felixomor:

Again, Jack at it....
Please show me where I said this example was the only reason, I used to arrive at the conclusion.

Besides, look at other colleagues of yours who even spread such dogma below,

Atheism is contrasted with THEISM, as the name implies, not DEISM. A person like Richard Dawkins is armed against theists but philosophically ill-equiped against a deist. He has no weapons with which to fight. Deists will kill off his arguments in poofs of smoke.

Stop pitting atheism against deism, and stop hiding under the umbrella of deism. YOU are not a deist. Argue for theism.

By the way, I'm BOTH an atheist and a WEAK/IMPLICIT adeist.

TLuzzie:
Atheism is contrasted with THEISM, as the name implies, not theism. A person like Richard Dawkins is harmed against theists but philosophically ill-equiped against a deist. He has no weapons with which to fight. Deists will kill off his arguments like poofs of smoke.

Stop pitting atheism against deism, and stop hiding under the umbrella of theism. YOU are not a deist. Argue for theism.

By the way, I'm BOTH an atheist and a WEAK/IMPLICIT [b]adeist.

"Atheos" (greek meaning No God or without God)

Simple enough for the simple to understand.
No need for extras. Thanks
You are either an atheist or you are not.

And for the records, theists with even little knowledge of science have humiliated Dawkins in debates.

dalaman:


The spiritual is not based on logic. Anything can be asserted in the world of the spritual since it is a world of empty assertions that is never based on any verifiable evidence. Like I can say I went to London yesterday and saw the Nigerian president spiritually, we connected spiritually and had a good time after which I realized that his condition needs spritual solution that only me can provide. No body can counter that since the assertion was never made on logic or evidence.

Yes you are right but that is you are right within your fleshly perception. You can argue all day if you wish but you will always be right because that is what you perceive and I wouldn't blame you for that. I would simply blame your handicap.

Not all perceptions are evidence based and I already showed this to Jack.

Anyone who is of a higher scope of perception beyond the physical shouldn't blame you and neither should you blame them for your limitation.

They cannot communicate sensibly with you due to your handicap. You alone can help yourself.

JackBizzle:


Thanks and God bless

God bless u too my brother....
It is well well with your soul

In Jesus name, amen.

felixomor:

"Atheos" (greek meaning No God or without God)
Simple enough for the simple to understand. No need for extras. You are either an atheist or you are not.

I beg your pardon?
Read my post again, please. You don't get the point.

TLuzzie:
I beg your pardon?

Read my post again, please. You don't get the point.

I got it very well....
My own message was For those who are trying to stylishly renounce atheism....
They know themselves.

spacetacular:



Yes you are right but that is you are right within your fleshly perception. You can argue all day if you wish but you will always be right because that is what you perceive and I wouldn't blame you for that. I would simply blame your handicap.

Not all perceptions are evidence based and I already showed this to Jack.

Anyone who is of a higher scope of perception beyond the physical shouldn't blame you and neither should you blame them for your limitation.

They cannot communicate sensibly with you due to your handicap. You alone can help yourself.

You are making claims that aren't based on evidence or logic and you are talking about sensible communication? The spiritual is anchored on the illogic because anything can be asserted when it comes to the spritual.

spacetacular:


And I asked if such never existed before properties or a nature was added to it?

It's not our description that makes anything exist. Those things have already existed before we DISCOVERED them based on our perception.

Our perception is limited and is simply a produce of our skepticism but does scepticism negate prior existence before DISCOVERY?

yes your description doesn't make anything exist. But to prove to yourself or anyone else that something exists. You have to touch it's nature.

TLuzzie:
Atheism is contrasted with THEISM, as the name implies, not DEISM. A person like Richard Dawkins is armed against theists but philosophically ill-equiped against a deist. He has no weapons with which to fight. Deists will kill off his arguments in poofs of smoke.

Stop pitting atheism against deism, and stop hiding under the umbrella of deism. YOU are not a deist. Argue for theism.

By the way, I'm BOTH an atheist and a WEAK/IMPLICIT adeist.

How on earth can you be an outright atheist and a deist at the same time?

Atheism is absolute and so is Deism. You cannot have both.

Saying you are a weak and implicit adeist is simply ludicrous.

Hi my favourite past time how are you doing today?

dalaman:


You are making claims that aren't based on evidence or logic and you are talking about sensible communication? The spiritual is anchored on the illogic because anything can be asserted when it comes to the spritual.

Again you are right based on your perception. Your perception does not permit sensible communication.

hopefulLandlord:


if people take the time to read my two long posts on the first page of this thread, they'll realise that I'm NOT in any way denying the first cause, neither am I affirming it, that's what Kingebukasblog seemed not to get when he said he's "Rebutting" my points, which explains why I refused to reply his rebuttals

I'm not the type of atheist that asserts there's no creator, there are no good and sincere arguments against one

I would actually be happy not to argue with theists and even admit they could be right if they just stopped at clamining: There is a god. I could respond: you might be right. So what? End of discussion. But then they don't stop at that. They automatically assume that admitting that possibility makes a specific god a realty and a whole ideology (however vile and ridiculous) the only true one. In other words after "proving" there is a god they immediately know what he (yes, it's a male god, obviously) thinks, wants, in every single detail. Compare this to someone "proving" to you that aliens exist. Since it's a sensible assumption, you might admit that it's likely. Do you then automatically agree that they are little green men with a single eye in the middle who want to rape human females (plus a gazillion other ridiculous assumptions)? of course not

I get your point. There IS a first cause or a first set of causes. Full stop. Logic demands it. It must be true. Good.

But that's where it ALL STOPS. Going any further than that is nothing but speculations.

And I COMPLETELY and PERMANENTLY reject the Abrahamic God. I RULE HIM out. He's impossible. He's a non-existent paradox, torn apart by its own internal contradictions. He's an incoherent concept.

realtem:
yes your description doesn't make anything exist. But to prove to yourself or anyone else that something exists. You have to touch it's nature.

That's why I said we are limited by our perception. Our perception is based on scepticism that's all it is.

Everything man has ever attached properties to have been DISCOVERIES of things ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. Go figure!

spacetacular:


How on earth can you be an outright atheist and a deist at the same time?

Atheism is absolute and so is Deism. You cannot have both.

Saying you are a weak and implicit adeist is simply ludicrous.

Hi my favourite past time how are you doing today?

@ bolded
Thanks very much, for resounding that.

spacetacular:


Again you are right based on your perception. Your perception does not permit sensible communication.

How can a communication be sensible when you are supporting something that can not be precived by the senses?

spacetacular:


How on earth can you be an outright atheist and a deist at the same time?

Atheism is absolute and so is Deism. You cannot have both.

Saying you are a weak and implicit adeist is simply ludicrous.

Hi my favourite past time how are you doing today?

I think there was a reason why I didn't mention you b!tch? Can you kindly remind me?

felixomor:

I got it very well....
My own message was For those who are trying to stylishly renounce atheism....
They know themselves.

Eya. Sorry. Comprehension problems. It is well.

TLuzzie:
I think there was a reason why I didn't mention you b!tch? Can you kindly remind me?

Because you are my favourite past time

TLuzzie:
Eya. Sorry. Comprehension problems. It is well.

Exactly the problem you demonstrated when you combined atheism and deism into one person when both are absolutes....

Look inwards brah

dalaman:


How can a communication be sensible when you are supporting something that can not be precived by the senses?

Are your senses all there truly is of you? If your answer is yes then I guess clairvoyance is also nonsense.

You are limited and I respect that but do not expect me to make sense to you because I simply cannot.

TLuzzie:
I get your point. There IS a first cause or a first set of causes. Full stop. Logic demands it. It must be true. Good.

But that's where it ALL STOPS. Going any further than that is nothing but speculations.

And I COMPLETELY and PERMANENTLY reject the Abrahamic God. I RULE HIM out. He's impossible. He's a non-existent paradox, torn apart by its own internal contradictions. He's an incoherent concept.

of course!

There's no reason to be an adherent of the Abrahamic god IMO.

An unsubstantiated, invisible, all knowing, all powerful, supernatural creator judge, that refuses to reveal itself, leaves no evidence, and is petty enough to eternally punish those that were unconvinced ... is a pretty outrageous claim.

I'm going to need more than some old books that can best summed as "trust me" to buy into that claim. Why would you believe such a thing is a better question than why wouldn't you. Especially considering there's no shortage of old books, all with different stories, that all rely on "trust me" as their basis.

But whatever, each to their own I suppose.

spacetacular:


Because you are my favourite past time

You carry my moniker in your soul. It's a delight knowing that I have a fan.

TLuzzie:
You carry my moniker in your soul. It's a delight knowing that I have a fan.

Yes you have a fan. In your deluded imagination yes you do.

felixomor:


Exactly the problem you demonstrated when you combined atheism and deism into one person when both are absolutes....

Look inwards brah

I just told you that accepting that the universe has certain, prexisting foundations is not equivalent to deism. Why should your skull have greater mass than your brain? It's too thick, and preventing worthwhile things from gaining entrance. Deism conjures up A supreme being, which I disagree with! And I just told you that I'm both an atheist AND an adeist.

Did the Deist God create the universe out of absolute nothingness or prexisting raw material? Why is no one answering this question?

TLuzzie:
I just told you that accepting that the universe has certain, prexisting foundations is not equivalent to deism. Why should your skull have greater mass than your brain? It's too thick, and preventing worthwhile things from gaining entrance. Deism conjures up A supreme being, which I disagree with! And I just told you that I'm both an atheist AND an adeist.

Did the Deist God create the universe out of absolute nothingness or prexisting raw material? Why is no one answering this question?

Buttressing misinformation and ignorance.
You are an atheist. Period.
No more, no less....

spacetacular:


Yes you have a fan. In your deluded imagination yes you do.

Says the married agbaya obsessed with a "tyager" in cyberspace.

Richirich713:


Atheists are too used to jumping to Agnostism, so it's of no surprise many think theists were are arguing for deism for centuries when they were developing these arguments for God.



Craig has already responded to this charge : http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam-and-multiple-cosmic-causes

I agree that it's possible with some forms of the cosmological arguments. I just don't think it's more likely or even possible if we consider other arguments that ruled it out. Arguments involving God's omnipotence, something Craig's appeals to in his article.

I just saw this now

you missed my point, Kalam doesn't have anything to do with omnipotence, infact you've tactically proved my point that you need another argument to buttress the failure of the Kalam which explains why even Craig had to put the ad hoc "omnipotence" to save the Kalam

felixomor:


Buttressing misinformation.
You are an atheist. Period.
No more, no less....

Lolzzz. Should I call you a blockhead? Where did I deny being an atheist?

TLuzzie:

Did the Deist God create the universe out of absolute nothingness or prexisting raw material? Why is no one answering this question?

they can't

TLuzzie:
JackBizzle, hopefulLandlord, CatfishBilly, Deicide, LightandDarkness, scepticalpyrrho......

I agree with KingEbukasBlog that Something coming from nothing is a LOGICAL ABSURDITY and the most IMPOSSIBLE thing conceivable. It is a category error. It cannever happen under any circumstances. Either EXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [FOREVER] or NONEXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [ETERNALLY]. Neither can come from the other. It is absolutely impossible. And since we exist, it is absolutely certain that there was NEVER a time in the past when there was nonexistence, and nonexistence is never going to be possible, for all eternity.

I also agree that since the physical universe had a beginning, it is therefore contingent, unnecessary, and noneternal, which automatically implies that it must have sound, necessary, noncontigent, eternal foundations. This ipso facto makes infinite regress an impossible idea that shouldn't even be entertained in logical discussions. There must be a first, eternal, uncreated, noncontingent, necessary CAUSE [or set of causes] on which the physical universe depends for its existence. This conclusion flows inevitably from impeccable logic. It is IRREFUTABLE, unless one is prepared to venture into the madhouse.

Having said that, I have quite a little bit of problem with the definition of atheism being thrown around. I don't expect any atheist to deny the first cause. It's insane. If the physical universe had a beginning in time, it must definitely have sure foundations that have always existed prior to its emergence - because, like I earlier pointed out, existence CANNOT come from nonexistence. But I completely disagree with the claim that anyone who accepts this fact automatically becomes a deist, and whoever claims to be an atheist has denied the first cause. This rubbish flows from the fact that the first cause has been labelled with the word "GOD", and anyone who denies God has effectively denied the first cause and is therefore a lunatic.

I accept a first cause or a first set of causes that serve as the foundation of the physical universe, but I do not make any assertions about what it is. The deist already made the claim that it is a supreme being, so we're not in the same camp. I know for a FACT that the Abrahamic God, as well as every other God humanity has conjured up among different cultures is FALSE, mythical and imaginary. Denying all these deities is what should be meant by "atheism" not the denial of the first cause.

As for the Deists, I have a question for them...... Did your conjured up supreme being create the physical universe out of ALREADY EXISTING RAW MATERIAL or out of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS, NONEXISTENCE?

I like how you put out your thoughts on a coherent manner. However, I do not agree with some of it.

There will always be a paradox of the first cause and infinite regress.

You see, time as a concept goes infinitely both ways- the future goes on forever and the past will keep going further back. Just like how numbers can be infinite on both sides of the number line.

There may not be a first cause but rather a cyclical recurring loop of creation and anti creation. This is science fiction but it really appeals to me.

TLuzzie:
Says the married agbaya obsessed with a "tyager" in cyberspace.

Don't flatter yourself!

So, is the first cause a result of some chain reactions that was outside of an "external" influence or some dude got same play doh and started creating shiiiiit?

JackBizzle:



I like how you put out your thoughts on a coherent manner. However, I do not agree with some of it.

There will always be a paradox of the first cause and infinite regress.

You see, time as a concept goes infinitely both ways- the future goes on forever and the past will keep going further back. Just like how numbers can be infinite on both sides of the number line.

There may not be a first cause but rather a cyclical recurring loop of creation and anti creation. This is science fiction but it really appeals to me.

So now it's science fiction and no longer pure scientific proof?

Jack oh Jack!

And there was Mr Dalaman talking to me about physical perception. I think he also needs to talk to you about it Jack or is science fiction also physical perception or felt by the senses.