superhumanist:


Then, I too can claim that the celestial teapot is another uncaused cause without any evidence.

Thank you. Now butter, refute that and I might seriously entertain your op.

Butterflyleo:


You and budaatum are speaking about an abstract known in mathematics. My OP is not dealing with abstracts but reality of the universe. Or is the universe you know abstract?

I am not going to define God to you. My OP is not about Yahweh or Allah but about GOD.

You are speaking about an abstract known in religion that is called god!

darkchild64:


one question for you please give me a yes or no answer

DOES SCIENCE AGREE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A "GOD ??

For the third and final time

Dummy. Science is based on empirical proofs limited to this universe. God exists OUTSIDE our universe which is why he is called THE UNCAUSED CAUSE AND THE IMMUTABLE MOVER

How do you even reason?

Butterflyleo:


Another facepalm.

Last warning

why are you pained ?

is it my fault that you cannot describe how this you nameless "God" created the universe, or you know that giving us an explanation of how he created the universe would make us spot the "God" you are referring to.
After you would be claiming that you are intelligent,you want to engage atheists,mtchewww

Butterflyleo:


You do not even realise how intellectually dishonest you have been with your arguments.

Shouldn't the entire scientific world agree that this has been proven?

Are you seriously not directing the above to yourself?

budaatum:

You are speaking about an abstract known in religion that is called god!

Please stick to the OP or risk a ban for derailing. I am talking about scientific laws and arguments which support an intelligent purposeful origin or creator of the effect we see today and call our universe.

Butterflyleo:


That would make you profoundly stupid and guarantee you a spot in the most stupid person alive platform.

I guess you've just about summed it up nicely.

I can't help but smh.

darkchild64:


why are you pained ?

is it my fault that you cannot describe how this you nameless "God" created the universe, or you know that giving us an explanation of how he created the universe would make us spot the "God" you are referring to.
After you would be claiming that you are intelligent,you want to engage atheists,mtchewww

So unless I mention the God I am referring to you atheists cannot disprove my argument?



Are you saying atheists are retards?

darkchild64:
just to know if we are on the same page who is this "God" you are referring to,
because if by chance it is Yahweh then you are wrong, the Bible stated how he created the world

Abide by OP's rule and piece of advice to stick to "God"

darkchild64:
could it be that Christians now entertain the idea that Yahweh may not be the one true "God",
congrats you guys are now upgrading small small,
for a Christian to say that "no one knows how "God" created the universe"
it means there is a lot going on

SMH. You must that desperate to, in an open and unashamed manner twist:
"No one can describe beyond conventional wisdom how "God" created the universe"
into
"no one knows how "God" created the universe"

MuttleyLaff:
Abide by OP's rule and piece of advice to stick to "God"

SMH. You must that desperate to, in an open and unashamed manner twist:
"No one can describe beyond conventional wisdom how "God" created the universe"
into
"no one knows how "God" created the universe"

You saw that too.

[quote author=budaatum post=66717286]

Your question was rather meaningless since no one has decided a I needs the permission of another driver to drive a car. In fact, all one needs is a car key, and the know how, provided the car is legally ones.

you do not get the analogy? i doubt . my analogy was based on hierarchical system, you are a car driver who needs a permission from another car driver who in turn will depend on another driver till infinity. so actually you may have the key with the car yet you cannot drive because you still depend on another driver instruction(see it like a driver in a loose bus terminal). i do not want to make the analogy more brain tasking . lets live it this way.

The uncaused causer is not an axiom. It is an hypothesis at best and has not been proven to be true or valid in anyway whatsoever!

what we can see tells us that phenomena are at some point causeless. Things happen for absolutely no reason (at least sub-atomically), and that filters up over time.

And please, the topic being discussed is difficult in its own right. Don't further complicate things by not being clear in your writing or you will open yourself to be misunderstood.

can you be more clear at this point. do you mean you cannot grasp my drift? am ready to make it clearer

Butterflyleo:


You are just too dumb for this thread so please go and sit down. I need to begin more threads like this that expose your unintelligence outside shouting Yahweh does not exist up and down.

I already presented my evidence. If you call them lies since all I did was use science to explain science, then it shows how ignorant you truly are.

You presented your opinion not evidence. If you have scientific proof you won't be here. You just gave your poor opinion about science. Imagine you calling the big bang a hypothesis, even a fool knows that the big bang is a theory and not a hypothesis. You don't know that but you are claiming scientific knowledge.

Butterflyleo:


So unless I mention the God I am referring to you atheists cannot disprove my argument?



Are you saying atheists are retards?

that is not what I said,all I asked you to do was to tell us how "God" created the universe, when science comes up with any conclusion it must have methods to arrive at that
you want to prove that "God" exists using science,and I am offering you the opportunity to be scientific
HOW DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE ?
I am not asking you of the name of the "God"

p.s quit the cursing already,I thought you were a Christian and the bible says that calling someone bad names would take you to hell,abi you no dy fear hell again

Dalam0n:


You presented your opinion not evidence. If you have scientific proof you won't be here. You just gave your poor opinion about science. Imagine you calling the big bang a hypothesis, even a fool knows that the big bang is a theory and not a hypothesis. You don't know that but you are claiming scientific knowledge.

I hear. Can you not refute the OP with your RICH opinion of science?

I would really love to read that for once.

darkchild64:
that is not what I said,
all I asked you to do was to tell us how "God" created the universe,
when science comes up with any conclusion it must have methods to arrive at that
you want to prove that "God" exists using science, and I am offering you the opportunity to be scientific
HOW DID GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE?

"God" is not just as scientific as the next scientist but is more

How many times do you want it repeated that God created the universe
not much different to how, Bill Gates, created the world's largest software business, Microsoft, using a combination of knowledge and method(s)?

darkchild64:
I am not asking you of the name of the "God"

Good, we can have a sigh of relief

darkchild64:
p.s quit the cursing already

"Are you saying atheists are retards?"
- Butterflyleo ©

Where, how and when is the cursing in the above question asked?
It isnt amusing crying wolf when none's in sight.

darkchild64:
I thought you were a Christian and the bible says that calling someone bad names would take you to hell, abi you no dy fear hell again

Playing the accusation card
and doing the "bible says..." in the style of the infamous accuser, a bit too early, arent you now

frank317:


If infinite regression is impossible, why then do Christians insist that every creation MUST have a creator? Why do they insist that every driver must have a superior who he must take permission from

i do not think it is all about Christianity only, even pagan, atheist everybody regardless of their faith and knowledge often justify the believes, wanting to ascertain or establish that their beliefs as real knowledge, not just that, and in doing so we nominate something else outside the premises as a justifier . we back it up or use it to support it. for instance Muslim back up the VALIDITY OF quran using ALLAH and that is their real knowledge status. for example , i believe the water is colorless, i justify it by looking at the water and i observed it is colorless.so if my observation is questioned, which means i have to also justify my observation( for example, how do i know that what i observed in the water is indeed colorless)and we repeat this infinitely, will it not become problem? in fact it will indeed turn to knowledge problem. read more on the concept called knowledge problem in philosophy online.

Dalam0n:


The argument though totally invalid supports a deist God and not the Christian God which he believes in. Do you guys notice that Christian apologist never try to provide evidence to show that Yahweh exist? All they do is try to argue for a creator God ALONE whose existence can never be known unlike the Yahweh or Jesus God they believe in whose existence can be known or proven, assuming their claims are true because the God they believe in according to the attributes they assign to him can be tested and it should be knowable to any body that test it. Even the bible makes claims about a God that can be known and tested assuming he exist for real. The Christian apologist know that the claims of the bible are totally false so they run to hug the deist idea of a creator God that can never be shown or proven to exist in reality. William Craig takes this nonsense too far by always throwing the bible under the bus. For example he'll try to tell you that objective morality exist and it comes from God, but when you show him his God violating this objective moral principles, he'll tell you that he is not here to talk about the biblical morality, yet he wants you to believe that objective morality exist and it's from his God which is the God of the bible. These are are just so dishonest and crazy

If you believe in a deist God shouldn't there be for all measure a deist devil?

Butterflyleo:
I have come again. I did a lot of thinking today and while in this state I decided to put down some very interesting scientific stuff that can be said to prove that there is a creator or a God as it were. I will be very brief so I appeal to you the reader to bear with me. If you are an atheist I would like you to disprove these three proofs of a creator God if you can.

Here are my proofs

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causalicauseThus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every caus has an effect.

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.


What I just showed is an example of a deliberate scientific experiment with several elements deliberately brought into play of which none could happen without an external help or external initiation/initiator whom we call God.

The whole universe was a deliberate scientific experiment on a much larger scale than we are used to set in motion by God. Everything we witness in our small scale scientific experiments in the labs and which we deliberately cause and effect, are also seen on a much larger scale in our universe. There is no difference except in size.

There is an uncaused cause known as God who scientifically created this experiment known as our universe same way there is a scientist in a lab who deliberately created his experiment for reasons best known to him.

If you are not scientifically inclined you may not be able to follow my argument. So please those who are not scientifically minded should take several seats and not comment ignorantly.

The first cause could also be an unintelligent force. It could be like gravity but different. it might not be omnipotent, good/bad, requiring of worship.

The first cause doesn't need to be self aware or conscious/intelligent .. it only needs to be the first cause. it could also be multiple uncaused causes that resulted in the universe.
First cause isn't necessarily God/a God.

vaxx:

you do not get the analogy? i doubt . my analogy was based on hierarchical system, you are a car driver who needs a permission from another car driver who in turn will depend on another driver till infinity. so actually you may have the key with the car yet you cannot drive because you still depend on another driver instruction(see it like a driver in a loose bus terminal). i do not want to make the analogy more brain tasking . lets live it this way

I do get your analogy vaxx, it just doesn't make sense.

You say I need permission from another driver who in turn needs permission from another driver till infinity. If that is the case, then we'd just have to keep asking permission from another driver till we give up and just find another means of getting to where we want to get to. And that will apply as long as we continue to need the permission of another driver.

If however, at some point of asking another driver, I can get tired of asking another driver and just jump in the car and drive it, then I mustn't have needed the permission in the first place and shouldn't have bothered with the rule to begin with.

So which is it, do I need any permissions to drive the car or could I just say "to hell with it", jump in the car and drive off?





What I'm saying is, write clearly so you can be understood!

vaxx:
i do not think it is all about Christianity only, even pagan, atheist everybody regardless of their faith and knowledge often justify the believes, wanting to ascertain or establish that their beliefs as real knowledge, not just that, and in doing so we nominate something else outside the premises as a justifier . we back it up or use it to support it. for instance Muslim back up the VALIDITY OF quran using ALLAH and that is their real knowledge status. for example , i believe the water is colorless, i justify it by looking at the water and i observed it is colorless.so if my observation is questioned, which means i have to also justify my observation( for example, how do i know that what i observed in the water is indeed colorless)and we repeat this infinitely, will it not become problem? in fact it will indeed turn to knowledge problem. read more on the concept called knowledge problem in philosophy online.

One can justify anything one wants if one tried hard enough. Some people justify blowing up those who don't believe what they believe, for instance, but not many would agree with their justification now, or would we?

The fact is that one's justifications can be based on one's subjective viewpoint, which basically amounts to "because I said so", and which is what butter is attempting to do on here. He is bound to hit against someone else's subjective "because I said so too", as he seems to have done. It is the reason we ask for evidence beyond "because I said sos"!

.

Butterflyleo:


Dummy. Science is based on empirical proofs limited to this universe. God exists OUTSIDE our universe which is why he is called THE UNCAUSED CAUSE AND THE IMMUTABLE MOVER.

If this were true, I wonder then why you then attempt to use "empirical proofs [sic] limited to this universe" to prove a thing "exists OUTSIDE our universe".

Have you just not, in one more swoop amongst many, proved that your thread is baseless, and just pointless clickbait?

Butterflyleo:


I hear. Can you not refute the OP with your RICH opinion of science?

I would really love to read that for once.

You don't even know basic science yet you are yapping thrash. How can someone that says the big bang is a hypothesis engage in any serious scientific talk? All what you've stated are arguments you copied from other apologist that have been debunked already.

danvon:
If you believe in a deist God shouldn't there be for all measure a deist devil?

God is n idea and the deist created theirs. Deist don't believe in the devil generally. They only believe in a non intervention creator God that create the universe.

Butterflyleo:


It is obvious that every single one of you atheists drink from the same cup of idiocy. So I will post the same response I gave to darkchild when he made the very same silly comment as yours.



That should sort out your problem

Uncaused cause still admits that God is caused. It simply means that God exists on his own, it does not mean he has no begining?
Since u are relying on science can u give a scientific prove of how God is uncaused? Where is outside the universe? Has science seen a place known as outside the universe? Is that where a community of Gods exists or wherw only one God lives?
I think the universe is the uncaused cause

Gggg102:


The first cause could also be an unintelligent force. It could be like gravity but different. it might not be omnipotent, good/bad, requiring of worship.

The first cause doesn't need to be self aware or conscious/intelligent .. it only needs to be the first cause. it could also be multiple uncaused causes that resulted in the universe.
First cause isn't necessarily God/a God.

very good point,from what the op is saying what he terms "God" is the first cause that was UNCAUSED,but then why should we start assuming that "the first cause" is a being,going by the op the only thing we know about the first cause is that it was "the UNCAUSED CAUSE,the IMMUTABLE MOVER" is that enough for us to describe "the first cause" as a being that must be worshipped, which is obviously what the whole "God" idea is.
My opinion about this is simple,maybe there was a first cause,an UNCAUSED CAUSE as butterflyleo would say,which began everything hence you won't be entirely wrong if you say this "first cause" created the universe, however this "first cause" doesn't necessary have to be a being with human characteristics like Yahweh and Zeus,it doesn't have to have a nature,it doesn't have to be tangible,it doesn't have to be anything we know as GOD!!!!
the "first cause",is merely " the first cause" because that is the only thing we know about it and funny enough it is an assumption

Butterflyleo:
Anybody who tries to derail this thread will be immediately reported so blame yourself if you get a ban.

Frank317 you have been warned

Whats this? Are u reall that scared of me? Have i said anything that deserve this?

MuttleyLaff:
"God" is not just as scientific as the next scientist but is more

How many times do you want it repeated that God created the universe
not much different to how, Bill Gates, created the world's largest software business, Microsoft, using a combination of knowledge and method(s)?

Good, we can have a sigh of relief

"Are you saying atheists are retards?"
- Butterflyleo ©

Where, how and when is the cursing in the above question asked?
It isnt amusing crying wolf when none's in sight.

Playing the accusation card
and doing the "bible says..." in the style of the infamous accuser, a bit too early, arent you now

since you want it this way alright
tell us exactly how "God" created the universe,I am not satisfied with your answer,tell us the method(s) he used,stop bringing the Bill Gates comparison because the methods and steps he took in creating the software is known,his source of knowledge is also known,so tell us more about how "God" used this thing you call "knowledge" to create the universe,and the "method" he used

MuttleyLaff:
Work with the filler, "God", for now

Even God's favourite response(s), when asked is:
"Why is it that you ask my name?"

The name by the way, is withheld for known reasons

So for this thread, we should assume the bible is a lie?

Gggg102:


The first cause could also be an unintelligent force. It could be like gravity but different. it might not be omnipotent, good/bad, requiring of worship.

The first cause doesn't need to be self aware or conscious/intelligent .. it only needs to be the first cause. it could also be multiple uncaused causes that resulted in the universe.
First cause isn't necessarily God/a God.

I have already tackled this earlier so would not want to waste my energy with typing a new response. I will simply quote my earlier comment.

There is an uncaused cause and a very intelligent one at that because infinite regression is nullified scientifically when it comes to the origin of the universe and even you support that the universe has an origin since you say you believe in the big bang.

Did this beginning of the universe trigger itself? NO

How do I know this? The law of cause and effect confirms it. There can be no cause without effect and no effect without a cause. unintelligence cannot birth intelligence. Inanimate objects cannot create motion, sequence, order, calculated actions.

Deny this and deny science.

Butterflyleo:


Please stick to the OP or risk a ban for derailing. I am talking about scientific laws and arguments which support an intelligent purposeful origin or creator of the effect we see today and call our universe.

Does this scientific law and arguement supports that there is a creator thatbis uncaused?

budaatum:

If this were true, I wonder then why you then attempt to use "empirical proofs [sic] limited to this universe" to prove a thing "exists OUTSIDE our universe".

Have you just not, in one more swoop amongst many, proved that your thread is baseless, and just pointless clickbait?

Yes I can use the empiricism of science to prove that the law of motion, argument from causality and gravity had an intelligent cause which triggered their effects.

And of course intelligence is only attributable to a being and not an inanimate object. You would do well to read the OP again for sake of clarity.