Now I have two questions for you Kay and I'll appreciate if you take time to answer both.

1. My Dad believed that God was not a 'being' per se in the traditional way most religion see it.

but that The source was an 'invisible force' that was involved in bringing to existence the visible universe and is responsible for the ability to access metaphysical powers (I don't share the same opinion, so I wont go further ) but my question is this, based on your line of argument where do you place him ? Atheist, Theist, deist or what ?


Am asking cos am trying to do my best to get into the atheist reasoning ?


2. I posed a question to you based on wiegraf response

pak:
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple.

Kay pls help me out (You seem to be like one of the most intelligent here) but I think in my own little way and in the simplest of definitions that Atheist are ppl who claim that God does not exist as in they do not believe in the existence of dieties.(or am I gettin somethin wrong ?)

Do you think that atheist do not hav anything to prove ? (like say the theist).
Cos me thinks you are also making a claim here.

hmmm . . where do i start.

wiegraf:
Are you implying I'm a mad under the bridge hypocrite? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Is that meant to be derogatory?

Nope, it was never meant to be. It was partly jocular with a lace of truth beneath. I simply do not believe that a 'true atheist' exist, apart from people who do not have the mental capacity to comprehend such issues. A group you clearly don't fall into. At least you can type on a keyboard.( though I don't know if you are doing that from under a bridge anyway Ok, I digress . . cut me some slack, its late in the night here)

wiegraf:

This is what is in the op:
"Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!"


I think this thread is about comparing the logic of both atheism, deism. 'existence of God' is related, but not the main topic.

I don't know what you are driving at here bro. The major differentiating factor between atheism and every other 'ism' is his belief in the 'non existence of God' (if I should use that language) - that's why I've been calling on your fellow discussant Kay to help me out if am missing something

wiegraf:
You took it to

Certainly not related to the topic, maybe indirectly though. Anyway, you have brought the "burden of proof" to the fore.
I respond with a post about the burden of proof, complete with examples to show why the claimant is the one who has back up his assertions, then you do this.

That was due to All4Naija response when he hinted that it was the theist's call to make the proofs (and I still think its not out of place in this discussion

wiegraf:

There is more, but I'll leave it here, for now...

And if you're a programmer need you ask about the $?

. . .and please, please stop writing those PHP codes. It affects your thinking and makes you believe in things like atheism and the fact that you do not need to declare a variable before they are brought into existence



N.B.
and really bros, what has this discussion go to do with the fact that you were sitting at home one day and someone came to tell you that you can't marry the one you love ? (I almost fell from my chair when I read that - or where you hinting at something else)
Maybe she left you cos you need to step up your game. its not our fault man.

Billyonaire: The word maker finds meaning in the mental consciousness, just like the concept of time. For astronauts at the International Space center, for that robot at Mars, TIME has no relevance, has no meaning, cos there is no day or night over there because they are outside the revolution and rotation of the earth around the sun. So the quest for maker lies in the lower consciousness called the mental plane. Maker/creator as a word doesnt exist in soul and spirit consciousness, because all is energy. And energy can not be created nor destroyed. The word maker is a psychic illusion.

Spacetime is relevant!In all the dimensions time being the fourth helps to have better understanding of the timing of workings of the universe!

pak:

Nope, it was never meant to be. It was partly jocular with a lace of truth beneath. I simply do not believe that a 'true atheist' exist, apart from people who do not have the mental capacity to comprehend such issues. A group you clearly don't fall into. At least you can type on a keyboard.( though I don't know if you are doing that from under a bridge anyway Ok, I digress . . cut me some slack, its late in the night here)

You couldn't just let it go...
See the last lines...

pak:
I don't know what you are driving at here bro. The major differentiating factor between atheism and every other 'ism' is his [b]belief[/b]in the 'non existence of God' (if I should use that language) - that's why I've been calling on your fellow discussant Kay to help me out if am missing something

I take issue with the bold. There's no belief involved here. But take it up with @kay, his succinct, lucid style is way better than mine.

pak:
That was due to All4Naija response when he hinted that it was the theist's call to make the proofs (and I still think its not out of place in this discussion

Regardless, you brought up burden of proof then tried to make it seem like I was off topic.

pak:
. . .and please, please stop writing those PHP codes. It affects your thinking and makes you believe in things like atheism and the fact that you do not need to declare a variable before they are brought into existence

Personally, I think PHP is a terrible cancer, but then javascript. Besides, once I get my hands dirty with pure functional programming I might be able to achieve great things without variables altogether (well not really) talk less of initiating them.
Anyways, you never addressed my questions. So, again:
What made god?

pak:
N.B.
and really bros, what has this discussion go to do with the fact that you were sitting at home one day and someone came to tell you that you can't marry the one you love ? (I almost fell from my chair when I read that - or where you hinting at something else)
Maybe she left you cos you need to step up your game. its not our fault man.

I speak of gay rights, but you can extend it to any laws that discriminate on religious grounds.

You genuinely think we are crazy, you just don't want to admit it because you are being called out. Religion is rather insidious, you may be a productive, good dude but you have an irrational and maybe subconscious intolerance towards atheists, probably because it's been implanted in you by one of these 'good' religions...
I'm joking with the indignation, maybe. I'll let you off the hook.

My eyes are partly closing as I type.

wiegraf:



I speak of gay rights, but you can extend it to any laws that discriminate on religious grounds.

You genuinely think we are crazy, you just don't want to admit it because you are being called out. Religion is rather insidious, you may be a productive, good dude but you have an irrational and maybe subconscious intolerance towards atheists, probably because it's been implanted in you by one of these 'good' religions...
I'm joking with the indignation, maybe. I'll let you off the hook.

I guessed as much , hence the question 'or where you hinting at something else'.

Well as regard religion, I have just two for now. Man Utd and Python .

Am the opposite of my dad, He has many, I have non.


I do not think you guys are crazy, just feel you are missing something somewhere. And how can I be intolerant towards what I do not believe really exist.


To the gay issue, one question I've always asked peeps who support gay right is - what's your take about bestiality ? agreed, its a digression but still quite relevant to the issue at hand cos the topic of God cuts across the scientific, the philosophical and morality.
(and please don't assume that am trying to say homosexualism and bestiality are the same thing. Just want to gauge your moral compass as regards the issue)

wiegraf:

Personally, I think PHP is a terrible cancer, but then javascript. Besides, once I get my hands dirty with pure functional programming I might be able to achieve great things without variables altogether (well not really) talk less of initiating them.

Functional programming ? Never done that before, the closest I got was python !

and please don't place jscript beside PHP. Have you ever wondered why there has never been any competition on the client side to Jscript for the past 17 years (which is about 3 lifetimes in programming years).

That chap, along side Python and C++, are the best languages ever developed (ok, I know this is way too subjective and don't ask me what criteria I used - I just hate java ) . Now this is from someone who doesn't particularly code in javascript - either core or client side.

wiegraf:
Anyways, you never addressed my questions. So, again:

What made god?

Now Kay answered that so brilliantly, Am not sure I can do better. So let me just copy and paste

God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent.
In order words, God has always being here.

Again, I must say - this is an agnostic argument/question.
If you argue against the existence of God because you/we do not know who 'made God' then you should also argue against the existence of man (and other matter) because you have not discovered from whence they came

thehomer:

Well i don't know that. I've already explained to you what would help me decide.

lol poor you, look up a thesaurus for synonyms of the universe then

No you haven't. The electron is not really an entity in the way that say a chair can be considered an entity. It exhibits features of both a wave and a particle. If you wish to assert that it is an entity, then I'll simply assert that it is a wave.

Either way it will still be an entity. (entity is not exactly the same as object of matter)

Though since you've proposed the electron, you're saying that it is either intelligently designed or it isn't intelligently designed. Now which is it? And why?

It is irrelevant to this argument whether an electron is intelligently designed or not. It is not within the scope of what this argument is considering.

I see that you're still yet to answer this same question that I've been posing for a long while now. Here it is again.

How do you decide that an entity "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts"?

Your question is for lack of a better word silly. You are asking for the definition of a definition of how I define complexity here and I suspect that even if I broke it down simpler for you, you will also ask for a definition of that definition, Sorry I can't help you further.
You may as well ask the question of matter: "how do you decide that an entity has mass and occupies space?" or of bachelors: "why are bachelors unmarried?"

If I presented you with an entity that "works according to a systematic order and is composed of elaborately interconnected parts" would you say that it too is intelligently designed?

I would consider it

****came back when I saw your reply. I really don't like frontpage threads because the crowd muddles things up a bit

@Pak,I can see you are such an individual who beats prying for activities to throw words at against familiar yet contented Theist life - and, it can be very addictive and caustic in nature. Don't think going about the discovery of Higgs Boson, sub-particles by which other particles acquire their masses, proves anything to the finding of the beginning of the universe nor find answers to the essence of life. But, it is a success pointing man to the right direction in quest to find answers to the things which have left man wondering and left unanswered. No scientist says it is end by itself but a means to an end(sole purpose of achieving something else). You are just being myopic about science and its discoveries. We know this all the time, Theists have been trying to prevent science from acquiring knowledge about our own very existence, the one we all find ourselves as living organism.

Contrary to what you are trying to feed us concerning God as a creator, which is different from following religion, there is every evidence that reality is made up of entities with regard to the nature surrounding the life we can perceive and interact with consciously. The abstract(imaginations) and the physical that gives sense and meaning to every one of those thoughts can be dangerous at mercy of guesses from Theists, Religionists and Deists to religious fanatics alike.

The same consciousness, comprising of our senses and the abilities to interact with the environment has never pointed beyond nature with evidences to prove there is a being outside there who created us (in the right senses doesn't relate with us only that we need something to have sense of belonging in), only being used by some individuals exercising their abilities in the wrong direction to create something out of natural in the fickle of imaginations. Without doubt reasonable evidences don not support this imaginations to be real(not wrong to imagination though), without having single proof yet continuously to speculate about a creator that never proved it exist(with all the attribute given to him) is unacceptable in whatsoever way it being seen.This only point to what they don't understand about the environment(nature) they live in, I mean, with regards to myths, supernaturals - without taking the time to find out about them before speculating while many are quick to indoctrinate others with them. Somebody expected me to believe such is reality when it is not. That is the bone of contention in the argument of God, from those of use who don't believe in the existence. Along the line as things become more complicated having no immediate answers due to limitations to what nature has provided us with they quickly choose a premise they offer ourselves - God as creator(leaving religion out of it due to too many contradictions and things which limit God as to how God as a creator is supposed to be viewed).

The reason why Atheist believe God doesn't exist are evident to how Theists and religionists define what supposedly has to qualify for a creator. In the essence that God created all things yet very elusive to what it created is one of them. While many comes to claim he exist, from a perception,with the limited abilities to see beyond nature(which is impossible)because imagination as well is part of our human nature. It is obvious the existence of God being the origin of everything has a beginning(if we are to go by such definition) and where the beginning seems to end is the start of another beginning. Looking at the environment we find ourselves, isn't it clear that the idea of God is a perception concluded on the premise of what surround us in the very question of IF? For example, people would use the excuse that IF there happens to be a house in the middle of a desert there are evidences it is made by somebody or something(it can not come on it own accord) yet the very God who created is able to appear on it won accord. Why can't other things? Looking at some of this arguments(Atheists being free thinkers) are reasonable enough to spot the bubbles in this claim of the existence of a creator or God. Finalizing to be disassociated from mere imaginations, myths, tradition and other supernatural claims of activities as path to originator of the beginning is another irritating thing. This is the same reason Atheist never bothered about a existence of a creator but reality and a continuous quest for evidences supporting true life phenomenon. Until then, it is not a duty of any Atheist to point to the beginning of the beginning for any individual nor exempt itself from the quest for the rightful answer though reasonable and factual evidences, as existence(both life and other entities) and the quest for the beginning seems to be moving on an unending linear scale(taking a peek from the agnostic).You see, it still comes back to say Atheists are more or less free thinkers than any other thing yet don't believe in the existence of God because there is nothing like such as God the creator.

@ All4naija

I find it a bit difficult understanding the meat of your immediate post. Maybe due to the length, maybe due to the construct.
You spoke in simpler terms earlier and I enjoyed it. I find it difficult to break this down but I'l try.

@Pak,I can see you are such an individual who beats pry for activities to throw words at against familiar yet contented Theist life - and, it can be very addictive and caustic in nature.

What are u on about here - don't seem to understand.

The reason why Atheist believe God doesn't exist are evident to how Theists and religionists define what supposedly has to qualify for a creator. In the essence that God created all things yet very elusive to what it created is one of them. While many comes to claim he exist, from a perception,with the limited abilities to see beyond nature(which is impossible)because imagination as well is part of our human nature. It is obvious the existence of God being the origin of everything has a beginning(if we are to go by such definition) and where the beginning seems to end is the start of another beginning.
Looking at the environment we find ourselves, isn't it clear that the idea of God is a perception concluded on the premise of what surround us in the very question of IF? For example, people would use the excuse that IF there happens to be a house in the middle of a desert there are evidences it is made by somebody or something(it can not come on it own accord) yet the very God who created is able to appear on it won accord. Why can't other things? Looking at some of this arguments(Atheists being free thinkers) are reasonable enough to spot the bubbles in this claim of the existence of a creator or God. Finalizing to be disassociated from mere imaginations, myths, tradition and other supernatural claims of activities as path to originator of the beginning is another irritating thing. This is the same reason Atheist never bothered about a existence of a creator but reality and a continuous quest for evidences supporting true life phenomenon. Until then, it is not a duty of any Atheist to point to the beginning of the beginning for any individual nor exempt itself from the quest for the rightful answer though reasonable and factual evidences, as existence(both life and other entities) and the quest for the beginning seems to be moving on an unending linear scale(taking a peek from the agnostic).You see, it still comes back to say Atheists are more or less free thinkers than any other thing yet don't believe in the existence of God because there is nothing like such as God the creator.

bolded 1
Now your brother Kay has rightly pointed out that it is possible for an entity or a concept not to have a beginning, to be self existent.


bolded 2
because it contradicts there very nature. They are bounded by time and space and physical laws which won't allow for that.
That's where God is limitless


bolded 3
if that is our you describe your belief (or lack of) then . . .GBAM. I've won my first battle, you are more of an Apatheist.

Now get this. Am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone (cos in reality I can't)

but am trying to make u examine your own beliefs to see that it seems a bit awkward for someone to consider himself an atheist in the pure sense of the word. Something really doesn't gel.
An agnostic ? I don't agree with him but then I might understand where he is coming from but atheist ? common !

The reason why Atheist believe God doesn't exist are evident to how Theists and religionists define what supposedly has to qualify for a creator. In the essence that God created all things yet very elusive to what it created is one of them. While many comes to claim he exist, from a perception,with the limited abilities to see beyond nature(which is impossible)because imagination as well is part of our human nature.

Now bro, sincerely I find it hard to understand your points fully here but if what am thinking is right, then you are saying we have limited ability to see beyond nature on one hand, and that it is impossible on the other.
Whichever, the little I can surmise from your above line is that the supernatural and/or the preternatural might (or might not exist) since we cannot see beyond nature, then we can't really say !!!

See me see trouble How then are you an atheist !!!!!

Please Kay and Weirflag - your attention is needed here, your brother might be backsliding already

Kay 17:

Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality.

The appearance of designs and orderliness is directly attributable to the Universe's personality, which may be called physical laws which we in turn are compelled by necessity to follow. That's why our cars follow the relevant laws of motion, our houses gravity, and our inventions are more or less discoveries of how the Universe accommodates our ideas.

In order words, it has always being here

And kay, whenever you come back, you can look at this.

The bolded sounded rather deep and I dont fully understand it.

but the other parts of your submission sounds contradictory to common scientific knowledge.

I thought scientific knowledge claims the big bang occurred at a definite point in time and that our universe is about 13/14 billion years old.

This lack of origin and self existence and 'always been here' seems contradictory to the nature of the physical matter.


Me thinks what you are describing sounds more attributable to God which the Theist talks about

pak: My eyes are partly closing as I type.

I guessed as much , hence the question 'or where you hinting at something else'.

Well as regard religion, I have just two for now. Man Utd and Python .

Am the opposite of my dad, He has many, I have non.


I do not think you guys are crazy, just feel you are missing something somewhere. And how can I be intolerant towards what I do not believe really exist.

Let me rephrase that a little
"And how can atheists be intolerant towards what does not exist"
Again
"And why should atheists prove what does not exist". Especially when they aren't the ones making claims?

pak:
To the gay issue, one question I've always asked peeps who support gay right is - what's your take about bestiality ? agreed, its a digression but still quite relevant to the issue at hand cos the topic of God cuts across the scientific, the philosophical and morality.
(and please don't assume that am trying to say homosexualism and bestiality are the same thing. Just want to gauge your moral compass as regards the issue)

It might not be really relevant. And god and .science should never be used in the same sentence (hence the random '.'). Anyways, Let me think about it... lemme see... not much to think about. You kill animals everyday yet suddenly f*****g them is an issue. If the animal finds it pleasurable, I think it'd much rather f**k than become dinner. Animal cruelty though, of any sort, should be discouraged.
Also, I think any person, male or female, should be able to marry as many wives/husband of either sex as they wish, so long as they're all consenting adults. What in the world is govts biz (except maybe tax laws)? Heavy problem with enacting this policy though is it could result in slavery of sorts, especially of women.

pak:
Functional programming ? Never done that before, the closest I got was python !

and please don't place jscript beside PHP. Have you ever wondered why there has never been any competition on the client side to Jscript for the past 17 years (which is about 3 lifetimes in programming years).

That chap, along side Python and C++, are the best languages ever developed (ok, I know this is way too subjective and don't ask me what criteria I used - I just hate java ) . Now this is from someone who doesn't particularly code in javascript - either core or client side.

This is just disgusting. Java and PHP are successful too, and you've already admitted PHP is pure $hit, so that doesn't prove anything. Popular = good? Seriously? Twilight for instance... Python has plenty functional programming, true. I'd like to build something using only functional concepts someday... sigh

pak:
Now Kay answered that so brilliantly, Am not sure I can do better. So let me just copy and paste




Again, I must say - this is an agnostic argument/question.
If you argue against the existence of God because you/we do not know who 'made God' then you should also argue against the existence of man (and other matter) because you have not discovered from whence they came

Well, that's actually my point. So, modifying kay's post from
"God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent.
In other words, God has always been here."
to
"Nature can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for Nature, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore Nature is self existent.
In other words, Nature has always been here."

Edit: I wasn't paying attention, and should be asleep as well. For your other concern, because we don't understand something, yet, does not mean it will remain a mystery forever. Applying occams razor to what we know today unambigiously points to no god. Even logical problems like the problem of evil voids many gods. ZzzzZzz, I'll elaborate later


Sleep well bro

My name is kwaja . I am the son of a barren woman
And so are you.
Ponder this.
You and ur cause, or lack there of is one and
The same. Idealized God is a misnomer. It takes
Ur consciousness to imbibe it with existence.
In other words, God of mentation or otherwise exists because u do. Not vice versa. Now ponder deep within you the question, who am I?, without fretting to vouchsafe a mentored answer, and your mind will slowly and surely dissolve into a oneness that defies mind. In essence, from pure gnosis stand point, you are "that you are"
And not more nor less.

kwajahafiz: My name is kwaja . I am the son of a barren woman
And so are you.
Ponder this.
You and ur cause, or lack there of is one and
The same. Idealized God is a misnomer. It takes
Ur consciousness to imbibe it with existence.
In other words, God of mentation or otherwise exists because u do. Not vice versa. Now ponder deep within you the question, who am I?, without fretting to vouchsafe a mentored answer, and your mind will slowly and surely dissolve into a oneness that defies mind. In essence, from pure gnosis stand point, you are "that you are"
And not more nor less.

i have said something similar to this earlier in another thread.

There i posed a question - How come it is just only human beings who are describing God and defending his existence?

It should be a simple task to an omnipotent being if he wanted everyone to follow him and not follow any other false religion or doubt his existence. The fact that he cannot speak to humans but only "threaten" to deal with humans (according to the holy books) when they are dead and gone connotes that he is just a human creation and human mind's conceptualisation needed to explain the world's origin and complexity because man has not figured it out yet. (even the two holy books are so full of errors because it was written by error-prone humans who wants to enforce their belief on others by claiming it was written by God)


Shikena.

all4naija: Spacetime is relevant!In all the dimensions time being the fourth helps to have better understanding of the timing of workings of the universe!

In such instances, just like Earth time was invented as a guide to knowing moments of events, so is space time created by space scientist. You need to take credence in what the christian god said in the holy book said, that a thousand years on earth is 1 day in god's eyes. It could simply summarized that when the plant earth revolves 365 x 1000=365,000 times then wherever the bible god is, its planet revolves once. Time is just a a human invented guide. So for someone who compared existence of god with relevance to existence of time. All i can say, is that time is eternal. Humans tide time...

For any atheist out there, I just wanna say, if you base your belief about in-existence of deity and spirits on a far reaching conclusion from unanswered questions in religion, then you simply are stagnated in your own resistance to learn more. Truth about Deity and the cosmic can not be found in religion. Religion's deity is an illusion. If you look further into esoteric science and experimental mysticism, you will realize the mechanical nature of man. At the point you see yourself as energy, jetting at the speed of light to the other planes of existence via astral projection and soul travel then your entire understanding of life, man, Deity and the multiverses will change forever. Then you will know the power of thoughts, focus and will.

@PAK

Your father's view on God as a force still doesn't account for the other existing parts of the Universe, it doesn't explain time or matter.

On the big bang implication; the state prior to this present Universe already accounts for all the matter and energy present now. In order words they were in a condensed state with the potential to expand.

pak: Kay, Pls can you do me a favour,

Just replace the word reality with God in your statement below and see what you get

Kay 17:
Reality itself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for reality, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore reality is self existent. As a result subjects of reality are equally self existent either potentially or in actuality. . . . .


In order other words, it has always being been here

Infact, I'll do it for you.

Kay 17: God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent. . . . .


In order other words, God has always being been here

If its not difficult to believe in the self existent nature of reality, then why is it strange to believe in the self existence of a deity.

Very nice; so, bookmarked for reference.

PS I added the things in blue for grammatical and quote accuracy purposes only.

PPS @Kay17 ---- I wonder if you will ever raise "infinite regress" again (you don't have to answer that now)

EDITED

Same point differently expressed in the past

8. Infinite regress (hmmm, as if evangelical atheists have an explanation for what is behind the "singularity" or the "first cause"! )

Billyonaire: In such instances, just like Earth time was invented as a guide to knowing moments of events, so is space time created by space scientist. You need to take credence in what the christian god said in the holy book said, that a thousand years on earth is 1 day in god's eyes. It could simply summarized that when the plant earth revolves 365 x 1000=365,000 times then wherever the bible god is, its planet revolves once. Time is just a a human invented guide. So for someone who compared existence of god with relevance to existence of time. All i can say, is that time is eternal. Humans tide time...

Isn't the words in bold look like something made up too you? If you can figure that out it means the contradictory book is deceiving you, with all the odd information presented in it.

Deism is irrational, i still wonder how one will create something, yet do not perticipate in running it. I wonder what the creator will be doing, creating another soon-to-be forgotten planet elsewhere? Probably so. Atheism is semi-rational(due to its believe on only what it can see and feel, hence, ignorant of what actually is[beyond human physicality], brooding confusion among scientists), i wonder how the world was formed without a designer, yet it contains arrays of beautiful things, since i was born, i have never heard that a particular Chimpazee, or Baboon, or Ape transformed into a human in the name of evolution. The only rational believe is the existence of a loving God that created the universe and everthing; unique in themselves and specifically defined to produce its kind. The God that cares and will continue to dictate the movement and activities of things forever. Against?

kwajahafiz: My name is kwaja . I am the son of a barren woman
And so are you.
Ponder this.
You and ur cause, or lack there of is one and
The same. Idealized God is a misnomer. It takes
Ur consciousness to imbibe it with existence.
In other words, God of mentation or otherwise exists because u do. Not vice versa. Now ponder deep within you the question, who am I?, without fretting to vouchsafe a mentored answer, and your mind will slowly and surely dissolve into a oneness that defies mind. In essence, from pure gnosis stand point, you are "that you are"
And not more nor less.

You tried bro, nice and poetic write up.
but consider the bolded, God doesn't exist because I do, rather am a proof of his existence.
If you see two-story builing, the builder does not exist because the house does, rather the house is a proof that its builder(s) exist.

Kangani ko ?

Mr_Anony:
lol poor you, look up a thesaurus for synonyms of the universe then

The design argument is quite different from the cosmological argument. Even if the universe were designed, that wouldn't mean that everything in it was also designed. Keep in mind that I'm not asking for synonyms, I'm asking for a procedural method that allows one to come to the appropriate conclusions.

Mr_Anony:
Either way it will still be an entity. (entity is not exactly the same as object of matter)

Then I would like to know what you mean when you say something is an entity because if you do broaden your definition that way, it would rapidly become meaningless. For example, would you say that a mathematical symbol is an entity?

Mr_Anony:
It is irrelevant to this argument whether an electron is intelligently designed or not. It is not within the scope of what this argument is considering.

May I remind you that you're trying to make a design argument? This means that anything we observe has to be either designed or not designed and you must have a consistent way to tell the difference.

Mr_Anony:
Your question is for lack of a better word silly. You are asking for the definition of a definition of how I define complexity here and I suspect that even if I broke it down simpler for you, you will also ask for a definition of that definition, Sorry I can't help you further.
You may as well ask the question of matter: "how do you decide that an entity has mass and occupies space?" or of bachelors: "why are bachelors unmarried?"

Your response is asinine. No, I'm asking for a consistent way of identifying whether or not something can be assessed as being designed or complex and all that.

To respond to your questions, we decide that something has mass and occupies space by observing its interactions with other objects. Bachelors are unmarried by definition. But based on your definition, which members of the list I presented to you were intelligently designed? And how can you tell? Here they are to jog your memory.

thehomer:
The sun, the moon, the earth, the ocean, the HIV virus, the malaria parasite and a diamond.

You'll note that they're all larger than fundamental particles and they all obey certain laws.

Mr_Anony:
I would consider it

Merely considering it wouldn't be satisfactory. Any way would you say a basalt column is designed.

Mr_Anony:
****came back when I saw your reply. I really don't like frontpage threads because the crowd muddles things up a bit

It will sink below the fold in no time and I don't see why you cannot ignore posts you do not wish to respond to.

pak: @ All4naija

I find it a bit difficult understanding the meat of your immediate post. Maybe due to the length, maybe due to the construct.
You spoke in simpler terms earlier and I enjoyed it. I find it difficult to break this down but I'l try.



What are u on about here - don't seem to understand.





bolded 1
Now your brother Kay has rightly pointed out that it is possible for an entity or a concept not to have a beginning, to be self existent.


bolded 2
because it contradicts there very nature. They are bounded by time and space and physical laws which won't allow for that.
That's where God is limitless


bolded 3
if that is our you describe your belief (or lack of) then . . .GBAM. I've won my first battle, you are more of an Apatheist.

First and foremost, I am glad you make it clear you don't understand what I am trying to explain in my previous comment.

Going by your highlighted lines prior to your answers, I think you never really took the time to read through with a mind of understanding all rather with an open mind. The reason why I open the whole comment with such preamble is to the sequined tone of you trying to find faults in the recent science announcing to have discovered the HIGGS BOSON at the LHC in one of your previous comments. Indeed, I respond to all your comments - the reason I never quoted any of them.

If Kay agrees to that, he must have presented evidences to the reason why. And, such is the same very idea the religionist say about their creator(self-existence). Now, I ask you, don't religionists give credence to self-existing god? I never said it isn't possible in my statement either, whereas,it must be proven right. I supported Kay statement with the sudden appearance of a building in a desert assertion(which might not be natural yet we can't just conclude it is made by intelligent being only - creation is not all about intelligence all the time). Maybe you miss that line where I say IF god can self-exist why can other things and it is a rhetoric.

Yes, I quite agree that is the essence of it that they are bound by laws. Now how is the existence of a God come to be proven without these laws? It is the same laws we rely on when we make the quest of this illusion yet elusive ideology of God pedal around by people dwelling on imaginations, myths, misery,etc without proofs. There are no evidences,whatsoever, to prove such thing exist in the first place(than people's imagination)- where you are placing God to be limitless yet nature has proven otherwise and you do all these with the laws surrounding you and your environment trying to prove otherwise with real world phenomenon yet affirmed they are real. For me there no such thing - looking at imperfection,nature and trying to think beyond(imagination).

You see that's where we always have the problem, my statement is clear that Atheists are free thinker. How does looking at evidence presented by others now make me non-atheist or Theist? So, for being reasonable now qualify for the so called apatheist? How that is possible is made up by you without any proof.

cyrexx:

i have said something similar to this earlier in another thread.

There i posed a question - How come it is just only human beings who are describing God and defending his existence?

It should be a simple task to an omnipotent being if he wanted everyone to follow him and not follow any other false religion or doubt his existence. The fact that he cannot speak to humans but only "threaten" to deal with humans (according to the holy books) when they are dead and gone connotes that he is just a human creation and human mind's conceptualisation needed to explain the world's origin and complexity because man has not figured it out yet. (even the two holy books are so full of errors because it was written by error-prone humans who wants to enforce their belief on others by claiming it was written by God)


Shikena.

Before you 'shikena' yourself
Can't you see that the point you raised is relative, almost all religions believe that the existence of God is evident in Nature. And even if God were to be speaking to humans audibly, will that make you believe ? I don't think so - It will have been washed away as a 'technoauditory vibration' or something of that nature.


and besides get rudimentary facts rights, the last time I checked there were about a thousand 'holy books' - and am sure you've not read them all. So how are u sure they are full of errors.

thehomer:
Computers and phones have groups of makers so are you proposing multiple Gods or just one? Then the fatal flaw of that claim is that humans are nothing like computers or phones.

What’s the issue about multiple makers and multiple gods? So if I say there multiple gods, you will buy it?

If the evidence is good, I expect that I will be persuaded and I understand that it isn't your aim neither is my persuasion what I'm asking for. All I'm asking for is that the evidence be non-fallacious and assessable. By laws are you talking about physical laws or do you have something else in mind? I've not asked you to prove anything to convince me, what I've asked for are those things that convinced you strongly. I'll address them as you bring them up.

Both physical and spiritual laws. Read my earlier post to Mr_Anony. I already told you what convinced me. I gave you two points. But you are still asking for them – that I why I reminded you that I have no mandate to convince you which is all that remains since I already did all you asked for.

Just to be clear, are you saying God and time are necessities? Is there anything else that is a necessity?

Yes. There probably are others.

Based on what we know about the only sort of consciousness available (human consciousness), I don't see how the consciousness you're proposing will work. How will it even be able to do something? Since as humans show, you need some sort of body to have consciousness and do some creating with it.

Lol. You need a body to have consciousness? That’s new to me.

The first cause argument depending on how you state it is fallacious. You can state the one you wish to use for me to point out why it is fallacious. The design argument that you're using above is fallacious because you're making a weak analogy since a shirt is not similar enough to a person to make such a comparison.

It’s a simple comparison and there is nothing weak about it. For anything to exist, a maker is a necessity. This, of course, is not a self-contained argument.

Kay 17: @mrjoe
You in the bolded suggested some objectivity in God, taking him away from some definition by probable peeps in the Enlightenment Era!!

What exactly binds all deists together?!

I don't understand you. Truth.

So, god exist and must have a maker. That should be the bone of contention or else fundamental particles are more reasonable to qualify for such premise than creator illustration presented by Theists and religionists alike.

@Enigma

Thanks for the correction. The problem of infinity will arise only if absolute time is assumed, for me I don't there is absolute time.

Also note that if God existed, he would be a subject of reality

Mr_Anony:

Ok, Let me see if I can get a grip on what you believe. Please correct me where I am wrong. You believe that.

1 God exists and has a will
2 God is a "superperson" (I think I know what you mean by superperson)
3 God can directly intervene in our affairs but does not need to because He has laws set in place.
4 God's justice system is such that it is set: human beings will continue to reincarnate as they journey towards attaining perfection.

Is this a fair representation of what you believe?

N.B. I am not in any way claiming that the above points are what deism is all about but I perceive that they are your personal beliefs.

If I am right then we can proceed, if I am wrong, please correct me.

1. Yes.

2. There is a whole lot I answer “I don’t know” to, so we need to be observant about differences between things I claim to know or be clear about – such as “God exists” and things I believe – such as reincarnation – and things I make guided speculations on – such as “superperson”. Like I have explained, I don’t discuss the nature of God much – in fact, I recoil when I think about it. God may be well a person. But he may well be a force. He may be neither.

3. This one is a bit complex – let me explain it a bit more. I won’t go so far as to make a positive statement that “God can intervene”. You, see, I believe EVERYTHING is governed by laws – what if God is bounded by his own laws? In fact, I don’t find the argument that God exists outside his own laws attractive. Even the Bible, for instance, supports my view. I hope you see what I’m getting at. If God is bound by his own laws and the laws in place don’t make room for his intervention, he cannot intervene. Still, that is different from saying that he does not have the power to intervene.

4. Human beings reincarnate as they journey towards perfection. All the evidence we have for reincarnation points towards this. Whether this is set to “continue” ad infinitum or there is some “cut-off” time, I don’t know.

pak:


Before you 'shikena' yourself
Can't you see that the point you raised is relative, almost all religions believe that the existence of God is evident in Nature. And if God were to be speaking to humans audibly, will that make you believe ? I don't think so - It will have been washed away as a 'technoauditory vibration' or something of that nature.


and besides get rudimentary facts rights, the last time I checked there were about a thousand 'holy books' - and am sure you've not read them all. So how are u sure they are full of errors.

Nature has no proof of whatsoever such thing exist though religionists point to it and expected us to believe in imperfection from perfect being in somewhere imagined. Yes, I think so. People would have believed - there is more evidence with proofs observe through sight(seeing) than the abstract baseless and unproven evidences.

Kay 17: @PAK

Your father's view on God as a force still doesn't account for the other existing parts of the Universe, it doesn't explain time or matter.

On the big bang implication; the state prior to this present Universe already accounts for all the matter and energy present now. In order words they were in a condensed state with the potential to expand.

I wasn't asking if he was right or wrong. I don't exactly share his views. I just wanted to know get some 'clarifications' on all these 'ists' argument. I just wanted to know where you will place him.