How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Oh I can defend the facts quite well actually. Your hubris view of your anthropocentric religion is amusing. Why must there be a reason for our existence? Is there a reason for 400 billion other planets that we can see via the Hubbel Telescope? Is there a reason for the existence for cancer? Is there a reason the sun bombards us with cancer causing rays? Is there a reason people strive to believe in a disproven fairy tale because they can't find the mental resilience to deal with their inevitable impending death? Is there a reason people believe an invisible super genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man? isn't it interesting how the human body has vestigial organs and bone formations that are evolutionary evidence that can be traced back to our ancestors? A charade is an assumably intelligent person believing in fiction, forgery and fantasy; the epitome of those who choose to believe in a creator...please explain.

Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ? If someone left you a $100 bill taped to your cars steering wheel, would that not cause some degree of inquiry as to who did it and for what reason ? Sure it would. Only when we start considering the Cosmos and the scientifically verified Fine Tuning of it for our life on earth...suddenly it doesn't matter anymore because of the implications to us.

Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.

You ever consider maybe there isn't a reason? Maybe it is just chance and circumstance? Since we have zero evidence for this god you talk about, and we HAVE evidence of chance and circumstance, which one seems more reasonable? Since we can observe evolution ongoing right now, and prove its existence, or on the other hand we can play the game "pick the delusion" and decide which of the over 4500 man made religions to follow.

But see here is where the true philosophical separation begins...you choose to believe it because, and correct me if I am wrong, the bible tells you so, or....the complexity of the world is so...complex, thus = GOD!....or as I call it the GODDIDIT excuse. We don't understand so GOD. But when you consider this GOD theory was man created also, and all of the fictional stories of the bible can be disproven, and the fact that no one who ever wrote about jesus knew him, and that most likely the jesus myth was constructed based on older myths, like ROMULUS....then a thinking person would surmise it is all rubbish. You keep dodging my question on your faith basis...YEC, or OEC, or a hybrid of such....so I can enter an intellectual discussion aimed at the language you work with.

There are many reasons why people are atheist. Some just choose to not believe because it sounds ridiculous, just like some believers just choose to believe (blind faith). Some of us, like myself, have given it considerable thought, and are highly educated in the subject. It is this introspective reflection and understanding of science, evolution, philosophy and forensic analysis of the story that brought us to atheism. I, on the other hand, and like many here, was a Xtian at one point. I was brought up within the delusion, and at one point sought to get an education in theology in order to substantiate and validate my faith, and in the process the opposite happened. The more you learn about the myth, the fabrication, and the forgery, the less you believe.

Since you ask, I will give you an honest answer..

I guess I can say I understand loss. I lost two daughters at the toddler age. At the time I was a christian, the son of a southern baptist minister, and have never prayed so hard as I did during that time. I cried, I prayed, I begged to be taken instead, they died, then my wife committed suicide 3 months later, and I lost everything that mattered in my life....This isn't the reason I am an atheist now, I am an atheist now because that event, that life experience gave me the need to understand WHY. So I asked my pastors, my parents, other church leaders, and found the answers most unsatisfactory. So rather than sponging up everything that fell out of their mouth as the truth, I started a journey of epistemology, the study of knowledge. I read the bible, and again, read other versions, other religion's holy books, then got into philosophy, biblical history, who wrote the bible and why? Who put it together? What are the FACTS and what is fiction, what is history and what is a parable......the more I learned, the less I believed. I had actually started this journey attempting to solidify my faith and get the facts I needed to override my inner doubts, and the opposite happened. The more I found out about the community writings under known authors (pseudepigrapha), the forgeries, the exaggerations, then it made me turn a critical eye to it all.

I would give anything to hold my daughters again, but I have learned too much, been exposed to historical facts, reason and logic...and my heart has given up on ever seeing them again. I realize the importance religion and faith has on people, I truly do. It is a comfort, an emotional and spiritual security blanket, a made-up answer to the big questions we don't know the answers to, and still don't. We may never know the answers, I surely don't have them, I just know that the anthropocentric abrahamic faiths don't have the answer either..... Because the whole thing is based on a book that is too easily discredited and disproven, whole books made up and written YEARS after the alleged author died, or by people who write it based on the oral retelling of a story passed down through years with zero collaborating evidence. The story of jesus has zero evidence of any kind, zero, and no one who wrote of him knew him...all based on oral tradition...stories passed down...people like to tell stories don't they? What makes a good story better? exaggeration.

It is frightening to think we are here by chance, what is the purpose of life? Are we just smart bugs running around for a life cycle; eat, breed, die and repeat? How awful is that? It is comforting to think of "god" looking down at us, worrying about 8 billion+ little lives scurrying around on this planet, created to worship him or die eternally in hell, or so the story goes.

My progression to atheism has surprisingly brought me a lot of peace. I no longer have the inner guilt of did this happen because I am a sinner, or because I am unworthy or whatever religious based, subjugating mind rape concept put out by the church....the thought that maybe I didn't pray hard enough, or maybe god was displeased with me and let them die etc. etc., all of that nonsense is washed away with the understanding that life isn't predestined, there is no grand plan, there is no god playing...well god....and worrying about paying back my "born-as-a-sinner-and owing-god-for-life" slavery contract with the Christian god. All that needless, worthless, bowing and scraping hoping we earn god's approval to live in a paradise forever...upon death. Sounds like a made up concept to comfort those dying doesn't it?...Because it is. I wish I could describe to you the peace that knowledge and freedom from religious dogma has given me. My life is full, happy and rewarding. I have been able to move on, one day at a time, and while I wish I could believe that someday I could see them again, I am okay with knowing that they suffer no more, and are in eternal rest...and I know that to believe in a supernatural afterlife is just my inner insecurity and fear making me want to accept the impossible, the improbable, the imaginary...as a comfort. I am better than that, I don't need to allow fear to dominate my life and force me to believe or pretend to believe in the supernatural. Humans fear death, this is natural, humans die, this is natural, all life on this planet will someday cease, this is natural, this planet is slowly dying, this is natural, and not I would think by design.....and I am okay with that.

In my opinion, religion thrives because of fear; it plays on our fears of the unknown and manipulates that fear into quite the thriving business. Emotional, spiritual and financial slavery, all with the, "Don't question it because it is in this book, believe or spend eternity in hell" salesmanship. Greatest pyramid scheme ever, money goes up; nothing of intrinsic value comes down...except fear based comfort. What is right for one person, doesn't work for another. What is needed for one person isn't needed by another. My daughters died in 1998 and I still think about them, but I am no longer devastated. I am at peace, knowledge gives you that, not faith….the belief in something without evidence.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
28-11-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
...and speaking of Romulus, here is some of my research on that for you..

Romulus
Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:39 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 10:43 AM by Im a humble little Theist.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:12 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  God is defined as our Personal Theistic Creator. That works well.

God isn't responsible for all the things you stated and that is the most misunderstood excuse for not wanting to follow God which people make. Diseases, etc...are the result of a perfect Creation gone bad due to mankinds sin of willful rebellion and arrogance of playing god ourselves in our own lives.

I don't need help ; I need a new Battery for my RV .

No.
That's how YOU define a god.
It might work for an ignoramus such as you. In fact, it doesn't work at all.

In fact a god who "creates" is incoherent :
1. It has to CHANGE it's mind, and *decide* to create.
2. The *act* of creation proves it's not an infinite god, as the *act* places an endpoint to it's "infinite" past, and "infinite" future.

...............

You haven't answered the question about at what exact improbable number, you find you must invoke a god, (re: ID).

Two parts --------

1. It is not incoherent for a First Cause to create something . Here on Earth, every THING or EVENT that occurs has a First Cause or reason for it . So why doesn't the whole Shebang of the Cosmos have a First Cause to it ; it came into existence from nothing including time, space, matter, laws to govern it, fine tuned life enabling parameters . What is it about a personal Theistic Creator that rubs you up the wrong way then ? Would you be ok with him existing ?

1.a. True, the First Cause of anything which has personal effects that we can observe, measure, discern MUST be Personal itself . Are you troubled with a Creator who is PERSONAL then ?

1.b. True, the First Cause of anything that comes to exist when it didn't have to, has a Will as well. That is, the First Cause has the ability to CHOOSE what he wants to exist and what he doesn't . We have free Will and other NON material entities....because the First Cause of everything does too. If you cant accept that, then tell us how FreeWill, emotions, love, abstract thinking, reason and logic came from pure material atoms ? You cant because its absurd.

2. ONLY a finite act, carries with it an endpoint ; but if something as our Universe is the FIRST ACT which came from nothing, then there must be a Cause outside of the first finite act (event) . Every Cosmologist knows this so its either : We got our Universe which has boundless examples of design, engineering, personal attributes that are discoverable ...from a First Cause having the same personal intelligent attributes we contain....or.....Nothing produced something as our Universe from nothing (the height of absurdity) . Matter or energy isn't the First Cause because it hadn't come into existence yet either. A blind random Force of some kind isn't the First Cause because a Force isn't personal nor it is intelligent with a will .

I don't 'invoke' a God as a Gap measure ; I show why a personal intelligent Theistic Creator (viz God) is absolutely necessary as the First Cause --- not because its emotionally satisfying to me or that I need a crutch . Conversely, the person who demands he stays an 'Atheist' has the Reverse God of the Gaps creed where he/she must never allow a Divine First Cause thru the door and demands Natural Causes be responsible for highly personal and intelligent Effects. That's not right and its disingenuous. This is why Atheism is illogical unreasonable and why I had to get out of it even though it was highly conducive to my choice of lifestyles I wanted to pursue for personal gratification.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ?

Because the explanation is simply not necessary in order for us to live that reality.

There's a Buddhist parable that I nickname "the poison arrow game." If you were to refuse to have a poison arrow removed before someone can tell you who fired it, why, exactly where they were standing, what they ate for breakfast, what their favourite TV show is, and the name of the dog they had when they were five years old, you would die before you got the answers to your questions.

IMO Christianity is a poison arrow and I've already pulled it out of My life.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Oh I can defend the facts quite well actually. Your hubris view of your anthropocentric religion is amusing. Why must there be a reason for our existence? Is there a reason for 400 billion other planets that we can see via the Hubbel Telescope? Is there a reason for the existence for cancer? Is there a reason the sun bombards us with cancer causing rays? Is there a reason people strive to believe in a disproven fairy tale because they can't find the mental resilience to deal with their inevitable impending death? Is there a reason people believe an invisible super genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man? isn't it interesting how the human body has vestigial organs and bone formations that are evolutionary evidence that can be traced back to our ancestors? A charade is an assumably intelligent person believing in fiction, forgery and fantasy; the epitome of those who choose to believe in a creator...please explain.

Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ? If someone left you a $100 bill taped to your cars steering wheel, would that not cause some degree of inquiry as to who did it and for what reason ? Sure it would. Only when we start considering the Cosmos and the scientifically verified Fine Tuning of it for our life on earth...suddenly it doesn't matter anymore because of the implications to us.

Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.

The problem is you are trying to explain unknowns with even more unknowns. The reason the god concept fails is because the claim itself can not be explained. In fact what is the reason of a god? To make a universe? If that is the case something must have made it and gave it a reason, making there be a super god.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
28-11-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 11:02 AM)Astreja Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ?

Because the explanation is simply not necessary in order for us to live that reality.

There's a Buddhist parable that I nickname "the poison arrow game." If you were to refuse to have a poison arrow removed before someone can tell you who fired it, why, exactly where they were standing, what they ate for breakfast, what their favourite TV show is, and the name of the dog they had when they were five years old, you would die before you got the answers to your questions.

IMO Christianity is a poison arrow and I've already pulled it out of My life.

You've pulled out the only means to have full joy and ultimate fulfillment in life thru a personal relationship with your Creator who is personal and relational. You've traded a life of SELF which will never give you ultimate meaning and purpose because apart from God, everything else is temporary, perishing, and incapable of deeply filling you. It took me some time to realize this too.

Yes, you do thru life on a narrow focused Course of Reality, but youll miss the whole point of living if you don't get beyond SELF . It will be a shallow level of existence and when you arrive on your deathbed, youll look back and feel a void which never got filled. Temporary stuff isn't capable of filling the void and neither are the accomplishments of a nice house with white picket fence, luxury cars, a big paycheck , and all the sex you can muster up.

The poison arrow is Humanism and its creed to make SELF 'god' of ones life. Only by becoming #2 in your life will you ever realize what life is really all about . Its when we take a back seat to God that we discover Ourselves. Humanism principles are nothing but ropes that enslave us with the promise of great fulfillment in life but it cant deliver . It wasn't meant to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:31 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 11:07 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ? If someone left you a $100 bill taped to your cars steering wheel, would that not cause some degree of inquiry as to who did it and for what reason ? Sure it would. Only when we start considering the Cosmos and the scientifically verified Fine Tuning of it for our life on earth...suddenly it doesn't matter anymore because of the implications to us.

Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.

The problem is you are trying to explain unknowns with even more unknowns. The reason the god concept fails is because the claim itself can not be explained. In fact what is the reason of a god? To make a universe? If that is the case something must have made it and gave it a reason, making there be a super god.

A Creator for our Universe who willed it into being, certainly wants to make himself known. ANd he has in a variety of ways. Its just that Man walks around with blinders on because he desires to.

God doesn't need a reason to exist because he is the Infinite . Whatever Source creates the First finite Cause, has to be Infinite in essence . And an Infinite Source doesn't require a Cause or reason to exist...he always did exist. We can talk about why God decided to make a Universe if you like because that is revealed to us also. Are you ok with such a Creator existing for our personal intelligent based Universe ? You don't really mind, do you ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 11:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:39 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Two parts --------

1. It is not incoherent for a First Cause to create something . Here on Earth, every THING or EVENT that occurs has a First Cause or reason for it . So why doesn't the whole Shebang of the Cosmos have a First Cause to it ; it came into existence from nothing including time, space, matter, laws to govern it, fine tuned life enabling parameters . What is it about a personal Theistic Creator that rubs you up the wrong way then ? Would you be ok with him existing ?

1.a. True, the First Cause of anything which has personal effects that we can observe, measure, discern MUST be Personal itself . Are you troubled with a Creator who is PERSONAL then ?

1.b. True, the First Cause of anything that comes to exist when it didn't have to, has a Will as well. That is, the First Cause has the ability to CHOOSE what he wants to exist and what he doesn't . We have free Will and other NON material entities....because the First Cause of everything does too. If you cant accept that, then tell us how FreeWill, emotions, love, abstract thinking, reason and logic came from pure material atoms ? You cant because its absurd.

2. ONLY a finite act, carries with it an endpoint ; but if something as our Universe is the FIRST ACT which came from nothing, then there must be a Cause outside of the first finite act (event) . Every Cosmologist knows this so its either : We got our Universe which has boundless examples of design, engineering, personal attributes that are discoverable ...from a First Cause having the same personal intelligent attributes we contain....or.....Nothing produced something as our Universe from nothing (the height of absurdity) . Matter or energy isn't the First Cause because it hadn't come into existence yet either. A blind random Force of some kind isn't the First Cause because a Force isn't personal nor it is intelligent with a will .

I don't 'invoke' a God as a Gap measure ; I show why a personal intelligent Theistic Creator (viz God) is absolutely necessary as the First Cause --- not because its emotionally satisfying to me or that I need a crutch . Conversely, the person who demands he stays an 'Atheist' has the Reverse God of the Gaps creed where he/she must never allow a Divine First Cause thru the door and demands Natural Causes be responsible for highly personal and intelligent Effects. That's not right and its disingenuous. This is why Atheism is illogical unreasonable and why I had to get out of it even though it was highly conducive to my choice of lifestyles I wanted to pursue for personal gratification.

No. No. No, and no. You do nothing of the sort. You CLAIM you do. In fact you do NOTHING.

You do invoke god as a gap measure, as you have no other explanation, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, and your refusal to even look at Chaos Theory. You "show" nothing. You think you do, because you are SO ignorant. You THINK you do, because you are suffering from :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect
You NEED, an answer TODAY, like a child, (one of your many psychological problems). You're like a 2 year old asking "but why, but why but why" to its mommy.

1. Your analogy is false. "Here on Earth" is not what we are talking about. For "cause and effect" you need spacetime, and the laws OF THIS UNIVERSE already in place. You cannot generalize to what was EXTERNAL to this universe from what is IN the universe. You logic is fatally flawed in that regard.
William L. Craig was schooled about this, and had no response to it, in the debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Watch it and learn something. YOU know NOTHING about what cosmologists think or do not think. You CLAIM you do. In fact it's very clear you have NO education, AT ALL.

2. "First Cause" arguments are not "Final Cause" arguments, or "ultimate cause" arguments They are "nearest cause" (or "proximate cause" arguments). There is no reason an omnipotent god could not have made a race of robot universe makers, and one of THEM was your "cause". "Cause" requires TIME. The decision to create must precede the act. YOU have no proof spacetime exists outside this universe, or did. Your "gap" argument assumes it, for no reason. How can a god "cause' Causality (the principle) unless Causality is in place already ? Try harder. you failed in every way possible.

All you do is repeat all the crap and tripe nonsense you have learned by rote. Repeating crap (with no PROOF for any of it), does not make it something other than crap. All you have is crap. Repeated crap, with no proofs. You fail at Apologetics. Badly. Why are you here making a fool of yourself / Did someone tell you you are any good at this ? You're REALLY REALLY bad at this. You need help.

"ONLY a finite act, carries with it an endpoint ; but if something as our Universe is the FIRST ACT which came from nothing, then there must be a Cause outside of the first finite act (event) .
1. That sentence is a non-sequitur. You need a. and English class, and b. a Logic course.
2. You totally MISSED THE POINT : The POINT is not the infinity of the ACT, but the GOD performing it. Since YOU MISSED the point, you utterly failed to answer the question.
3. There is no "outside" anything if space time does not exist already. "outside" is a spatial reference.
4. Reality (Relativity, Uncertainty) has been proven to be non-intuitive. All your arguments assume the universe and Reality is intuitive to human brains. You don't know it isn't as you have no education, AT ALL.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-11-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 11:31 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:07 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  The problem is you are trying to explain unknowns with even more unknowns. The reason the god concept fails is because the claim itself can not be explained. In fact what is the reason of a god? To make a universe? If that is the case something must have made it and gave it a reason, making there be a super god.

A Creator for our Universe who willed it into being, certainly wants to make himself known. ANd he has in a variety of ways. Its just that Man walks around with blinders on because he desires to.

God doesn't need a reason to exist because he is the Infinite . Whatever Source creates the First finite Cause, has to be Infinite in essence . And an Infinite Source doesn't require a Cause or reason to exist...he always did exist. We can talk about why God decided to make a Universe if you like because that is revealed to us also. Are you ok with such a Creator existing for our personal intelligent based Universe ? You don't really mind, do you ?

If that is the case why not save a step and say the big bang without a god was infinite.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
28-11-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 11:27 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 11:02 AM)Astreja Wrote:  Because the explanation is simply not necessary in order for us to live that reality.

There's a Buddhist parable that I nickname "the poison arrow game." If you were to refuse to have a poison arrow removed before someone can tell you who fired it, why, exactly where they were standing, what they ate for breakfast, what their favourite TV show is, and the name of the dog they had when they were five years old, you would die before you got the answers to your questions.

IMO Christianity is a poison arrow and I've already pulled it out of My life.

You've pulled out the only means to have full joy and ultimate fulfillment in life thru a personal relationship with your Creator who is personal and relational. You've traded a life of SELF which will never give you ultimate meaning and purpose because apart from God, everything else is temporary, perishing, and incapable of deeply filling you. It took me some time to realize this too.

Yes, you do thru life on a narrow focused Course of Reality, but youll miss the whole point of living if you don't get beyond SELF . It will be a shallow level of existence and when you arrive on your deathbed, youll look back and feel a void which never got filled. Temporary stuff isn't capable of filling the void and neither are the accomplishments of a nice house with white picket fence, luxury cars, a big paycheck , and all the sex you can muster up.

The poison arrow is Humanism and its creed to make SELF 'god' of ones life. Only by becoming #2 in your life will you ever realize what life is really all about . Its when we take a back seat to God that we discover Ourselves. Humanism principles are nothing but ropes that enslave us with the promise of great fulfillment in life but it cant deliver . It wasn't meant to.

You are a delusional twat. Why are you even here?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: