- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Darfius
It's true that I have an exceptional mind, but it really is a simple deduction. I think, which proves my own existence. I am not responsible for my own existence, however, so my existence requires an explanation. This explanation must be self-existent, self-aware, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...well, all the omnis. Call Him God or Mr. Hanky, but you owe Him everything you have.
I think, which proves my own existence.
I think, therefore something exists that is doing the thinking. Ok so far.
I am not responsible for my own existence, however, so my existence requires
an explanation.
Starting to go off the rails here. Logical arguments such as these require all steps to
be absolutely true in all possible circumstances to stand up. If there is any possible
circumstance where they are not true then the argument folds.
I hypothesis a situation where future you discovers how to create a universe and does
so not realising that the universe that you are creating is the one you are in. You are thus
the creator of this universe and thus are responsible for your own existence but you are
not currently aware of this fact because from your perspective it hasn't happened yet.
So this step doesn't hold. However lets pretend it does for a moment and move on.
There be dragons ahead...
This explanation must be self-existent, self-aware, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...
well, all the omnis.
Why?
This step doesn't simply follow from anything you have said previously.
Why should the explanation for your existence be 'self-existent' just for one example.
Why can't you be the product of an infinite series of prior events and causes?
Why assume that everything needs a cause?
What we have here is wild speculation and making stuff up.
The correct response [other than to ask WHY?] is to say Prove It.
Call Him God or Mr. Hanky, but you owe Him everything you have.
Really? That's interesting because you have yet to demonstrate that I/we exist.
You have failed to demonstrate that this god exists.
You have failed to demonstrate that if I/we exist, and that this god exists, that this god
is OUR cause, as opposed to just yours...
The list goes on.
It's true that I have an exceptional mind, but it really is a simple deduction.
Yeah... I would lay off of saying things like that... particularly not until you have learned
how logic actually works...
Oh, and welcome to spirituality.
EDIT: hmph, apparently the old posts search now only shows recent posts by default.
Apparently we have a returning moron not a new one.
1. "I think, which proves my own existence." There is thinking going on, granted; this does not prove the existence of a thing which thinks (e.g., a soul). Read and digest David Hume before you make any such rash assertion as that there is a YOU which exists just because there is thinking going on.
2. "I am not responsible for my own existence, however, so my existence requires an explanation." Negative. Existence requires no explanation. It just is. Only humans pine for explanations, and invent them when they can't find one.
3. "This explanation must be self-existent, self-aware, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...well, all the omnis." Negative. There is no logical "must" about it. The "must have this property, must have that property" is all contrived by the yearning for certainty. Yearning proves nothing.
4. IF "I think, therefore God exists" were a sound argument (if p, then q), then it follows according to every elementary logic text (if not-p, then not-q) that as soon as you cease to think, then God ceases to exist. BOING !
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusLet P = I am a cat
1. "I think, which proves my own existence." There is thinking going on, granted; this does not prove the existence of a thing which thinks (e.g., a soul). Read and digest David Hume before you make any such rash assertion as that there is a YOU which exists just because there is thinking going on.
2. "I am not responsible for my own existence, however, s ...[text shortened]... ext (if not-p, then not-q) that as soon as you cease to think, then God ceases to exist. BOING !
Let Q = Cats exist
If P = true.
Then Q = true.
However, if P = false it does not follow that Q is also false.
Otherwise you get "I am not a cat" therefore "cats don't exist".
Originally posted by googlefudgeOoops, my bad!
Let P = I am a cat
Let Q = Cats exist
If P = true.
Then Q = true.
However, if P = false it does not follow that Q is also false.
Otherwise you get "I am not a cat" therefore "cats don't exist".
Still, you have to admit that deducing God's existence from whether Darfius happens to be thinking at this moment is monumentally egotistical. Deducing God's existence from the universe's existence has at least a shade more plausibility.
Originally posted by DarfiusWelcome back. It sounds like you believe there are no atheists, but only those who claim to be. (We all secretly believe in God, or so you say.)
I love when atheists say stupid things like, "Well, maybe everything requires a cause except everything (the universe.)" It makes their desperation to avoid answering to God all the more palpable.
I think, therefore God is. It's that simple, boys. Time to repent.
(It's been a few years, so forgive me for forgetting which Looney bin you go in.)
Originally posted by googlefudgeTake note of the "joined" date next to our names. I was making atheists look like the fools they are long before you showed up.
Oh dear.
It's another new theist who's been force-fed crap about atheists and
knows f*all about us, but thinks they know everything...
Just what the doctor ordered.
Where did we put the FAQ?
Originally posted by PenguinThe universe is the name we give to all the little events it's filled with. So yes, the universe is one big event.
The universe is not an event.
You might say the 'big bang' was an event but in that case, so was the first thing that god did, such as considering the event he was about to cause.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DarfiusOnly in your imagination based on current showing.
Take note of the "joined" date next to our names. I was making atheists look like the fools they are long before you showed up.
Your having been around awhile simply means you have no excuse for your
complete and total ignorance.
I see from your first posts that you were ignorant when you came here, and
see from your current posts that you are equally ignorant now.
Demonstrating your total lack of ability to learn and grow.
You are stuck in a stunted bronze age backwater of stupidity and ignorance.
I would pity you if I did that sort of thing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DarfiusThe universe is the name we give to the sum total of reality.
The universe is the name we give to all the little events it's filled with. So yes, the universe is one big event.
Its the PLACE events happen and the TIME they happen in as well as
all the events themselves.
So no, the universe is not just one big event.
Originally posted by googlefudge
Starting to go off the rails here. Logical arguments such as these require all steps to
be absolutely true in all possible circumstances to stand up. If there is any possible
circumstance where they are not true then the argument folds.
I hypothesis a situation where future you discovers how to create a universe and does
so not realising that the universe that you are creating is the one you are in. You are thus
the creator of this universe and thus are responsible for your own existence but you are
not currently aware of this fact because from your perspective it hasn't happened yet.
So this step doesn't hold. However lets pretend it does for a moment and move on.
There be dragons ahead...
No need to pretend. You suggested an infinite regress of me's discovering my/our ability to create new universes "all the way down." Silly atheist, infinite regresses are for abstract mathematical models having nothing to do with reality.
Why?
This step doesn't simply follow from anything you have said previously.
Why should the explanation for your existence be 'self-existent' just for one example.
Why can't you be the product of an infinite series of prior events and causes?
Why assume that everything needs a cause?
What we have here is wild speculation and making stuff up.
The necessary being responsible for all contingent existences must possess the omnis because He must be Infinite. Only the Infinite can create the finite. This is self-evident, as time, space and matter cannot have created themselves and therefore require an explanation which is timeless and immaterial.
Really? That's interesting because you have yet to demonstrate that I/we exist.
Oh boy. When an atheist denies his own existence to other people, you know he's desperate.
You have failed to demonstrate that this god exists.
Creation testifies to the Creator, which is why Paul wrote that you infidels were without excuse, despite your best posturing.
You have failed to demonstrate that if I/we exist, and that this god exists, that this god
is OUR cause, as opposed to just yours...
Occam's Razor, Senor Fudge. If He made me, the unfortunate truth is that He also made you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusYes indeed.
Ooops, my bad!
Still, you have to admit that deducing God's existence from whether Darfius happens to be thinking at this moment is monumentally egotistical. Deducing God's existence from the universe's existence has at least a shade more plausibility.
The claim that he is so awesomely special that only an omnimax god could possibly have
created him...
I expect he has to ride lifts solo, because there is no room for anyone else and his ego.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks for the welcome back. And yes, just as I believe the fallen angels consciously rebelled against a God they knew existed, I think humans do so as well, not that I claim to understand the logic involved, though I strongly suspect it to be a willful lack of logic.
Welcome back. It sounds like you believe there are no atheists, but only those who claim to be. (We all secretly believe in God, or so you say.)
(It's been a few years, so forgive me for forgetting which Looney bin you go in.)
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't recall claiming to be special. Why do all of you atheists have such inferiority complexes?
Yes indeed.
The claim that he is so awesomely special that only an omnimax god could possibly have
created him...
I expect he has to ride lifts solo, because there is no room for anyone else and his ego.