Mr_Anony:

I agree that I am imperfect and hence I can err, please show me

nobody is perfect, so nobody has perfect knowledge, we are all developing and learning.

science is open to checks and balances and is open to modify its beliefs in the face of new evidences that contradicts its established beliefs
religion tell you what to believe according to holy books and you SHOULD NOT entertain any contradicting evidence. e.g. true bible believing christians still believe that the earth is 6000yrs old.

my submission is that: The origin of the universe is still a mystery and science is honest enough to say they dont know yet, maybe our children will figure it out.
while religious books written by men that are less knowledgeable than you about science and cosmology tell you what to believe by faith or else you are an unbeliever that will eventually burn in hell for your unbelief


just admit that your belief on the origin of the universe is based on faith and not reason

Mr_Anony:
Wow, I didn't know there was an atheist ranking system. LOL

Yes, there are;

-Chief priest Evolutionist

-Grand master physicist

-His holiness the bishop of logic

etc

logicboy:

Yes, there are;

-Chief priest Evolutionist

-Grand master physicist

-His holiness the bishop of logic

etc

Lol, which level you come dey? Dude, the more I encounter you, the more I am sure that you are a "very religious atheist" the fanatic kind. forget that your propaganda disclaimer thread. You are as evangelistic and as fanatic as those you claim to disagree with.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, which level you come dey? Dude, the more I encounter you, the more I am sure that you are a "very religious atheist" the fanatic kind. forget that your propaganda disclaimer thread. You are as evangelistic and as fanatic as those you claim to disagree with.

Wow, I was only joking!!!

logicboy:

I have never claimed to know what the first cause is. So, stop trying to equate me with Anony. You were wrong, admit it. There is no shame in acknowledging a superior atheist.

You're mildly amusing.

Martian:

You mildly amusing.

Why? Why are you so uptight? You cant even admit that I'm amusing! Why did you have to say mildly amusing? Why not just "amusing"

Mr_Anony:
Lol, martian when you are ready to debate logically, take a stance and then we will proceed. Sitting on the fence and looking for loopholes isn't how I roll. If you say you don't know, then there is no use debating you

Of course I don't know. The only difference is that I don't make stuff up, call it "extraphysical", then ask people to take a stance.

logicboy:
Why? Why are you so uptight? You cant even admit that I'm amusing! Why did you have to say mildly amusing? Why not just "amusing"

Mildly is fine.

cyrexx:

nobody is perfect, so nobody has perfect knowledge, we are all developing and learning.

science is open to checks and balances and is open to modify its beliefs in the face of new evidences that contradicts its established beliefs
religion tell you what to believe according to holy books and you SHOULD NOT entertain any contradicting evidence. e.g. true bible believing christians still believe that the earth is 6000yrs old.

my submission is that: The origin of the universe is still a mystery and science is honest enough to say they dont know yet, maybe our children will figure it out.
while religious books written by men that are less knowledgeable than you about science and cosmology tell you what to believe by faith or else you are an unbeliever that will eventually burn in hell for your unbelief


just admit that your belief on the origin of the universe is based on faith and not reason

Yes, Christianity is based on faith no doubt but that faith is not unfounded. You misunderstand christianity: The bible is not a threat book and I have never come across any part of the bible that declares the age of the earth. . . . and I am a true bible believing christian. Again science is a method of reasoning and not a sect, sometimes make the mistake of personifying it and ascribing infallibility to it.
That's by the way. Back to our debate, when I asked you to show me, I was expecting you to expose properly some flaw in my logic and show me what should logically follow but you didn't.

You said

i like to think clearly and logically without confustion so i will list your first two steps here.

Step 1
Every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Step 2:
Since everything has a cause including the universe, if we trace back through a line of subsequent causes and effects, we must come to a point where we must acknowledge a first member of the series i.e. a first cause. To qualify as first cause, the first cause must be (1)uncaused (2)infinite*


now your second step has this fallacy: who said you must all of a sudden come to a convenient stopping point where we must acknowledge a first cause that is uncaused and infinite. on what premise is that based on. Logically, the same premise that proposes that an effect must have a cause also logically proposes by extension that the cause must have another cause on and on and on till infinity. you cannot just pick a religiouslyconvenient spot to terminate the cause-effect reasoning. if there must be a cause for every effect, then THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A CAUSE FOR EVERY EFFECT NON-STOP.

To which I replied

Mr_Anony:

Thanks for at least following logically, I agree with you hat I cannot just pick a religiously-convenient spot to cut short the cause-effect series. Besides, I have not automatically said that this first cause is any god. I have only describe what it's attributes must be for it to qualify as a "first cause". For instance when counting numbers backwards in sequence, we come to a point where we use the term "infinity" to denote the first number. Infinity is not really a number but it is used to explain that you've reached the end of the line. So for now the first cause may as well be an abstract idea but the point is that it must be there in order to make sense of the sequence at all. Do you agree?

Then you countered

cyrexx:

i disagree
who says it must be there (bolded). its like trying to give a value to infinity, which is logically impossible

are you not trying to forcefully insert what is not there in the first place i.e.stopping point in the cause-effect reasoning

if you agree that your logic in the second step is prone to error and fallacy, then let us carefully examine the first step again

Now I reply, I am not at this point trying to give a number to infinity or a form to first cause, I am only stating that to make sense of a sequence, one must acknowledge a limiter that is not of the same form as the sequence but allows the sequence to still make sense. e.g infinity is not a number but it acts as a limiter so that numbers can make sense in sequence and we don't have to calculate onwards and onwards. same way we have to introduce a first cause in the cause-effect sequence. If we deny infinity for instance, then we must name every number and say for certain that this is where numbers end and beyond this point there are no numbers. same way we introduce first cause else we must name every single cause and effect to the point that there is nothing beyond this first cause. In other words as infinity is a point where numbers end, beyond which numbers must cease to exist. First cause would be a point where cause and effect ends and beyond which the cause and effect series must cease to exist. Do you see what I'm saying?
(Note: At this point, I haven't said that first cause is God yet)

Martian:

Of course I don't know. The only difference is that I don't make stuff up, call it "extraphysical", then ask people to take a stance.

Lol, I only used the term "extraphysical" because I didn't want to use words like "spiritual" or "supernatural" to explain that God is not a physical being, but i guess you already know that....well, that's by the way, when you are ready, to debate, let's start from step 1

logicboy:

Wow, I was only joking!!!

Lol, when were you joking? when you made the "I am not a fanatic" disclaimer or when you ranked atheists? Anyway forget about it it doesn't matter anyway.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, I only used the term[b] "extraphysical" because I didn't want to use words like "spiritual" or "supernatural" to explain that God is not a physical being, but i guess you already know that[/b]....well, that's by the way, when you are ready, to debate, let's start from step 1

The bolded is the reason why there is no debate. You are justing trying to present your idea of god as the so called causeless cause. So, extraphyicsal and spiritual are just versions of the same old bulls#it god concepts. You don't have to make stuff up, just say you don't know.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, when were you joking? when you made the "I am not a fanatic" disclaimer or when you ranked atheists? Anyway forget about it it doesn't matter anyway.

The ranking of atheists was a joke.

Mr_Anony:
infinity is a point where numbers end, beyond which numbers must cease to exist. First cause would be a point where cause and effect ends and beyond which the cause and effect series must cease to exist. Do you see what I'm saying?
(Note: At this point, I haven't said that first cause is God yet)

there is not a definite single point where numbers must cease to exist. infinity is not finite, not definable and there is no single number called infinity. its just a concept. its similar to infinite loop.

i suggest you find another analogy for logical evidence of the cause of the universe, as number infinity is non-existent and i know you dont want to admit god is non-existent.

Martian:

The bolded is the reason why there is no debate. You are justing trying to present your idea of god as the so called causeless cause. So, extraphyicsal and spiritual are just versions of the same old bulls#it god concepts. You don't have to make stuff up, just say you don't know.

The realm of the supernatural exists (i know you don't believe this and I won't try to convince you either because all we will end up doing is go round and round in circles) when you are ready to debate with me, first follow my argument from step one, then we would be arguing properly but since you say you don't know, then we have nothing to debate about

cyrexx:

there is not a definite single point where numbers must cease to exist. infinity is not finite, not definable and there is no single number called infinity. its just a concept. its similar to infinite loop.

i suggest you find another analogy for logical evidence of the cause of the universe, as number infinity is non-existent and i know you dont want to admit god is non-existent.

You missed the point of my analogy. by saying infinity is not finite, it means that infinity is not subject to the reality of numbers i.e. cannot be summed, multiplied or divided. In the same way first cause is not subject to the reality of cause and effect hence it must not be caused

Mr_Anony:

You missed the point of my analogy. by saying infinity is not finite, it means that infinity is not subject to the reality of numbers i.e. cannot be summed, multiplied or divided. In the same way first cause is not subject to the reality of cause and effect hence it must not be caused

nice try. gradually getting to god as the uncaused cause.

refresh your basic mathematics: infinity is not a real number(nonexistent number) and following your logic, god is not a real entity (nonexistent)

so what next.

cyrexx:

nice try. gradually getting to god as the uncaused cause.

refresh your basic mathematics: infinity is not a real number(nonexistent number) and following your logic, god is not a real entity (nonexistent)

so what next.

You forget that at this point i.e. step 2 I have neither implied that God is the first cause nor have I said that the first cause is a nonexistent concept. Rather I have said that a first cause must be introduced to make sense of cause and effect and that the first cause must therefore not be bound by the rules of cause and effect.

Mr_Anony:

You forget that at this point i.e. step 2 I have neither implied that God is the first cause nor have I said that the first cause is a nonexistent concept. Rather I have said that a first cause must be introduced to make sense of cause and effect and that the first cause must therefore not be bound by the rules of cause and effect.

then what are you saying.

cyrexx:

then what are you saying.

every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence hence a first cause must be uncaused. do you agree

Mr_Anony:

every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence hence a first cause must be uncaused. do you agree

i disagree
NOT every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence.
e.g. equator line has no starting point and does not obey the rules of the sequence

and by the way, how does this relate to the uncaused cause of the universe

Mr_Anony:

every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence hence a first cause must be uncaused. do you agree

Where do numbers start from?

-1,000,000?
-1,000,000,000,000?
+1?

cyrexx:

i disagree
NOT every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence.
e.g. equator line has no starting point and does not obey the rules of the sequence

and by the way, how does this relate to the uncaused cause of the universe

The equator line is not linear but circular. besides every logical sequence is linear, circular sequences are arranged sequences but that's besides the point.

I don't know how but i think we have digressed a bit; If we for instance pick the classic "chicken and egg argument" for instance, to solve it we must assume either a first egg which did not come from a chicken or vice versa if not you are left with a sequence which you know starts somewhere but you can't say where. the reason it is important to lay the foundation of first cause being uncaused is that it lays foundation for my next step.
Remember, as I said, I have not named anything as the first cause. I am only stating that there should be one for cause and effect to follow a logical sequence. (please don't assume any god at this point that you hope to oppose in the future and the logic will become quite clear)

BUT mr anony started with a premise that everything has a cause! As a result his first cause/sequence theory fails! For not complying with his premise.

Kay 17: BUT mr anony started with a premise that everything has a cause! As a result his first cause/sequence theory fails! For not complying with his premise.

Read the premise carefully,

From what we know, every effect has a cause, our reality can be described as a series of causes and effects. We know, the Universe has a definite beginning hence it must have been caused.

Mr_Anony:

You forget that at this point i.e. step 2 I have neither implied that God is the first cause nor have I said that the first cause is a nonexistent concept. Rather I have said that a first cause must be introduced to make sense of cause and effect and that the first cause must therefore not be bound by the rules of cause and effect.

em logicboy, i find the bolded amusing so i quote it. Sorry if it makes you jump off the hill em well done anon

hisblud: em logicboy, i find the bolded amusing so i quote it. Sorry if it makes you jump off the hill em well done anon

Quoting nonsense only shows that your're full of nonsense.

Mr_Anony:

every linear sequence has a starting point and the starting point does not obey the rules of the sequence hence a first cause must be uncaused. do you agree

another statement i like.

hisblud: another statement i like.

Another nonsense that you have quoted. Numbers are linear;

logicboy:

Where do numbers start from?

-1,000,000?
-1,000,000,000,000?
+1?

logicboy:


Quoting nonsense only shows that your're full of nonsense.

ok lemme go thru an read some nonsense logicboy has written ... Read...oh the above

logicboy:


Another nonsense that you have quoted. Numbers are linear;

i wont want to digress the topic, over to you mr anon, thanks once again but also to all atheist that have reasoned up to this point without flaring.

hisblud: i wont want to digress the topic, over to you mr anon, thanks once again but also to all atheist that have reasoned up to this point without flaring.

Please, I need you on my new thread