felixomor:



Your problem is your innate inability to admit your ignorance.
You make a statement you cant back up and you start beating around the bush just because you want to defend that ignorant statement by all means.

You escaped with deism and theism got stuck in your throat.
And you started coughing up and down.
Mscheww.

Which statement did I make without backing? Did men create theism? Yes they did. Theism isn't a single set of belief but a very wife set of beliefs, asking me who invented theism is just like asking me who invented food. Jellof rice is food. You can only ask me about its history and I'll tell you. Asking me who invented food is blockheadedness. Theism is a form of belief, and it is only humans that hold such beliefs. Christianity was formed by humans, humans wrote don the stories, invented the theology and doctrines. Most of them are known and without them there will be no christianity. Same applies to Hinduism, Islam and all other religions.

If you know any religion that wasn't invented by human beings go ahead and bring it.

dalaman:


Which statement did I make without backing? Did men create theism? Yes they did. Theism isn't a single set of belief but a very wife set of beliefs, asking me who invented theism is just like asking me who invented food. Jellof rice is food. You can only ask me about its history and I'll tell you. Asking me who invented food is blockheadedness. Theism is a form of belief, and it is only humans that hold such beliefs. Christianity was formed by humans, humans wrote don the stories, invented the theology and doctrines. Most of them are known and without them there will be no christianity. Same applies to Hinduism, Islam and all other religions.

If you know any religion that wasn't invented by human beings go ahead and bring it.

Bro, just say

"I dont know who started it first"
Is a humble statement that can change your life for good.
Stop deceiving yourself playing defense.

Admit the ignorance and move on with life.

felixomor:


Bro, just say

"I dont know who started it first"
Is a humble statement that can change your life for good.
Stop deceiving yourself playing defense.

Admit the ignorance and move on with life.

All religions are man made.

dalaman:


All religions are man made.

Who ask you?

KingEbukasBlog:



There are so many ways the deists used to arrive at the conclusion that God exists :

1. This is from DeepSight and it was done without any kind of divine revelation . Pure logic



2. Thomas Aquinas used primary and secondary substances to reach his conclusion . According to him , secondary substances are those substances that rely on the existence of primary substances and without the primary substance the secondary substance cannot exist . The primary substance is obviously self existent , eternal etc . This falls under the argument from necessity - God's exists necessarily .

3. The deists also used arguments like the Cosmological , Teleological , Ontological Arguments and so many others to support the existence of God . The argument from contingency (cosmological argument ) is my favourite . Still cogent and very convincing especially since Science and Philosophy support its premises .

4. There are other philosophical positions that tend to explain God's existence and other necessary 'beings' like Abstract Objects etc . Anslem's theological position : God is the greatest conceivable being . And so many others I can't think of right now .

There are myriads of philosophical , logical thoughts that support the existence of God and of course buttressed through science ( the deists also include Science as a way of supporting the existence of God) .

So dear , answer my question : why do you contravene their conclusions ? I mean there is no generally accepted rationale behind atheism so why use reason ? The deists have done that already and they acknowledged God's existence without any divine revelation even repudiating any claim of a divine revelation of God to man using reason , science and observation .

I noticed they have reasons for their respective conclusions, however, did it occur to you whether they were correct in their reasoning?

Haven't you noticed that the belief in God especially in the service of religion is an ideology. An outlook towards life that fuels itself. A false and biased lens with which the world is looked at.

Look at Deepsight's reasoning for the existence of a God that a material universe requires a cause and necessarily the cause must be immaterial. Meaning the cause must not be material which is merely a negative property without any further insight to the nature of the cause. Other descriptives include transcendental (which is equally a negative property).

Let's test the strength of the argument structure by analogy. There is a material box that requires a cause, therefore the cause must be immaterial.

Invariably Deepsight's argument carries hidden assumptions about the universe and more about the cause.

Aquinas on the other hand assumes two substances and uses the second substance to justify the first. If you were thoughtful enough you would have inquired why both the primary and secondary substances are necessary at all.

Again the common thread between both Aquinas and Deepsight is the ideology they both share which generates the hidden assumptions that fuel their premises as well as conclusions. Both will never address Being as a proper open question.

KingEbukasBlog:


You are just asking random questions which gives you the illusion of skepticism . Anyway , whatever the reasons why those bones were said to be those of John the Baptist by the experts must have been very strong and valid .

Can you imagine, you didn't even search on this extensively, you just bought into it, since it supported Jesus Christ. SMH

Joseph died in Egypt but he was buried in Shechem .So what exactly is your point ?

This was recorded, wasn't it.
You better bring up better point.

Expert 4kings can tell the scientists they have no idea about what they have chosen to embark on . I think they'll see the point you are making and stop the research immediately .

Stop being sly, mentioning "scientists".
I don't need to be an expert to know that the half life of a dna is only about 500years.

Its right there in the bible that Elizabeth and Mary are related . It was also mentioned in the article . I mean you are always confused and strongly deluded so I'm certain you didn't just want to accept the truth .

Luke 1:36
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

The original greek text used here indicated "relative" rather than cousin, this is also used in most other versions of the bible.

Moreso, if John and Jesus indeed were cousins, then how do you explain Luke 7:18-23.
Why would John not know who is cousin is?

Don't worry soon you'll be talking like you were beside Eusebius while he was forging the story of Jesus

Don't worry, i don't need to attack the veracity of the books of Eusebius to debunk this issue.

Kay17:


I noticed they have reasons for their respective conclusions, however, did it occur to you whether they were correct in their reasoning?

Haven't you noticed that the belief in God especially in the service of religion is an ideology. An outlook towards life that fuels itself. A false and biased lens with which the world is looked at.

Look at Deepsight's reasoning for the existence of a God that a material universe requires a cause and necessarily the cause must be immaterial. Meaning the cause must not be material which is merely a negative property without any further insight to the nature of the cause. Other descriptives include transcendental (which is equally a negative property).

Let's test the strength of the argument structure by analogy. There is a material box that requires a cause, therefore the cause must be immaterial.

Invariably Deepsight's argument carries hidden assumptions about the universe and more about the cause.

Aquinas on the other hand assumes two substances and uses the second substance to justify the first. If you were thoughtful enough you would have inquired why both the primary and secondary substances are necessary at all.

Again the common thread between both Aquinas and Deepsight is the ideology they both share which generates the hidden assumptions that fuel their premises as well as conclusions. Both will never address Being as a proper open question.

What changes if this cause is material?

Kay17:


I noticed they have reasons for their respective conclusions, however, did it occur to you whether they were correct in their reasoning?

Very correct reasoning . Impeccable

Haven't you noticed that the belief in God especially in the service of religion is an ideology. An outlook towards life that fuels itself. A false and biased lens with which the world is looked at.

Absolutely wrong .

Look at Deepsight's reasoning for the existence of a God that a material universe requires a cause and necessarily the cause must be immaterial. Meaning the cause must not be material which is merely a negative property without any further insight to the nature of the cause. Other descriptive include transcendental (which is equally a negative property).

I think this is just common sense dear . The universe is a material one and it is finite so whatever caused its existence wouldn't be material as the universe , it should be immaterial and has to be immutable to circumvent infinite regress . Something being transcendent means it is not a denizen of this universe , It exists outside the universe . There are so many insightful concepts about the nature of the cause . You can discover more in the philosophy of theism .

Let's test the strength of the argument structure by analogy. There is a material box that requires a cause, therefore the cause must be immaterial.

This is very specious . Let's say this material box is 13.5 billion years old and there was no time prior to existence of this material box , do you think the cause of the existence of this material box would still be a material entity ? The logical conclusion indeed is that the cause of this material box became temporal with the material box and it is timeless without it . And by timeless I mean non existence of time .

Invariably Deepsight's argument carries hidden assumptions about the universe and more about the cause.

These are logical deductions not mere assumptions .

Aquinas on the other hand assumes two substances and uses the second substance to justify the first. If you were thoughtful enough you would have inquired why both the primary and secondary substances are necessary at all.

Only primary substances are necessary , secondary substances are not . When something exists necessarily it cannot not exist because of its necessity of its own nature . And these necessarily existing substance is potent enough to cause the existence of other substances . Also , there can be a smorgasbord of secondary substances . Without the primary substance , nothing will exist . And of course , we know that something can't come from absolute nothingness , something can't create itself and infinite regress is impossible .

Again the common thread between both Aquinas and Deepsight is the ideology they both share which generates the hidden assumptions that fuel their premises as well as conclusions. Both will never address Being as a proper open question.

There are no hidden assumptions dear .

KingEbukasBlog:


Very correct reasoning . Impeccable

Absolutely wrong

KingEbukasBlog:
I think this is just common sense dear . The universe is a material one and it is finite so whatever caused its existence wouldn't be material as the universe , it should be immaterial and has to be immutable to circumvent infinite regress

And I demonstrated that this logic is flawed by substitution with another example - the material box. All material entities, by our experience, have been preceded by material causes so I wonder how you managed a leap in concluding that a material entity by virtue of being material necessarily has an immaterial cause. You have to bring a posterior example of this your special flawed argument.

KingEbukasBlog:
Something being transcendent means it is not a denizen of this universe , It exists outside the universe . There are so many insightful concepts about the nature of the cause . You can discover more in the philosophy of theism

Again I will reiterate that negative descriptions and properties are not useful nor insightful. Your argument against that was "no" without good reason.

KingEbukasBlog:
This is very specious . Let's say this material box is 13.5 billion years old and there was no time prior to existence of this material box , do you think the cause of the existence of this material box would still be a material entity ? The logical conclusion indeed is that the cause of this material box became temporal with the material box and it is timeless without it . And by timeless I mean non existence of time

Is the age of the material box that relevant? If the Universe was 2 years old, would your argument.

Your arguments on timelessness prove your poor understanding. If there was no passage of time how did the point before creation of the universe meet with the point of creation?

KingEbukasBlog:
Only primary substances are necessary , secondary substances are not . When something exists necessarily it cannot not exist because of its necessity of its own nature . And these necessarily existing substance is potent enough to cause the existence of other substances . Also , there can be a smorgasbord of secondary substances . Without the primary substance , nothing will exist . And of course , we know that something can't come from absolute nothingness , something can't create itself and infinite regress is impossible

What makes primary substance necessary?

Kay17:


And I demonstrated that this logic is flawed by substitution with another example - the material box. All material entities, by our experience, have been preceded by material causes so I wonder how you managed a leap in concluding that a material entity by virtue of being material necessarily has an immaterial cause. You have to bring a posterior example of this your special flawed argument.

I think I should start asking you questions because it seems what you atheists are only good at is criticism . My dear , let me know where you stand :

1. Can you name an immutable material entity ?

2. If material entities are preceded by material causes , doesn't this suggest infinite regress ?

3. Is the material universe all there is ?

Again I will reiterate that negative descriptions and properties are not useful nor insightful. Your argument against that was "no" without good reason.

Apparently ,you are the one criticizing with assumption as the basis . Your answers to those questions will prove me right . Let's go

Is the age of the material box that relevant? If the Universe was 2 years old, would your argument.

If the material universe was two years old then its cause would still be immaterial . Anything material and physical is solely of the material universe.

Your arguments on timelessness prove your poor understanding. If there was no passage of time how did the point before creation of the universe meet with the point of creation?

I answered this question in that post . I should rather question your ability to comprehend . Since the universe is finite and time is its constituent , the First Cause became temporal with the universe and is timeless without it . I'm sure you agreed unthinkingly with Stephen Hawking's prattle about the First Cause not having time to create the universe like it makes any sense . The same guy who said the universe created itself

OR

2. Like I said before : You can see things from Newton's point of view where He sees God as existing from infinite time past but this does not entail the ever presence of physical things i.e space and time are infinite since God is eternal , omnipresent . This is what he said :

He is eternal and infinite . . .; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity . . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere

But with this outlook , there was never a beginning per se. And God can still exist unchanging with time . I think DeepSight agrees with a Newton's infinite space perspective concerning God's omnipresence . Newton's point of view is very controversial and many disagree .

What makes primary substance necessary?

Because nothing would exist without it .

KingEbukasBlog:


That something cannot come from absolute nothingness or cause itself to exist . Didn't you read the write-up ?

Is funny that the basis of your own belief is either of the aforementioned and that every orderly complex system began to exist due to random chaotic processes . Am I wrong?

Good thinking...but if nothing can come from absolute nothingness...how did God come about? if we can believe that a being as complex and intelligent as God could create himself; then we must admit that a thing as complex as earth could create itself; right?

larisoft:


Good thinking...but if nothing can come from absolute nothingness...how did God come about? if we can believe that a being as complex and intelligent as God could create himself; then we must admit that a thing as complex as earth could create itself; right?

God is eternal ( he has no beginning or end ) , God did not create himself , God is not complex . Its illogical to ask how someone who is eternal came to be .

KingEbukasBlog:


God is eternal ( he has no beginning or end ) , God did not create himself , God is not complex . Its illogical to ask how someone who is eternal came to be .

Thanks for your response.

Please understand that am being very sincere here and not seeking argument for argument's sake. Your assertion that God is eternal seems more like a belief than a fact. Thus, we cannot really accept it in an intellectual conversation since i and everybody else, have beliefs ranging from the sensible to the ridiculous. However, we can judge your pattern of reasoning to decipher if its correct, and therefore, possibly leads to a correct conclusion.

So back to the question; if God is eternal and has no begining nor end; then your initial claim that nothing can come from nothing seems flawed. Since God has already come out from nothing already and his existence was caused by nothing. Or could it be you meant to say that everything has a beginning except God?

larisoft:


Thanks for your response.

Please understand that am being very sincere here and not seeking argument for argument's sake. Your assertion that God is eternal is seems more like a belief than a fact. Thus, we cannot really accept it in an intellectual conversation since i and everybody else, have beliefs ranging from the sensible to the ridiculous.

So back to the question; if God is eternal and has no begining nor end; then your initial claim that nothing can come from nothing seems flawed. Seems God has come out from nothing already. His existence was caused by nothing.

Good question but you should read the OP

Creatio ex nihilo , a concept of creation is from a materialist perspective : Creation out of nothing . Material in the sense of what is tangible , physical or bodied . And God is an immaterial being .

But creatio ex nihilo in my opinion seems to be a subset of another concept of creation called creatio ex deo that is the creation out of being of God . So what is seen as nothingness is actually of the being of an immaterial God since He is omnipresent and the source of everything that exists .

That is why atheism is illogical . If absolute nothingness once existed then why do we have the universe which is something - this only bespeaks of the existence of a transcendent force which has to be eternal and immaterial .

KingEbukasBlog:


Good question but you should read the OP

Creatio ex nihilo , a concept of creation is from a materialist perspective : Creation out of nothing . Material in the sense of what is tangible , physical or bodied . And God is an immaterial being .

But creatio ex nihilo in my opinion seems to be a subset of another concept of creation called creatio ex deo that is the creation out of being of God . So what is seen as nothingness is actually of the being of an immaterial God since He is omnipresent and the source of everything that exists .

That is why atheism is illogical . If absolute nothingness once existed then why do we have the universe which is something - this only bespeaks of the existence of a transcendent force which has to be eternal and immaterial .

I'm struggling to understand the numerous assertions here. Hopefully, you will correct me where i've misunderstood you.


The assertion am trying to prove or disprove here is the statement "nothing can come from nothingness".


You seem to be saying that God is immaterial, and then created the material. And that atheism is illogical because it assumes the universe rises from absolute nothingness.

On the first point, the material or immaterial nature of God doesnt prove the assertion that Nothing comes out of nothing. If immaterial means nothing; then nothing is already creating something when the immaterial God created a material universe. Thus, proving the OP's assertion wrong. If however immaterial means something that exists which we cant feel/touch/see, but it exists nonetheless, then something already exists here and the next question is how was it created? None of these train of thoughts however proves the assertion in question?

If i misunderstood you on this first point, please clarify without resorting to Latin as i sincerly do not speak latin.

On the second point, I consider this off tangent since atheists assume nothing. They simply do not believe certain assertions.

larisoft:

I'm struggling to understand the numerous assertions here. Hopefully, you will correct me where i've misunderstood you.

These are not mere assertions , these are logical deductions .

The assertion am trying to prove or disprove here is the statement "nothing can come from nothingness".

Atheists believe that something can come from nothing uncaused - that's it so illogical .

You seem to be saying that God is immaterial, and then created the material. And that atheism is illogical because it assumes the universe rises from absolute nothingness.

Exactly .

On the first point, the material or immaterial nature of God doesnt prove the assertion that Nothing comes out of nothing.

God has no material nature and yes nothing comes from nothing which makes atheism is illogical .

If immaterial means nothing; then nothing is already creating something when the immaterial God created a material universe. Thus, proving the OP's assertion wrong. If however immaterial means something that exists which we cant feel/touch/see, but it exists nonetheless, then something already exists here and the next question is how was it created? None of these train of thoughts however proves the assertion in question?

This is a mishmash of contradicting thoughts . Nothing can't create anything . It is causally impotent .

All I'm trying to say is that something can't come from absolute nothingness uncaused or without a transcendent force which is eternal . Since something which is God already exists then How was it created ?

There is what is called infinite regress of causes : an infinite chain of cause and effect [endless beginnings] and this is totally illogical . And since infinite regress of causes is illogical , something has to be eternal . Something being eternal means it has always been . It never had a beginning and it is changeless or immutable . The term 'First Cause' was coined to represent this eternal being that could cause the existence of things while itself is uncaused or without any cause .

The atheist belief is that there is no such being . And that there was absolute nothingness then suddenly something comes into existence without any cause .

If i misunderstood you on this first point, please clarify without resorting to Latin as i sincerly do not speak latin.

You clearly did .

Creatio ex nihilo : creation out of nothingness . That is the coming into being of our material universe caused by an immaterial entity an unembodied mind or consciousness

Creatio ex deo : creation out of being of God . That is our material universe and everything in it was created out of the being of an immaterial entity or an unembodied mind or consciousness

On the second point, I consider this off tangent since atheists assume nothing. They simply do not believe certain assertions.

Its pretty simple . If you believe there is no creator . It is either

1. The universe created itself from absolute nothingness which is clearly illogical

2. The universe is eternal [ all scientific evidence show that the universe is finite or began to exist , physical laws show that the universe have a beginning but they don't show the universe began]

That means atheists believe in 1 which is clearly illogical .

KingEbukasBlog:


These are not mere assertions , these are logical deductions .





Atheists believe that something can come from nothing uncaused - that's it so illogical .




Exactly .



God has no material nature and yes nothing comes from nothing which makes atheism is illogical .



This is a mishmash of contradicting thoughts . Nothing can't create anything . It is causally impotent .

All I'm trying to say is that something can't come from absolute nothingness uncaused or without a transcendent force which is eternal . Since something which is God already exists then How was it created ?

There is what is called infinite regress of causes : an infinite chain of cause and effect [endless beginnings] and this is totally illogical . And since infinite regress of causes is illogical , something has to be eternal . Something being eternal means it has always been . It never had a beginning and it is changeless or immutable . The term 'First Cause' was coined to represent this eternal being that could cause the existence of things while itself is uncaused or without any cause .

The atheist belief is that there is no such being . And that there was absolute nothingness then suddenly something comes into existence without any cause .



You clearly did .

Creatio ex nihilo : creation out of nothingness . That is the coming into being of our material universe caused by an immaterial entity an unembodied mind or consciousness

Creatio ex deo : creation out of being of God . That is our material universe and everything in it was created out of the being of an immaterial entity or an unembodied mind or consciousness



Its pretty simple . If you believe there is no creator . It is either

1. The universe created itself from absolute nothingness which is clearly illogical

2. The universe is eternal [ all scientific evidence show that the universe is finite or began to exist , physical laws show that the universe have a beginning but they don't show the universe began]

That means atheists believe in 1 which is clearly illogical .

Atheists believe that something can come out of nothing: this is false. There is no definition of atheism that describes them to believe in anything. They simply do not agree with certain religious principles. Anything u add further here is speculation. There are atheists who assume the earth came from big bang theory. there are also atheists who think that story is bullshit. These views do not make them atheists. What makes them atheists is there disbelief in religious principles.

Then infinite regress of causes is illogical: this is not only false; but suffers from the fallacy of composition. This fallacy has to do with assuming that what is true for the member of a group is true for the group as a whole. The fact that every element on universe has a causal effect does not translate this attribute to the universe itself.

the infinite regress of causes doesnt even set in at all. We dont know that the universe must have a beginning to start with. The fact that you posit that a being has to have set off the events presents the fallacy of special pleading where you say everything has an attribute, and then go on to make an exception to be able to justify your claim in the first place.

larisoft:

Atheists believe that something can come out of nothing: this is false.

Most atheists do while some believe the universe is eternal . You really need to read the OP and understand it cos I'm forced to repeat whatever being said there and it is stressful . An eternal universe does not preclude the existence of God it only makes God seem like an impersonal God .

larisoft:
There is no definition of atheism that describes them to believe in anything.

Atheism is the belief there is no God .

larisoft:
They simply do not agree with certain religious principles.Anything u add further here is speculation. There are atheists who assume the earth came from big bang theory. there are also atheists who think that story is bullshit. These views do not make them atheists. What makes them atheists is there disbelief in religious principles.

There are religious atheists : https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

And the deists who acknowledge the existence of God repudiate any religious dogma .

Atheism is not the rejection of religious principles , it is the belief there is no God .

larisoft:
Then infinite regress of causes is illogical: this is not only false; but suffers from the fallacy of composition. This fallacy has to do with assuming that what is true for the member of a group is true for the group as a whole. The fact that every element on universe has a causal effect does not translate this attribute to the universe itself.

I think you should understand the cosmological argument for the existence of God . Its not saying that everything in the universe has a cause therefore the universe has a cause . The universe as a whole began to exist , therefore it has a cause . Clearly , there is no fallacy of composition .

larisoft:
the infinite regress of causes doesnt even set in at all. We dont know that the universe must have a beginning to start with. The fact that you posit that a being has to have set off the events presents the fallacy of special pleading where you say everything has an attribute, and then go on to make an exception to be able to justify your claim in the first place.

According to the lecture by Stephen Hawking , physical laws show that the universe had a beginning . All indications show that the universe is finite . There are other reasons why the universe is finite as stated here : hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

There is no fallacy of special pleading . Abstract objects like numbers , properties are also uncreated and are necessarily existing .

KingEbukasBlog:


I think I should start asking you questions because it seems what you atheists are only good at is criticism . My dear , let me know where you stand :

1. Can you name an immutable material entity ?

2. If material entities are preceded by material causes , doesn't this suggest infinite regress ?

3. Is the material universe all there is ?

If the material universe was two years old then its cause would still be immaterial . Anything material and physical is solely of the material universe.

DO NOT SHUFFLE THE ISSUES!

It defeats the purpose of a meaningful discussion. Its best each issue raised is resolved and trashed. If you have questions for me to answer I will at the right opportunity.

We were in the middle of demonstrating the competence of your argument that an immaterial entity can be a cause for a material entity. And we used a material box substitution as an example to prove how absurd such a suggestion was. It is too arbitrary and lazy to suggest the universe has an immaterial cause without an actual scientific research. By merely ascribing the universe to being the handiwork of an immaterial being it creates a speculative abyss from which anything can be imagined.

KingEbukasBlog:
I answered this question in that post . I should rather question your ability to comprehend . Since the universe is finite and time is its constituent , the First Cause became temporal with the universe and is timeless without it . I'm sure you agreed unthinkingly with Stephen Hawking's prattle about the First Cause not having time to create the universe like it makes any sense . The same guy who said the universe created itself

Take A as the point before creation of the universe and point B as the point of creation, in a timeless realm, without time, how then was it possible for both points to meet?

I strongly doubt if you have an intelligible answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
2. Like I said before : You can see things from Newton's point of view where He sees God as existing from infinite time past but this does not entail the ever presence of physical things i.e space and time are infinite since God is eternal , omnipresent . This is what he said :

He is eternal and infinite . . .; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity . . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere

But with this outlook , there was never a beginning per se. And God can still exist unchanging with time . I think DeepSight agrees with a Newton's infinite space perspective concerning God's omnipresence . Newton's point of view is very controversial and many disagree .

Because nothing would exist without it .

How do you ascertain an infinite past?

KingEbukasBlog:


These are not mere assertions , these are logical deductions .





Atheists believe that something can come from nothing uncaused - that's it so illogical .




Exactly .



God has no material nature and yes nothing comes from nothing which makes atheism is illogical .



This is a mishmash of contradicting thoughts . Nothing can't create anything . It is causally impotent .

All I'm trying to say is that something can't come from absolute nothingness uncaused or without a transcendent force which is eternal . Since something which is God already exists then How was it created ?

There is what is called infinite regress of causes : an infinite chain of cause and effect [endless beginnings] and this is totally illogical . And since infinite regress of causes is illogical , something has to be eternal . Something being eternal means it has always been . It never had a beginning and it is changeless or immutable . The term 'First Cause' was coined to represent this eternal being that could cause the existence of things while itself is uncaused or without any cause .

The atheist belief is that there is no such being . And that there was absolute nothingness then suddenly something comes into existence without any cause .



You clearly did .

Creatio ex nihilo : creation out of nothingness . That is the coming into being of our material universe caused by an immaterial entity an unembodied mind or consciousness

Creatio ex deo : creation out of being of God . That is our material universe and everything in it was created out of the being of an immaterial entity or an unembodied mind or consciousness



Its pretty simple . If you believe there is no creator . It is either

1. The universe created itself from absolute nothingness which is clearly illogical

2. The universe is eternal [ all scientific evidence show that the universe is finite or began to exist , physical laws show that the universe have a beginning but they don't show the universe began]

That means atheists believe in 1 which is clearly illogical .

The belief in an eternal universe is not a necessary belief be an atheist.

You keep hammering endlessly the point that the universe is finite in line with the contemporary scientific theories and ideas but you fail to follow through. The Multiverse theory shows the possibility that the universe is one of billions of other universes. When one contemplates this possibility the 13th century theory of first cause seems hopelessly outdated

Kay17:


The belief in an eternal universe is not a necessary belief be an atheist.

Of course . There are so many theologians and theists that accept the existence of an eternal universe .

You keep hammering endlessly the point that the universe is finite in line with the contemporary scientific theories and ideas but you fail to follow through. The Multiverse theory shows the possibility that the universe is one of billions of other universes. When one contemplates this possibility the 13th century theory of first cause seems hopelessly outdated

The multiverse theory holds no water . And it still does not still preclude the existence of God . God must have chosen to create a world ensemble if He wished . And Its funny how you quickly accept the multiverse theory gotten from science fiction with no evidence whatsoever yet believe the existence First Cause is not possible . You are not done with one universe and you are speculating there are billions of them . Are you the one that kept them there

KingEbukasBlog:


The multiverse theory holds no water . And it still does not still preclude the existence of God . God must have chosen to create a world ensemble if He wished . And Its funny how you quickly accept the multiverse theory gotten from science fiction with no evidence whatsoever yet believe the existence First Cause is not possible . You are not done with one universe and you are speculating there are billions of them . Are you the one that kept them there

This is why your religious belief in God is an ideology. By mere pronouncement multiverse theory holds no water.

Kay17:


DO NOT SHUFFLE THE ISSUES!

It defeats the purpose of a meaningful discussion. Its best each issue raised is resolved and trashed. If you have questions for me to answer I will at the right opportunity.

These are pertinent questions . And I insist you answer them .

We were in the middle of demonstrating the competence of your argument that an immaterial entity can be a cause for a material entity. And we used a material box substitution as an example to prove how absurd such a suggestion was. It is too arbitrary and lazy to suggest the universe has an immaterial cause without an actual scientific research.

You clearly said earlier that we can ascertain the truth through reason . Now , all are truths obtained through reason supported by science ? Does science refute the existence of God ? How would science prove the existence of God ? Is your position as an atheist supported by science? Prove it if you think it is .

By merely ascribing the universe to being the handiwork of an immaterial being it creates a speculative abyss from which anything can be imagined.

Of course there can be speculations about God's other attributes it does not question the existence of God in any way .

Take A as the point before creation of the universe and point B as the point of creation, in a timeless realm, without time, how then was it possible for both points to meet?

I gave you two examples . Apparently , Newtonian conception of absolute time solves this ' conundrum' since God as Sir Isaac Newton posited exists from an infinite past . I can explain God's relationship with time from the other example expounding how a timeless God could create a finite universe but I fear interminable arguments would ensue .

I strongly doubt if you have an intelligible answer.

Why?

How do you ascertain an infinite past?

The issue of time is controversial . There are two theories of time : The A and B theory of time . And the B theory of time sees time as an illusion and tenseless . So according to the B theory of time , there was no infinite past , present , future , it is endless timelessness . Your question is not totally answerable because it depends on one's perspective of what time is .

Actually it's the theistschristians that view God as a bearded man sitting in the sky

Kay17:


This is why your religious belief in God is an ideology. By mere pronouncement multiverse theory holds no water.

My dear . My response was due to your insinuation that the existence of a multiverse precludes the existence of God. I just mocked the idea that you think it does .

But honestly its plain stupid to say there is no creator yet speculate that there are billions of finite universes . There is actually no reason to believe that there are such universes but there are a thousand and one reasons to acknowledge the existence of a creator .

But I stand to be corrected . If you think I'm wrong , show me how please .

jonbellion:
Actually it's the theistschristians that view God as a bearded man sitting in the sky

I always explain anthropomorphism to Christians anytime I'm opportune to . Even atheists hold such ridiculous view - that's how the 'sky daddy' nonsense came about

KingEbukasBlog:


Most atheists do while some believe the universe is eternal . You really need to read the OP and understand it cos I'm forced to repeat whatever being said there and it is stressful . An eternal universe does not preclude the existence of God it only makes God seem like an impersonal God .



Atheism is the belief there is no God .

Please, can we try to avoid that immature type of conversation where someone never admits they are wrong. You just admitted here that your premise that atheists believe something is a generalization (most atheists do while some believe the universe is eternal ...) Why not admit that my conclusion on that point was right so that i can atleast know that am reasoning with a respectable interlocutor?


Atheism is the belief there is no God: This is false. disbelief of the existence of a thing does not mean belief in its inexistence. If someone told you your relation is dead and you do not believe; it does not mean you believe said relation is alive either. If someone calls you at that moment to ask if that particular relation is dead your answer is most likely "I dont know". You simply do not believe he is dead!!!! It is a state of denial. I trust you will be kind enough to look up the dictionary definition of atheism.

Atheism is not the rejection of religious principles , it is the belief there is no God .

This is a grossly wrong assertion. Please look up the definition of atheism... or look at it here. atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I think you should understand the cosmological argument for the existence of God . Its not saying that everything in the universe has a cause therefore the universe has a cause . The universe as a whole began to exist , therefore it has a cause . Clearly , there is no fallacy of composition .

Good. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is not a fact. It is a theory which you can take sides with or against. It proves nothing. Nor is it wholly accepted amongst philosophy icons, past and present. It cannot therefore constitute a premise to a logical conclusion and i must toss it aside and welcome you to do same.

According to the lecture by Stephen Hawking , physical laws show that the universe had a beginning . All indications show that the universe is finite . There are other reasons why the universe is finite as stated here : hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

These are not facts and cannot constitute a veritable premise for any logical conclusion. I respect Stephen Hawking. But even he appreciates the difference between theories and laws. Theories only serve to persuade us to think about things from a certain perspective. Laws/facts means that once we acknolowedge a piece of information, our thoughts are to be bound by it. e.g. upon discovering a dead person. you must consider him dead in every thought you wield of him afterwards. And so must anyone who comes to discuss with you.

There is no fallacy of special pleading . Abstract objects like numbers , properties are also uncreated and are necessarily existing .

Your premises are wrong.
numbers do have an origin: they began to exist the minute the first objects came together to form a collection. Properties are born the minute the object they describe is born...


I am a very unbiased person...possibly the most unbiased you've interacted with. And in all sincerity, your response, has done nothing within the boundaries of logic, to distort my previous conclusion; mainly that you initial assertions for which we began this conversation and their conclusions are false.

These are my logical conclusions.
1. The litmus test to determine an atheist is not what he believes, but what he doesnt.

2. Stating that the universe has a cause immediately presents the problem: what caused the cause? Stating that that cause is exempt, for any reason, from being caused, presents the problem of special pleading. The statement that the universe has a cause is therefore logically false.

larisoft:

Please, can we try to avoid that immature type of conversation where someone never admits they are wrong. You just admitted here that your premise that atheists believe something is a generalization (most atheists do while some believe the universe is eternal ...) Why not admit that my conclusion on that point was right so that i can atleast know that am reasoning with a respectable interlocutor?

I've been making corrections to so many assertions you've made and you've never admitted you are wrong and taken correction . And I'm not wrong about this , it looks like you misconstrued my statement : only atheists believe something can come from nothing as per the belief that the universe came to being uncaused from absolute nothingness .

Atheism is the belief there is no God: This is false. disbelief of the existence of a thing does not mean belief in its inexistence. If someone told you your relation is dead and you do not believe; it does not mean you believe said relation is alive either. If someone calls you at that moment to ask if that particular relation is dead your answer is most likely "I dont know". You simply do not believe he is dead!!!! It is a state of denial. I trust you will be kind enough to look up the dictionary definition of atheism.

You are defining Agnosticism . Does God exists ?

Theism : Yes
A-Theism : No
Agnosticism : I dont know (uncertainty)

If theism claims the existence of God then the direct opposite which is atheism claims there is no God . Do not confuse the position of the agnostic with one for the atheist .

Normally when you are agnostic about something you are uncertain about it . In the philosophy of theism , we can be agnostic about the nature of God - attributes that he could have but we can't say with certitude that he has them .

Good. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is not a fact. It is a theory which you can take sides with or against. It proves nothing. Nor is it wholly accepted amongst philosophy icons, past and present. It cannot therefore constitute a premise to a logical conclusion and i must toss it aside and welcome you to do same.

Right now you could have admitted that you were wrong about the fallacy of composition you thought I committed . Can you admit you were wrong . Your opinion about the cosmological argument is nobody's concern here . I simply explained why the cosmological argument is not a fallacy of composition .

These are not facts and cannot constitute a veritable premise for any logical conclusion. I respect Stephen Hawking. But even he appreciates the difference between theories and laws. Theories only serve to persuade us to think about things from a certain perspective. Laws/facts means that once we acknolowedge a piece of information, our thoughts are to be bound by it. e.g. upon discovering a dead person. you must consider him dead in every thought you wield of him afterwards. And so must anyone who comes to discuss with you.

According to Stephen Hawking , a renowned cosmologist , physical laws predict the universe had a beginning . He also gave his reasons why the universe indeed has a beginning . I expect you to give your reasons why his reasons for a finite universe are false . Enough of the red herrings .

Your premises are wrong.
numbers do have an origin: they began to exist the minute the first objects came together to form a collection. Properties are born the minute the object they describe is born...

Very false .Numbers have no origin . You are clearly forgetting that zero is a number . Prior to the first object that existed or that was created there was no object (zero) which had no(zero) properties . And we can call the set (A) with no defined objects an empty set .

Anyway , one of the many reasons why abstract objects are uncreated is because they are causally impotent , they don't get involved in causal relations or have the power to cause anything . And therefore , they are uncreated. Numbers are not concrete but they can be physically or graphically represented like this : 0 , 1 , 2 . Have you seen a number that has caused anything ?

I am a very unbiased person...possibly the most unbiased you've interacted with. And in all sincerity, your response, has done nothing within the boundaries of logic, to distort my previous conclusion; mainly that you initial assertions for which we began this conversation and their conclusions are false.

I should be the judge of that .

These are my logical conclusions.
1. The litmus test to determine an atheist is not what he believes, but what he doesnt.

Very faulty conclusion . Disbelief is a belief , to disbelieve in one train of thought is to believe in another train of thought. Eg

I don't believe he is right is the same as I believe he is wrong .

2. Stating that the universe has a cause immediately presents the problem: what caused the cause? Stating that that cause is exempt, for any reason, from being caused, presents the problem of special pleading. The statement that the universe has a cause is therefore logically false.

And an infinite chain of causes is also illogical . Also , I have now proven that abstract objects are uncreated . There is no special pleading here sir .

felixomor:
Atheism is always dead on arrival.

Nice One brother.

not just DEAD.
LMAO!

KingEbukasBlog:


You clearly said earlier that we can ascertain the truth through reason . Now , all are truths obtained through reason supported by science ? Does science refute the existence of God ? How would science prove the existence of God ? Is your position as an atheist supported by science? Prove it if you think it is

Because someone labels his thought process reason, does not make it correct or logical. The argument and thought process itself must be x rayed for correctness.
Of course there can be speculations about God's other attributes it does not question the existence of God in any way .

I have noticed as well that you mistake logical rigour for truth. The logical rigour or validity of an argument is largely dependent on the basic premises and assumptions upon which it relies on. And it is not the same for the truth. Truth is independent from logical rigour.

So when Aquinas and Deepsight made logical deductions they make them from preexisting assumptions and premises. And when these assumptions are questioned, the logical rigour cannot make up for it.

KingEbukasBlog:
I gave you two examples . Apparently , Newtonian conception of absolute time solves this ' conundrum' since God as Sir Isaac Newton posited exists from an infinite past . I can explain God's relationship with time from the other example expounding how a timeless God could create a finite universe but I fear interminable arguments would ensue .

The issue of time is controversial . There are two theories of time : The A and B theory of time . And the B theory of time sees time as an illusion and tenseless . So according to the B theory of time , there was no infinite past , present , future , it is endless timelessness . Your question is not totally answerable because it depends on one's perspective of what time is .

Use your own theory of time to back up your claim

Kay17:


Because someone labels his thought process reason, does not make it correct or logical. The argument and thought process itself must be x rayed for correctness.

I have noticed as well that you mistake logical rigour for truth. The logical rigour or validity of an argument is largely dependent on the basic premises and assumptions upon which it relies on. And it is not the same for the truth. Truth is independent from logical rigour.

So when Aquinas and Deepsight made logical deductions they make them from preexisting assumptions and premises. And when these assumptions are questioned, the logical rigour cannot make up for it.

You still haven't shown why their arguments are invalid or illogical . All I see are arguments from personal incredulity and evading questions that question your position as an atheist .

'I can't see how an immaterial being can cause a material universe to exist , therefore an immaterial being did not create universe .'

'I don't see the logic behind Aquinas' arguments therefore they are false'

This is exactly what you are doing .


But dearest Kay17 , can we hold this argument in abeyance for a while I ask you some questions please .

Use your own theory of time to back up your claim

I made no claim . You asked how an infinite time past can be ascertained and I told you why your question is not totally answerable . I noticed this : you don't believe that the universe came from nothing like Krauss asserted , that means you believe the universe is eternal . Can you explain how you were able to ascertain that the universe existed from an infinite time past ?

KingEbukasBlog:


I noticed this : you don't believe that the universe came from nothing like Krauss asserted , that means you believe the universe is eternal . Can you explain how you were able to ascertain that the universe existed from an infinite time past ?

Does it?