+ @deep sight, I admire you. You are quite intelligent. Rather than these theists babbling trash here.

trent9002: @deepsight, I didnt assert that the universe was eternal, I was illustrating the fallacy of God being eternal. The non material pre existence cause you mentioned, that's just circular reasoning. The cycle continues, "Who caused Nonmaterial P.E.C" "x caused it". Therefore that non material cause is not eternal, One of the qualities of God is Eternity, Therefore that force cannot be God.

It may have missed you, the implication of the word "non-material." That word connotes an intangible element. Intangibility is a core attribute of self-existent elements and self-existence denotes eternity.

As such, such a cause would be self-existent and eternal.

That is what God is.

Why the big bang occured is cos the entropy of the system increased. 2nd law of thermodynamics explains that. Everything moves from a state of orderliness to disorderliness. That disorderliness resulted to the big bang. You've made no point

And why not prior sir?

The entropy of what system? Please do not peddle falsehoods. Nobody on this planet knows exactly what the pre-b.ang singularity was, or comprised of. Do not attempt to make it appear as though this is known. It remains unknown, and scientists only speculate.

The latest technology which may permit scientists to say with a measure of certainty what transpired prior to, or at the moment of the ba.ng, is only still being developed.

trent9002: + @deep sight, I admire you. You are quite intelligent. Rather than these theists babbling trash here.

You are a natural born cheerleader if you think a creationist is intelligent

logicboy:

You are a natural born cheerleader if you think a creationist is intelligent

Please do get off your high horse. There is no need to make such sweeping assumptions as this. Your comment suggests that no person who leans towards creationism posesses the attribute of intelligence. History says you are wrong: teh vast majority of the biggest and brightest brains that have graced this planet have been people who believed in God. Indeed most scientific knowledge has been advanced by similar people.

You should not think that beleiving in God makes any person fo.olish. It does not.

heyheyhey no name calling. And logicdude compared to rastarat and snthesis, he is a breath of fresh air, to be enoyed while it lasts.

Deep Sight:

Please do get off your high horse. There is no need to make such sweeping assumptions as this. Your comment suggests that no person who leans towards creationism posesses the attribute of intelligence. History says you are wrong: teh vast majority of the biggest and brightest brains that have graced this planet have been people who believed in God. Indeed most scientific knowledge has been advanced by similar people.

You should not think that beleiving in God makes any person fo.olish. It does not.

Sorry but this is 2012, you can not claim to have significant scientific knowledge and accept creationism as a theory or fact. It is nothing more than a guess

^ ^ ^ Can you show me one single piece of "modern scientific knowledge" which shows you, "logicboy" that God does not exist?

Deep Sight:
^ ^ ^ Can you show me one single piece of "modern scientific knowledge" which shows you, "logicboy" that God does not exist?

God is supernatural. There is no way to scientifically prove God exist. No way.

Science can not also prove that there is no God. However, it is in the same way that you can not prove that Bigfoot doesnt exist.

logicboy:


God is supernatural.

That's your assumption. I say to you that God is natural. In fact, I say to you that there is nothing supernatural in existence anywhere. Oya, ride with that.

There is no way to scientifically prove God exist. No way.

The mathematical standards in terms of probable proof which are accepted in mainstream science as proof in terms of quantification of probabilities are the same standards that are outrightly rejected in terms of the calculation of the probability of the existence of something like the human brain alone.

That ought to be food for thought for you, Kind, noble, lofty and gentle sir.

Science can not also prove that there is no God. However, it is in the same way that you can not prove that Bigfoot doesnt exist.

Do not make a caricature of theistic propositions. Bigfoot is just that. The God proposition is altogether serious, sober and reasonable: it states that a pre-existent causative element necessarily triggered this reality. Comparaing such a serious philosophical notion to big foot is just big mischeif.

logicboy:


God is supernatural. There is no way to scientifically prove God exist. No way.

Science can not also prove that there is no God. However, it is in the same way that you can not prove that Bigfoot doesnt exist.

I agree with the intention of what your saying. I think that scientific laws can help us. "Something can not come out of nothing". While that debunks evolution, it doesn't help creationism either, because where did God come from? We can say that he exists out of the laws of this universe, but that isn't proving he exists either. Scientifically, it leaves us at a stalemate.

bigd4050:

I agree with the intention of what your saying. I think that scientific laws can help us. "Something can not come out of nothing". While that debunks evolution, it doesn't help creationism either, because where did God come from? We can say that he exists out of the laws of this universe, but that isn't proving he exists either. Scientifically, it leaves us at a stalemate.

I can accept a stalemate since I am not a scientist but theists wouldnt because that would make all of them agnostics (Some would want to keep their religion)

Deep Sight:

That's your assumption. I say to you that God is natural. In fact, I say to you that there is nothing supernatural in existence anywhere. Oya, ride with that.



The mathematical standards in terms of probable proof which are accepted in mainstream science as proof in terms of quantification of probabilities are the same standards that are outrightly rejected in terms of the calculation of the probability of the existence of something like the human brain alone.

That ought to be food for thought for you, Kind, noble, lofty and gentle sir.



Do not make a caricature of theistic propositions. Bigfoot is just that. The God proposition is altogether serious, sober and reasonable: it states that a pre-existent causative element necessarily triggered this reality. Comparaing such a serious philosophical notion to big foot is just big mischeif.

How can God be natural? Is existing beyon time natural?

What are you talking about the brain? Have you not seen a human brain? Are you questioning the existence of a brain? I'm confused

Philosophy? How about this- the world is not perfect and therefore a god that created the earth is imperfect. An imperfect being is not omnipotent

logicboy:


How can God be natural? Is existing beyon time natural?

Pardon my hairsplitting here, but "existing beyond time" is one thing, and being timeless and eternal is another. How is the latter unnatural, can you tell me? Is eternity unnatural, suoernatural, or just a constant?

It is a constant, and I see nothing unnatural or supernatural therein.

Do you?

What are you talking about the brain? Have you not seen a human brain? Are you questioning the existence of a brain? I'm confused

I mean that the mathematical improbability of the existence of something like a human brain, far exceeds the standards of proof in probabilistic calculations, that scientists usually require to make their conclusions.

Philosophy? How about this- the world is not perfect and therefore a god that created the earth is imperfect. An imperfect being is not omnipotent

You are too jumpy. You need to settle down and understand these discourses properly. It seems to me atheism is an exciting new discovery for you. Take it a step at a time bro.

I say this because you need to first be precise about what God is. Then you need to be clear about the minimum attributes that render such an element "God." There is no need to pick dispensable attributes which are not core to the question of its existence only, and then based on such, declare that it does not exist. To be simple, what I mean is that even if you prove that God is not good, that does not necessarily negate the existence of God.

As such, your argument of omnipotence is simply not central to the question of existence strictly.

[/quote]

1)Timeless or beyond time are both unnatural. All living things die in time. If God is timeless, then he doesnt age. Therefore he must be inanimate. It is unlikely that an inanimate thing is an intelligent designer

2)What is God? A definition that all can agree on is "some being that created the earth/universe". Now refer to number 1

logicboy: 1)Timeless or beyond time are both unnatural.

I dont agree, but let us leave that as it is a distraction. Semantics may be getting in the way.

All living things die in time.

All physical living things, yes.

If God is timeless, then he doesnt age. Therefore he must be inanimate. It is unlikely that an inanimate thing is an intelligent designer

God is timeless. God is not material or physical and as such your presupposition does not work with regard to God.

2)What is God? A definition that all can agree on is "some being that created the earth/universe". Now refer to number 1

Good, and neither goodness/perfection or omnipotence are required to sustain such a definition, are they?

Deep Sight:

I dont agree, but let us leave that as it is a distraction. Semantics may be getting in the way.



All physical living things, yes.



God is timeless. God is not material or physical and as such your presupposition does not work with regard to God.



Good, and neither goodness/perfection or omnipotence are required to sustain such a definition, are they?

Omnipotence or some degree of it is required to create the world. You also said that God is not material or physical meaning that he is spiritual- spirituality is an omnipotent ability dont you think?

^^^ Nope!

Deep Sight: ^^^ Nope!

Okay.

Deep Sight:

Fair enough. But I'd disagree on the universe being eternal in the past. Current scientific thinking does not say so. As far as we know, the universe commenced from the point of a singularity at a finite determinable point in the past.

Thus the question of the universe being self-existent is ruled out.

If the universe is not self-existent, then it must have a cause or trigger.

And since the universe is material, then that cause or trigger could not itself be matter, as no effect is its own cause.

As such, it is logical to presuppose a non-material pre-existent cause.

This is what is called God.

I do disagree with you on that. The "Creator" will extend a part of himself as material to build the universe, as a result fill it with HIS substance. The creator is necessarily material.

Kay 17:

I do disagree with you on that. The "Creator" will extend a part of himself as material to build the universe, as a result fill it with HIS substance. The creator is necessarily material.

In the way that I envision it, endless rays of the light energy of the creator is what streams into creations. There could be many gradations of such streaming, but it would appear to me that matter is the coarsest result therefrom.

I have used this analogy before: Have a look at air. Imagine this to be the "non material" beginning. As it streams and looses heat, it becomes liquid. That's a second gradation. Further loss of heat will eventually freeze it into ice. It becomes solid. Thats a third gradation. This is just a coarse example but this is similar to how I imagine the streaming of the energy of God eternally bringing forth different gradations.

Note that the solid gradation may not have the mobility and flexibity of the liquid gradation. And the liquid gradation may not have the mobility of the gaseous gradation.

The gradation which is so fine that it is "the tipping point to nothingness*" is the divinity that is God.

* Portion in italics being a quite From Pastor AIO

@deepsight, All these u are saying makes God inanimate and imperfect. U are tending towards Deism, which makes a bit more sense than Theism, and slightly different, I'm a weak atheist, this doesnt mean I'm unsure of my belief, But that I accept there is a probability that their is some being out there, who hasnt shown himself to us either cos he doesnt want to, or he's not even aware we exist and that being is not perfect, , Thats kinda like deism, But there is no evidence however about that, So its just mere imagination. We are talking about the traditional God. If you are a theist, AllThe major Characteristics of your God are Omnipotence, Omniscience, All-Loving, Omniprescence. He is a perfect Being. Now, this is impossible considering the imperfect world he created.:
Statement 1: A perfect being posesses the following major qualities. ( Omnipotence, Omniscience, all Loving, Omnipresence)
Statement 2: "God" is a perfect Being
Statement 3: An all loving being would want to eradicate evil and pain in the world.
Statement 4: An Omnipotent being has the ability to do that (Stat. 3)
Statement 5: An omniscience being is aware of the evil and pain
Statement 6: God is a perfect being. (refer to stat. (1), (2))
Fact 1: There is evil and pain in the world.
Conclusion 1: There is no perfect being. (refer Stat. (1) Fact (1) )
conclusion 2: There is no God (refer Stat. (2), (6) )
this is so simple to understand, The Existence of a perfect being is Impossible.

^^^ I am Deist.

https://www.nairaland.com/404066/essentials-deism

https://www.nairaland.com/359542/god-existence-deist-perspective

deepsight, should i open a thread deism vs atheism so we can debate the merits of each. Anyway i understand deism doesnt allow for intelligent design.

My pleasure, I await the thread!

Deep Sight:

In the way that I envision it, endless rays of the light energy of the creator is what streams into creations. There could be many gradations of such streaming, but it would appear to me that matter is the coarsest result therefrom.

I have used this analogy before: Have a look at air. Imagine this to be the "non material" beginning. As it streams and looses heat, it becomes liquid. That's a second gradation. Further loss of heat will eventually freeze it into ice. It becomes solid. Thats a third gradation. This is just a coarse example but this is similar to how I imagine the streaming of the energy of God eternally bringing forth different gradations.

Note that the solid gradation may not have the mobility and flexibity of the liquid gradation. And the liquid gradation may not have the mobility of the gaseous gradation.

The gradation which is so fine that it is "the tipping point to nothingness*" is the divinity that is God.

* Portion in italics being a quite From Pastor AIO

I have to ask, what is that element that your God is of, by that I understand matter as just a form of it.

Assuming your analysis is valid, you would agree with me that there is higher body of rules which prevail over God, which govern his person, influence/power, and origin and places under a burden of necessity?

Assuming your analysis is valid, you would agree with me that there is higher body of rules which prevail over God, which govern his person, influence/power, and origin and places him under a burden of necessity?

logicboy:


How can God be natural? Is existing beyon time natural?

What are you talking about the brain? Have you not seen a human brain? Are you questioning the existence of a brain? I'm confused

Philosophy? How about this- the world is not perfect and therefore a god that created the earth is imperfect. An imperfect being is not omnipotent

First God is supernatural,he is the one who has existed before time began,the one who sets the wheel of time in motion,
Who says the earth was created imperfect.

st.okolie:

First God is supernatural,he is the one who has existed before time began,the one who sets the wheel of time in motion,
Who says the earth was created imperfect.

Earthquake, cyclones, tsunamis? Is the arth really perfect?