Joshthefirst: he was very articulate in explaining the need for a self-existent cause. You are the one bringing hell into this now. Just like you read "hell" into everything I say because of your hatred for yhwh.

I am not trying to rally DS's supportance. I'm just commending him for the way he explains things.


Think for a while and you realize that if a self-existent being caused man into existence, he must have had a purpose and a will for man and earth. And he must have had a way of communing with men.

What do you have against yhwh? What fuels your hatred for him? Hell? Why are you so angry that yhwh has declared that iniquity will be punished in hell? Infact, don't answer these questions here, lest we derail this thread.

rationalmind:

Ooh, really?



The child is right to dismiss the woman as his mother until she provides indisputable evidence
she's actually his/her mother. What evidence have you provided? 5 pages into the thread, NONE.

I even like this analogy of yours. You saying your God is the source of intelligence, he is the eternal, uncaused, undesigned being is analogous to the woman screaming, I am your mother. I was the one that gave birth to you. I had you in my womb for 9 months.

That is no evidence.

And the last part of your analogy about the child saying he has no mother is non-sequitor. We have evidence that everyone must have a mother. What evidence have you provided that the universe had a creator?(and I mean, your own creator, Allah)



And who is talking about that?



We haven't derailed the thread. The thread has always been a lecture for atheists. You were attempting to lecture us on the origin of the universe only to beg the question.

maclatunji:

Once again, the analogy flies past his comprehension. #LOL

Chrisbenogor: If only people will start by saying "It is possible that"
The way I see it, philosophically explaining that there is a self existent cause would not quite cut it in today's world.
There has to be hard evidence of some sort put down on the table else its a case of my logic vs your logic.
re: cause vs being

cold:
Of course,unlike you, I do not lay claim to knowing the beginning of existence.But your attempt to link existence to your imaginary friend but falling short of telling us where this existential being originated from is not only feeble and laughable,it is ludicrous.Seriously,I don't think you know how pathetic this level of reasoning is you flaunt as intelligence.It would have been funny if it wasn't so painfully disturbing

rationalmind:

the analogy was succinctly debunked

maclatunji:

Awwww... you got beaten at the game. #Sorry

Kay 17: @mactunji

What happens to Faith, when human knowledge grasps the concept of God?

maclatunji:

Trust me, you get 0/10 for comprehension. It is well known that certain students who will score an "F" tend to be bullish and confident about the grades they will get once they walk out of the examination hall.

Kay 17: ^^
What will be the relevance of Faith if human knowledge suffices?

Joshthefirst: bibilical faith has a direct relationship with knowledge. Bibilical faith arises from knowledge. Through knowledge of God and his word and power, faith in God(absolute trust in him) is born.

Joshthefirst: bibilical faith has a direct relationship with knowledge. Bibilical faith arises from knowledge. Through knowledge of God and his word and power, faith in God(absolute trust in him) is born.

texanomaly: Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it and Seasons Greetings to those who don't.



Good to have you back LB. I see you are wasting no time.

Logicboy03: Let me help Deepsight and maclatunji to underatand the failure of their first cause argument.

1) Human beings had a cause
2) The earth was caused
3) The universe was caused
4) Everything has a cause

5) The first cause aka God has no cause.


Failures
1) Number 5 is a direct contradiction of number 4. Everything has a cause but we then bend logic and create special rules for God not to have a cause.


2) "cause" is a loaded term. In science, that word is only used when an established relationship between two entities has been ascertained and the question of 'how' is answered. For instance we know that natural glass is caused by lightening. How- when it strikes the sand the shape and texture of the sand changes.
Now, if I ask deepsight or mac about how God caused the universe, would I get an answer?


3) "God" is a meaningless term. The best definition of "God" is-

"A word used when man can't explain his environment and he is too proud to admit it"

Example

-how was the universe formed? I can't tell you but god did it

-what is man's origin? It is not evolution and I can't tell you the details but god did it



It is funny how these theists do no know what God looks like or sounds like or whewre he lives or how he operates but they know that he created the universe.

Could we know that charles darwin founded the theory of evolution without kbowing aything tangible about him? If people didn't see him or his works in his own writing, would we believe that he existed and did such works?

rationalmind:

I think deepsights position of a cause is quite sensible unlike that of our religious brethren.

Take for example the string theory which says our universe was formed by the collision of two other parallel universes. If proven, that's something deepsight is ready to consider as cause.

Unlike our religious brethren who already "know" with certainty Allah/Yahweh caused it.

Logicboy03: Let me help Deepsight and maclatunji to underatand the failure of their first cause argument.

1) Human beings had a cause
2) The earth was caused
3) The universe was caused
4) Everything has a cause

5) The first cause aka God has no cause.


Failures
1) Number 5 is a direct contradiction of number 4. Everything has a cause but we then bend logic and create special rules for God not to have a cause.


2) "cause" is a loaded term. In science, that word is only used when an established relationship between two entities has been ascertained and the question of 'how' is answered. For instance we know that natural glass is caused by lightening. How- when it strikes the sand the shape and texture of the sand changes.
Now, if I ask deepsight or mac about how God caused the universe, would I get an answer?


3) "God" is a meaningless term. The best definition of "God" is-

"A word used when man can't explain his environment and he is too proud to admit it"

Example

-how was the universe formed? I can't tell you but god did it

-what is man's origin? It is not evolution and I can't tell you the details but god did it



It is funny how these theists do no know what God looks like or sounds like or whewre he lives or how he operates but they know that he created the universe.

Could we know that charles darwin founded the theory of evolution without kbowing aything tangible about him? If people didn't see him or his works in his own writing, would we believe that he existed and did such works?

Logicboy03:


Deepsight is the one eyed man among many blind people. His position might be a bit better but still flawed.

His god is meaningless still.......

Logicboy03: Let me help Deepsight and maclatunji to underatand the failure of their first cause argument.

1) Human beings had a cause
2) The earth was caused
3) The universe was caused
4) Everything has a cause

5) The first cause aka God has no cause.


Failures
1) Number 5 is a direct contradiction of number 4. Everything has a cause but we then bend logic and create special rules for God not to have a cause.


2) "cause" is a loaded term. In science, that word is only used when an established relationship between two entities has been ascertained and the question of 'how' is answered. For instance we know that natural glass is caused by lightening. How- when it strikes the sand the shape and texture of the sand changes.
Now, if I ask deepsight or mac about how God caused the universe, would I get an answer?


3) "God" is a meaningless term. The best definition of "God" is-

"A word used when man can't explain his environment and he is too proud to admit it"

Example

-how was the universe formed? I can't tell you but god did it

-what is man's origin? It is not evolution and I can't tell you the details but god did it



It is funny how these theists do no know what God looks like or sounds like or whewre he lives or how he operates but they know that he created the universe.

Could we know that charles darwin founded the theory of evolution without kbowing aything tangible about him? If people didn't see him or his works in his own writing, would we believe that he existed and did such works?

maclatunji:

The greatest problem with Atheists is their inability to accept the limitations of the human being. You cannot observe all natural phenomena, you do not understand all natural laws. Yet, you want to postulate mastery of the workings of the universe via your own observations.

You cannot even master how the earth works...

Even in physics, the rules change when certain phenomena are involved.

rationalmind:

Lol, hilarious you ever accused me of ad-hominem.

What you have up there is classical ad-hominem. Address your debunked analogy or keep quiet.

rationalmind:

I think deepsights position of a cause is quite sensible unlike that of our religious brethren.

Take for example the string theory which says our universe was formed by the collision of two other parallel universes. If proven, that's something deepsight is ready to consider as cause.

Unlike our religious brethren who already "know" with certainty Allah/Yahweh caused it.

rationalmind:

Deism in my opinion is nonsense. I'd rather be a theist than a deist.

sushieater:

Guy, did you just say that?.

Remember this? ==>

Logicboy03:



As usual maclatunji brings an inferior argument that destroys his own position


You say that we can not understand verything about the earth or universe but yet, here you are, talking about this supposed creator of the earth and universe with certainty.


Your argument has nothing to do with proving a first cause. Saying that the. Human mind is limited is not an argument here

maclatunji:

Actually, you did not get the analogy at all. Hence, you get 0 over 10. I cannot be making points, then have to explain them to you again. If it is beyond you, I will just leave it at that. If someone else gets it, I will be glad to address their point.

maclatunji:

You cannot totally understand a system you are a part of. Einstein knew this:

" Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm

^This article is instructive for anyone ready to think.

I have claimed that God is independent of the rules of the universe because he created it and cannot rely on it. The science agrees with me.

Kay 17: ^^
What will be the relevance of Faith if human knowledge suffices?