[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[thaiboxerken]

There could be a vast series of antecedent causes prior to the cause of our universe - not only do I not deny it, I argue exactly thus in my "logical case for theism" simulation hypothesis later in the3 thread, just because its fun!.

cj x

The inconsistent logic, the equivocation and outright silliness of your posts is starting to support the OP in your case.

 

[neltana]

In addition to what cj.23 offered...

Default to Immoral
Agreed, this has always seemed a strange leap of logic to me.

The Annexation of Our Humanity
Not sure I understand this one. Do you mean giving human qualities to deities?

Truth and Eternal Recapitulation
Any religious idea that limits inquiry seems bad to me, so agreed.

The Subjugation of Humanity
Agreed. Any religious idea that runs counter to humanism is problematic for me.

Prophesy, Fate & Despair
I'm a big believer in the value of systems of divination, but I make no paranormal claims about them. I value them for the same reason I like the old Russian proverb "any decision you make while drunk should be reconsidered while sober. And visa versa."

Afterlife
Not sure which religion says that killing is okay because people don't really die...Lutheran, maybe? Garrison Keillor always seemed pretty blood thirsty.

But seriously, I would be curious know which religion you are referring to here.

Win Powerball!!!
There are many clearly documented cases of people winning Powerball. You seem to be conflating possibility with probability. If you don't play, there is a 0% chance of winning, if you do play, there is a slim chance. I think they even publish the raw odds. What's your complaint?

 

[neltana]

The inconsistent logic, the equivocation and outright silliness of your posts is starting to support the OP in your case.

So far, the main critiques you have put forward of his proofs seem to be that he isn't trying to prove what you think he should be trying to prove. CJ's proofs, despite their Aquintinian roots, do not related directly to a Judeo-Christian God or meant to demonstrate anything about what is found in the Bible. They relate to the theistic concept of "first cause."

I don't think that is equivocation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He equivocates the definition of rational to muck up the thread.

Also, as pointed out by Balrog, his argument fails. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a cause.. then there must be a first cause......however, that first cause also began to exist and must also have been caused, which must've also been caused by something else and so on and so forth.

The "logic" is flawed in CJ's argument.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

He equivocates the definition of rational to muck up the thread.

Also, as pointed out by Balrog, his argument fails. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a cause.. then there must be a first cause......however, that first cause also began to exist and must also have been caused, which must've also been caused by something else and so on and so forth.

The "logic" is flawed in CJ's argument.

Uh ... so are you saying the universe didn't have a "first cause" - that it always has existed?

If so, why could a universe always exist, but a God not?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Uh ... so are you saying the universe didn't have a "first cause" - that it always has existed?

I'm saying that the conclusion doesn't fit the premise. If everything must have a cause, then the first cause must have a cause as well.

If so, why could a universe always exist, but a God not?

I don't know that the universe has always existed or not. However, I do know that the universe does exist. There is no evidence that your god exists.

 

[Tricky]

Uh ... so are you saying the universe didn't have a "first cause" - that it always has existed?

If so, why could a universe always exist, but a God not?

I know you're talking to TBK, but I'll give my answer.

There is no reason that a "god" couldn't always exist. My personal position is that we cannot possibly know back any further than the Big Bang when the universe appeared to assume its present configuration.

Of course, there is ample evidence for a universe now existing and for some time in the past as well, whereas there is no reliable evidence for God of gods existing at any time in the present or past. Therefore, if you were going to postulate the existence of an eternal thing, your best bet would be with something that has a known presence in at least one temporal frame.

And of course if you accept that it is possible that the universe has always existed and I accept that it is possible that some God has always existed, that's all harmony and light, but it removes the need for a God to create the universe. So now God is not only unevidenced, but unnecessary, at least as far as the job of creation is concerned. Maybe God isn't dead, but He is moot.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm saying that the conclusion doesn't fit the premise. If everything must have a cause, then the first cause must have a cause as well.

I don't know that the universe has always existed or not. However, I do know that the universe does exist. There is no evidence that your god exists.

I think the simplest way to conclude this debate, in a way that might satisfy both sides, is to say that the universe is god. It creates and shapes itself and has no discernible beginning or end.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

And of course if you accept that it is possible that the universe has always existed and I accept that it is possible that some God has always existed, that's all harmony and light, but it removes the need for a God to create the universe. So now God is not only unevidenced, but unnecessary, at least as far as the job of creation is concerned. Maybe God isn't dead, but He is moot.

Yes - that is quite a ways removed from a God thats either comprehendable or even actively involved with the universe - let alone humans. That's simply stating that He may be there.

I've always found the argument that a God needs to have been created as rather weak - probably because before I was a Christian I had already accepted that the universe could be infinite, could have always existed, etc.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't know that the universe has always existed or not. However, I do know that the universe does exist. There is no evidence that your god exists.

So I keep being told.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

So I keep being told.

Are you saying you have concrete evidence for god's existance? Note: the Bible doesn't count.

 

[Tricky]

Yes - that is quite a ways removed from a God thats either comprehendable or even actively involved with the universe - let alone humans. That's simply stating that He may be there.

True, but in my opinion, that's all you can do. Otherwise, you wind up having testable characteristics of God, and we know how that works out.

I've always found the argument that a God needs to have been created as rather weak - probably because before I was a Christian I had already accepted that the universe could be infinite, could have always existed, etc.

You are atypical of most Christians I know. The argument is not really an argument that God needs to be created, but to show the illogic of the argument that the universe (or life, or consciousness etc.) must be created. Somehow I'm guessing you are aware of this.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Are you saying you have concrete evidence for god's existance? Note: the Bible doesn't count.

That's the thing - what would that evidence be to you?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Are you saying you have concrete evidence for god's existance? Note: the Bible doesn't count.

Psh...

Can you give a definition of god that wouldn't be a strawman for you to burn?

 

[Tricky]

That's the thing - what would that evidence be to you?

I can give you some examples if you really want them, but I'm guessing you've heard similar things before. They tend to fall into the catgegory of objective, verifiable, testable things.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I can give you some examples if you really want them, but I'm guessing you've heard similar things before. They tend to fall into the catgegory of objective, verifiable, testable things.

Wouldn't that require knowing exactly wtf you're actually looking for?

Face it; at this point god is poorly defined semantically -- let alone scientifically. We have to first come up with a coherent definition of god [i.e. a "theory of god", if you will] before we can even devise verifiable tests. Hell, just look at string theory. Its an actual physical theory [albeit one in a very primitive stage] but it will be quite some time before we're even able to test it directly. Do you honestly think we are capable of coming up with an experimental test to find "god" when we can even decide on what this "god" entity even is/would/should-be???

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the simplest way to conclude this debate, in a way that might satisfy both sides, is to say that the universe is god. It creates and shapes itself and has no discernible beginning or end.

You could say that, but it would be a stupid thing to say. We're still figuring out the nature of the universe, and probably will keep exploring until we cease to exist. Further more, why use the term god at all then? Why not just call it "universe?"

No, the simple answer is this. Believers have no evidence, or usually even a lucid definition, for their gods. Until they do, I simply can not believe such a thing exists.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you honestly think we are capable of coming up with an experimental test to find "god" when we can even decide on what this "god" entity even is/would/should-be???

Yea, such an idea is as stupid as believing in a god when you haven't a definition of what that god is.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You could say that, but it would be a stupid thing to say. We're still figuring out the nature of the universe, and probably will keep exploring until we cease to exist. Further more, why use the term god at all then? Why not just call it "universe?"

No, the simple answer is this. Believers have no evidence, or usually even a lucid definition, for their gods. Until they do, I simply can not believe such a thing exists.

Obviously, believers need to believe that the "universe" [or god] has some place for them and that they aren't just accidents of history. In order to make themselves more comfortable they must imagine this god to have anthropomorphic qualities so that it isn't completely alien to them and their human concerns. I would wager that such belief systems are vital the psychological [and incidentally the immunological/bodily] health of most theists. To use a very abstract metaphor, religions could be thought of as atmospheres to shelter a person(s) from the void of conceptual space. All people must have a conceptual paradigm -- or medium -- in which they place the context of their thoughts and ethical systems and some people seem to have a stronger natural need for some kind of theistic framework.

 

[Tricky]

Wouldn't that require knowing exactly wtf you're actually looking for?

Face it; at this point god is poorly defined semantically -- let alone scientifically. We have to first come up with a coherent definition of god [i.e. a "theory of god", if you will] before we can even devise verifiable tests. Hell, just look at string theory. Its an actual physical theory [albeit one in a very primitive stage] but it will be quite some time before we're even able to test it directly. Do you honestly think we are capable of coming up with an experimental test to find "god" when we can even decide on what this "god" entity even is/would/should-be???

Oh, of course. But any being with superpowers would be real high on the short list for God. But the sort of "tests" I'm imagining would require any human input. It would just be God showing His power in a way that was objective and verifiable.