpful.
In fact it is worse than that as it promotes ignorance and superstition.
Like believing in a talking snake
Dawkins, that logic is flawed.
The cosmological argument asserts everything in the universe must have a cause, because everything we know in the universe has come from something else, whether it be you from your mother, all the way to humans from single cell organism and even further to the very creation of the universe.
However, this is because the universe is controlled by various physical laws and time etc. However, if God is external to the universe, whatever God is, is not bound by these laws and so could, therefore, be an eternal entity with no neccessary cause.
The problem is we don't have a clue in all honesty what is outside the universe, thats where I agree with you. However, your arrogant, one track criticism show that you follow Dawkins too closely. I hate organised religion, but even I know dawkins is a knob.
The cosmological argument asserts everything in the universe must have a cause, because everything we know in the universe has come from something else, whether it be you from your mother, all the way to humans from single cell organism and even further to the very creation of the universe.
However, this is because the universe is controlled by various physical laws and time etc. However, if God is external to the universe, whatever God is, is not bound by these laws and so could, therefore, be an eternal entity with no neccessary cause.
The problem is we don't have a clue in all honesty what is outside the universe, thats where I agree with you. However, your arrogant, one track criticism show that you follow Dawkins too closely. I hate organised religion, but even I know dawkins is a knob.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You know Richard Dawkins is a knob???
Oh dear.
You offer up a fantsay idea of something with zero support save for a book with talking snakes in it and you suggest that a world renowned scientists who questions this is a knob.
I think that puts you fairly and squarely in the file marked 'deluded'
Oh dear.
You offer up a fantsay idea of something with zero support save for a book with talking snakes in it and you suggest that a world renowned scientists who questions this is a knob.
I think that puts you fairly and squarely in the file marked 'deluded'
I don't believe in the Bible, if you had bothered to actually digest the information in my post. As a matter of fact, I think all organised religion is horse****.
Once again, you have had an argument logically revoked, and instead you pick out a smaller more insignificant point in my post and hope the rest will be forgotten. First it was your question about knowing whether it was going to rain, which you dodged. Secondly, you completley ignore what I said in respect to the cosmological argument.
It seems you are just as much blindly following something as the religious people you hate so much. Some people might have GodRocks are their name, but you have DawkinsRocks instead. You swallow what he tells you without thinking about it, spout some of it in an argument with (so far) seemingly little understanding and then, like those who follow religion without thinking about it, go off on a rant rather than being rational in your debating.
You are also just as bigoted in your militant atheist beliefs as those who try and force religion on other people. Go off, learn how to debate and ground your position solidly and then come back if you have the capacity. Are you going to debate my points, or maybe criticize my spelling, place of residence, shoe size or something to try and avoid the issue?
Once again, you have had an argument logically revoked, and instead you pick out a smaller more insignificant point in my post and hope the rest will be forgotten. First it was your question about knowing whether it was going to rain, which you dodged. Secondly, you completley ignore what I said in respect to the cosmological argument.
It seems you are just as much blindly following something as the religious people you hate so much. Some people might have GodRocks are their name, but you have DawkinsRocks instead. You swallow what he tells you without thinking about it, spout some of it in an argument with (so far) seemingly little understanding and then, like those who follow religion without thinking about it, go off on a rant rather than being rational in your debating.
You are also just as bigoted in your militant atheist beliefs as those who try and force religion on other people. Go off, learn how to debate and ground your position solidly and then come back if you have the capacity. Are you going to debate my points, or maybe criticize my spelling, place of residence, shoe size or something to try and avoid the issue?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You should read my post.
I didn't say you believe the bible.
I am not blindly following anyything.
Religion is a nasty pernicious evil invented by man to control and impoverish people.
It holds back science because of the threat science is to its lunatic ideas, it is responsible for untold misery and it has a stranglehold on politics in world powers like the US.
Palin thinks the war on Iraq is god's will??????
Standing up against this tyrrany is a noble cause and Richard Dawkins is to be applauded for shouting out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
I didn't say you believe the bible.
I am not blindly following anyything.
Religion is a nasty pernicious evil invented by man to control and impoverish people.
It holds back science because of the threat science is to its lunatic ideas, it is responsible for untold misery and it has a stranglehold on politics in world powers like the US.
Palin thinks the war on Iraq is god's will??????
Standing up against this tyrrany is a noble cause and Richard Dawkins is to be applauded for shouting out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
It wasn't meant to be an analogy but an actual description of the implications of cause and effect.
At this point I have not been arguing that the cause must be one particular God. Just that the cause must have been outside of the natural order of things., i.e. supernatural. The Deists would agree that there must have been a supernatural cause but they say there is no reason for us to think that that cause is still having any impact on the world. I went on to say that science claims there is still a supernatural impact on the world because there is at least one thing that is beyond the law of cause and effect. Namely that the actions or locations of subatomic particles are beyond natural explanation. Not that we currently do not understand them but that their actions can never be understood because they do not follow the rules of cause and effect.
It's a work in progress.
Ah, but Dr. Who, I agree the cosmological argument gives a relativley sound base for proving the existence of a diety, as does your description (not analogy!). However, I am not interested in playing logic games to find out if any kind of creator exists at the moment, I am more interested in understanding why people accept organised religion despite its lack of proof.
And Dawkins, once again, you fail to come up with a counter argument for our discussion on the cosmological argument. A creator would not be bound by the restrains of a cause and effect universe, and thus could be eternal. Any comments, or did you just act as a parrot for some atheist elsewhere who didn't think an argument through too?
And Dawkins, once again, you fail to come up with a counter argument for our discussion on the cosmological argument. A creator would not be bound by the restrains of a cause and effect universe, and thus could be eternal. Any comments, or did you just act as a parrot for some atheist elsewhere who didn't think an argument through too?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
I am sorry but the notion of a creator outside of the physical universe is just made up.
It isn't worthy of further comment.
It isn't worthy of further comment.
Haha hilarious. if its so absurd, why don't you pity me and demonstrate to me why it is so impossible. Come on, rip me apart!
My point seems proven, you simply regurgitate whatever Dawkins or maybe other atheists say without thinking it through yourself.
When you learn to debate, come back. Otherwise, stop making a fool of yourself.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You have made up a story about a creator that you cannot detect, is without supportive evidence and which presents a multitude of unanswerable questions as something that deserves to be taken seriously.
It doesn't.
No other discipline has to enetertain this kind of bull****.
If you could just prove one iota of the argument it would be a start.
It doesn't.
No other discipline has to enetertain this kind of bull****.
If you could just prove one iota of the argument it would be a start.
I have not made up a story about a creator,
I have presented the cosmological argument to you, an argument which is a mix of apriori and aposteriori logic. If you think it is a story, prehaps you should go back and study the basic religious philosophy A-level or something, because your talking nonsense. I am not making a story about a specific creator, or even attempting to, but instead trying to show you that some kind of creating force is not just possible, but quite probable.
I have presented the cosmological argument to you, an argument which is a mix of apriori and aposteriori logic. If you think it is a story, prehaps you should go back and study the basic religious philosophy A-level or something, because your talking nonsense. I am not making a story about a specific creator, or even attempting to, but instead trying to show you that some kind of creating force is not just possible, but quite probable.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence whatsoever behind your story and nor is their logic.
Energy could always have been around instigating causes and effects.
Therefore your cosmological argument is just a fancyful theory (story) and rather than answering questions it creates many.
For example, how does the non-physical move the physical?
Energy could always have been around instigating causes and effects.
Therefore your cosmological argument is just a fancyful theory (story) and rather than answering questions it creates many.
For example, how does the non-physical move the physical?
Werbung:
I never said God is nonphysical did I, I simply said that he is not bound by the same restrains as matter in the universe.
If energy has always been around in a form in which it could exist eternally and outside of the universes existence, there is your creating force. But as we have never seen this energy, it is just as supported as the idea of some kind of intelligent entity.
If energy has always been around in a form in which it could exist eternally and outside of the universes existence, there is your creating force. But as we have never seen this energy, it is just as supported as the idea of some kind of intelligent entity.
