Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Balsiefen]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is something or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

Bullshit. Obviously you have studied science. That is just logic. You're using premises to create contradiction (paradox).

Its not logic. The argument was logically disproved eons ago.

Never disproved. Prove that "Life can come from non-life"...waiting. We already went through the prehistoric ooze and lightning thing with vtmarik. Doesn't hold water. Everything that is, must have an orgin. (apart from God) You can't exist and not exist at the same time. Indeed...Logic dictates that there is a God.

I'm sorry, i missed the ooze theory being proved wrong, could you just give me a brief outline of why that is. Anyway, in your theory, why is god the exeption to the rule?

[Guiscard]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is something or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

Bullshit. Obviously you have studied science. That is just logic. You're using premises to create contradiction (paradox).

Its not logic. The argument was logically disproved eons ago.

Never disproved. Prove that "Life can come from non-life"...waiting. We already went through the prehistoric ooze and lightning thing with vtmarik. Doesn't hold water. Everything that is, must have an orgin. (apart from God) You can't exist and not exist at the same time. Indeed...Logic dictates that there is a God.

I'm sorry, i missed the ooze theory being proved wrong, could you just give me a brief outline of why that is. Anyway, in your theory, why is god the exeption to the rule?

Life from non-life is a different argument to the Cosmological argument. I'm not going to bother posting the logic and the rebuttals here, but suffice to say if you're trying to rely solely on the Cosmological argument you're going to come up against lots of problems. One of the major ones is that when people argue against God using the problem of Evil (which relies on Logic) the general theistic argument is that we can't use logic to define God. But, apparently, we can in this case...

[jay_a2j]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is something or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

Bullshit. Obviously you have studied science. That is just logic. You're using premises to create contradiction (paradox).

Its not logic. The argument was logically disproved eons ago.

Never disproved. Prove that "Life can come from non-life"...waiting. We already went through the prehistoric ooze and lightning thing with vtmarik. Doesn't hold water. Everything that is, must have an orgin. (apart from God) You can't exist and not exist at the same time. Indeed...Logic dictates that there is a God.

I'm sorry, i missed the ooze theory being proved wrong, could you just give me a brief outline of why that is. Anyway, in your theory, why is god the exeption to the rule?

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

[Guiscard]

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

Give this guy the Nobel...

What proof Jay... What amazingly flawless proof...

[jay_a2j]

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

Give this guy the Nobel...

What proof Jay... What amazingly flawless proof...

The eternity of God can not be proven, that requires faith. Logic however, demands that He exists.

[Neoteny]

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

I say that a lot. Doesn't mean it's true.

[Guiscard]

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

Give this guy the Nobel...

What proof Jay... What amazingly flawless proof...

The eternity of God can not be proven, that requires faith. Logic however, demands that He exists.

Did you read my post at all?

Logic does not demand that he exists.

I said I wasn't going to bother but I think I will. Even your most basic Philosophy class deals with this one:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.


Firstly, we can take issue with the causal chain not being of infinite length. That isn't necessarily a logical step. We know infinity exists... Hell, you claim infinity for God (in terms of age) so it must be an applicable concept... So why does the chain need to be finite? Can't the causal chain be infinite as well?

However, we can argue (with a little help from physics, and also if we begin to apply things such as the big bang) that the causal chain IS finite, but then that says nothing about the nature of the causer. The prime mover could be your Abrahamic God, it could be Zeus, it could be a Child God, an Evil God, it could be anything... It doesn't even need to be defined as 'God'. The Label is really arbitrary. The prime mover could be a simple physical reaction (as Big Bang theory says). That would fit the Cosmological Argument perfectly. The logic says nothing about the nature of God.

Then again, if we're accepting that we CAN apply Logic to the definition of God then you're running into some major problems re: Evil.

[jay_a2j]

Because God said, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." God always has been, always will be.

Give this guy the Nobel...

What proof Jay... What amazingly flawless proof...

The eternity of God can not be proven, that requires faith. Logic however, demands that He exists.

Did you read my post at all?

Logic does not demand that he exists.

I said I wasn't going to bother but I think I will. Even your most basic Philosophy class deals with this one:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.


Firstly, we can take issue with the causal chain not being of infinite length. That isn't necessarily a logical step. We know infinity exists... Hell, you claim infinity for God (in terms of age) so it must be an applicable concept... So why does the chain need to be finite? Can't the causal chain be infinite as well?

However, we can argue (with a little help from physics, and also if we begin to apply things such as the big bang) that the causal chain IS finite, but then that says nothing about the nature of the causer. The prime mover could be your Abrahamic God, it could be Zeus, it could be a Child God, an Evil God, it could be anything... It doesn't even need to be defined as 'God'. The Label is really arbitrary. The prime mover could be a simple physical reaction (as Big Bang theory says). That would fit the Cosmological Argument perfectly. The logic says nothing about the nature of God.

Then again, if we're accepting that we CAN apply Logic to the definition of God then you're running into some major problems re: Evil.

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

[Neoteny]

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

Even if this were true, why does it have to be conscious? Why waste time praying to it? Why can't the universe be eternal?

[Dancing Mustard]

Fucking Hell Jay, learn to read some time in your life...

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen?

So why does the chain need to be finite? Can't the causal chain be infinite as well?

Got that yet? Somehow I doubt it...

Let's try again with your second 'point'...

There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

The prime mover could be a simple physical reaction (as Big Bang theory says). That would fit the Cosmological Argument perfectly. The logic says nothing about the nature of God

Looks like you'd already been answered there too, but were simply too blind to notice... who'd have thought? It's not like you do it in every 'debate' you ever try to conduct.

Seriously Jay, there's a great number of people a lot cleverer than you on here, and they tolerate your bumbling attempts at preaching really very pleasantly, despite the clipped and inconsistent drivel that you attempt to answer them with every single time. Next time at least have the dignity to attempt to read their responses before you run your mouth off with a load of pre-answered bollocks eh?

[jay_a2j]

Fucking Hell Jay, learn to read some time in your life...

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen?

So why does the chain need to be finite? Can't the causal chain be infinite as well?

NO Got that yet? Somehow I doubt it...

Let's try again with your second 'point'...

There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

The prime mover could be a simple physical reaction (as Big Bang theory says). That would fit the Cosmological Argument perfectly. The logic says nothing about the nature of God

I think logic might be escaping you. A physical re-action would REQUIRE an action.Big Bang gives no insite on how it occurred. Grasp at straws all day... it won't change reality. Looks like you'd already been answered there too, but were simply too blind to notice... who'd have thought? It's not like you do it in every 'debate' you ever try to conduct.

Seriously Jay, there's a great number of people a lot cleverer than you on here, and they tolerate your bumbling attempts at preaching really very pleasantly, despite the clipped and inconsistent drivel that you attempt to answer them with every single time. Next time at least have the dignity to attempt to read their responses before you run your mouth off with a load of pre-answered bollocks eh?

[Dancing Mustard]

So let me see...

Your argument for Guiscard's first argument is essentially:
"Causal chains cannot be infinite, unless they arbitrarily happen to involve a being I regard as a 'god'; whereby the laws of physics magically switch, and they can be as infinite as they like. Action/Re-Action is requisite everywhere, except where I need to ignore it in order to argue that God exists."
Feel free to explain in more than one word if this isn't exactly what you were aiming for...

Then as for the second argument, your answer is:
"Big Bang would require an action to create it, because action/re-action is required for everything; except where that everything is something I regard as a god, who can magically come from nothing, because the laws of physics don't apply where I don't want them to.
I don't accept that physics could go on vacation for Prime Movers that are automaton reactions, but I do think that they would disappear if the Prime Mover was something sentient. If you think different then you must be grasping at straws... because I am Jay and I said so. Amen"
Again, feel free to explain in a coherent paragraph if that wasn't exactly what you meant.

Basically Jay your argument runs into a massive problem the moment you start insisting that your 'Prime Mover' explanation magically gets to ignore physics, whereas all other theories would have to work within physic's constraints. That's just barmy.
Also. I don't think you've grasped the concept that just because something may once have originated the Universe it doesn't have to be a sentient 'God'. Even if something did slip the bonds of physics and create 'something from nothing' then there's no evidence or inference that indicates it was a sentient and thinking 'God'. If you can find such an inference, then you let us know... but I assure you that we won't be waiting with baited breath.

You have fun at Sunday School now.

[heavycola]

Jay - even though everything you have posted in this thread has been wrong, and torn to shreds time and time again by the kids with the smarts, you are unshakeable in that very wrongness. Logic, reason and common sense have not been enough to elicit even a scintilla of doubt. Your wrongness is rock solid, and for that, respect.

[Backglass]

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

You always take this road Jay. If one does not believe that gods exist, it does not automatically mean they believe in the "big bang" theory.

Disbelief in one does not guarantee belief in the other.

[Guiscard]

However, we can argue (with a little help from physics, and also if we begin to apply things such as the big bang) that the causal chain IS finite, but then that says nothing about the nature of the causer. The prime mover could be your Abrahamic God, it could be Zeus, it could be a Child God, an Evil God, it could be anything... It doesn't even need to be defined as 'God'. The Label is really arbitrary. The prime mover could be a simple physical reaction (as Big Bang theory says). That would fit the Cosmological Argument perfectly. The logic says nothing about the nature of God.

Then again, if we're accepting that we CAN apply Logic to the definition of God then you're running into some major problems re: Evil.

Just to point out a couple of things...

Jay, did I ever say it HAD to be the Big Bang? I gave you a whole host of other options...

The problem you have is that you actually don't understand logic... You really don't. All the argument does is give a logical requirement for a 'creator'. That could be anything. The Big Bang is just as viable as Zeus, who in turn is just as viable as the Abrahamic God. Equally as viable is a slug farting out the world. The logic says nothing about the cause.

You can ask 'What caused the big bang?' but we can also ask 'What caused God?' The answer to either is going to be 'nothing'. Your major flaw is working backwards from what you believe to be the correct God.

[unriggable]

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

The big bang is the beginning. It comes from all the energy and matter and everything being into a single infinitely small space. It is the beginning. Nothing comes before it. I'm pretty sure every telescope can attest to this with blackness.

[Frigidus]

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

The big bang is the beginning. It comes from all the energy and matter and everything being into a single infinitely small space. It is the beginning. Nothing comes before it. I'm pretty sure every telescope can attest to this with blackness.

Not to mention the fact that this "something eternal" could well be the universe itself. It's an old argument, but if absolutely everything needs to be created then there would be an infinite string of creators.

[Balsiefen]

Umm, that killed the thread pretty effectivly

[Frigidus]

Umm, that killed the thread pretty effectivly

It seems like every time I enter a conversation it finishes and everybody leaves. Oh, and I've ended a few threads here as well.

[Balsiefen]

Umm, that killed the thread pretty effectivly

It seems like every time I enter a conversation it finishes and everybody leaves. Oh, and I've ended a few threads here as well.

Its annoying, I questioned jay in the eavning hoping to have a good argument to wake me up in the morning only to find the thread has been killed stone dead while i was asleep

[mr. incrediball]

who brought this back from the dead!?

[heavycola]

who brought this back from the dead!?

Hallelujah, it was JESUS!

[Guiscard]

I killed it with my damn sexy logic...

[jay_a2j]

You need an action to have a re-action. What caused the big bang? where did the conditions necessary for a "big bang" come from in order for it to happen? There must be something eternal that has the ability to create or nothing could exist!

The big bang is the beginning. It comes from all the energy and matter and everything being into a single infinitely small space. It is the beginning. Nothing comes before it. I'm pretty sure every telescope can attest to this with blackness.

You can't get something from nothing. So "something" has had to always exist.

[MeDeFe]

Judging by unriggables post I think that this ominous "something" would be the energy and matter bundled up in an infintely small space. Ask a physicist to explain it to you.