₦airaland Forum

FOLYKAZE:
In as much devotion is involve, it is religion.

Oxygen, Jiva is a concept in jainism.

And in what religion is hockey a concept? Or boxing perhaps?

I didnt call those activites religion.

They are simply religion going by the definition of religion.

You dont need to call them religion. If you provide a definition and you stand by that definition, then you adopt whatever the definition covers, no matter how ridiculous it may seem.

You are right going by your definition

What happens when the definition is incorrect as is the case?

Evangelical atheism has some form of devotion and interest.

I have an interest in living. Is that also a religion?

Chiam55:
Yes you're right I guess. I love learning and organised religion( my family are Muslims) doesn't allow me to value all the different theories in the world because in all honesty it's ALL theories.
What do you mean by deepsight?

DeepSight is a member of this forum. He used to be a deist. You might enjoy discussing with him.

Chiam55:
Lol. I hope not because if I'm honest I'm closer to religion than an atheist. I feel like the black sheep kicked out of the religion camp because I refuse to digest some of the theories (especially the Them and Us mentality) But I do believe in a higher being. I love my higher being. I say MY higher being because it is a personal connection. I don't need to be part of a group or community I love my private affair with my higher being.

Chiam55:
Hahahahahaha shu up! I am not an atheist. I am a religion reject before I'm an atheist

Perhaps you are a deist then and what you meant to say was that you do not believe in a God as proclaimed by organized religion. Is this right?

DeepSight drag yourself here.

FOLYKAZE:
But you acknowledge religion is centred on faith in God while many religion in the world today does not necessarity have it centre on faith in a particular God.

Sure, like hockey and my devotion to oxygen right?

It counters your position that your devotion to chess game or guiter playing is not a religion. Well rightly, knowing this doesnt stop this devotion from been a form of religion.

FOLYKAZE you are quite welcome to call my hobbies a religion. By that standard, atheism will have to be a religion. Education will have to be a religion as well. That standard qualifies well nigh everything (even posting on nairaland) as a religion and it is starkly ridiculous!

If I define a car as anything that has wheels on it and if I insist on that definition, then wheelbarrows and bicycles automatically become cars.

This is darwinism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Thanks

1. Deism is a natural religion. Pls note that.

Care to explain further?

2. You actually cannot show me how atheism is exceptional from the everything which my provided definition covers.

But I told you that atheism is not an interest or a devotion or belief or activity. That alone takes atheism outside your third definition. My guitar and chess activities fall within that definition but not atheism.

Chiam55:
Do I believe in God? No.

You are an atheist then.

I appreciate that you do not also believe that there is no God but that is not included in the definition of atheism. I ironically (I should think), because atheism has such a narrow description, a lot of different people fall under its umbrella. There is no unification save the fact of disbelief in God.

I can't believe in something I have no clue that it exists but at the same time I can't disbelieve in it believe it doesnt exist because I don't know if that thing exists or not.

Very eloquently put (pardon my slight editing). You are an atheist.

^^^
Correction, I think you meant to say "certainly did not originate with Darwinism"

KoloOyinbo:
Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

Its a bit dizzying switching between the two threads.

The definition provided does not support you. 2a calls atheism a disbelief. That is what I have been saying all along. A disbelief is not a belief! 2b calls it a doctrine of the non existence of God. Now 2b is what you and many others consider atheism to be. However 2a is what we are telling you it is. If an award was to be given for being an atheist, each person would be called upon to answer the question "do you believe in God". Any answer other than "yes" would qualify the person for the award. It would not be necessary to ask the person if the person believed there was no God.

FOLYKAZE:
@KoloOyinbo

The issue of God cause a serious bleeding through the deep cut of defining what God is. That better not be touched.

Religion on the other hand does not necessarily have base in god belief or faith system.

Religion has more to do with devotion; 'tie to' something or someone. That is it, that is all

And so Im a polytheist. Chess is my religion. Music is my religion. Breathing oxygen is my religion (Im really devoted and tied to that).

How many religions do you have FOLYKAZE? (apart from spiritual atheism of course).

KoloOyinbo:
Read what a BOOLEAN is! I am correct (tempted to say as always but modesty prohibits ). Your Brazil analogy is ALMOST correct. The may or may not win is the equivalent or 'Agnosticism'. But EITHER they WILL win or the WILL NOT win. Either / Or - the definition of BOOLEAN!

There are only two alternative. You can decide NOT to choose - ok.

A disbelief in one thing is not a belief in the opposite. If we apply this then we arrive at agnosticism as I have said both here and in other threads.

Also see my somewhat 'tongue in cheek' comments on agnosticism above.

I program and so I know VERY well what a Boolean is.

Lets put it this way, perhaps it will be easier.

Will I put my money (belief) on Brazil winning the world cup? No. Does that mean I should automatically put it on them not winning? No.
I dont believe they will win the world cup (they may) but that doesnt mean that I believe that they will not win either.

Now if I believed, I would put my money on them (my belief).

KoloOyinbo:
Yes it is the problem of definitions.

We need to agree if agnostics are separate from atheists or a subset of atheists! (Most agnostics I have met consider themselves separate).

Can I ask you, Jayriginal - are you an agnostic?

I do not believe in God. That makes me an atheist. I do not say that there is no God either. By most definitions, I will be tagged agnostic but in fact, I am an atheist. Its only when one wants to make further distinctions between atheists that one starts calling some agnostics, strong atheists, weak atheists, christian atheists etc

I explained all this before in the other thread.

And yes, most agnostics do consider themselves separate but they arent. It gives the appearance of respectability and intellect. It also helps people believe that they can still save your soul .

I still wish to hear Chiam55 answer the question I posed.

FOLYKAZE:
1. Religion is a universal practises that take many forms. Even among the christians, some are trinitarian while others are not. Some wear uniform while others do not. This does not makes it non-religious by citing like of individual atheists.

I never said or implied that religion was not diverse. No point here.

2. Every religious move either done consciously or not does not stop the act from been religious. A phenomenon is what it is until after it attracts some form of devotion. At this point, it becomes a religion.

I honestly do not know which of my points this is meant to counter.

3. I didnt say atheism brought about darwinism, my point was according to the definition given, religion develop existentialism. Atheism does not develop but propel darwinism. So this makes it a religion.

How exactly does atheism propel darwinism (and what the hell is darwinism anyway? Do you mean to say evolution?) and does atheism propel science too? Perhaps science is a religion as well?

4. You defined atheism as a state of mind; forgetting that religion is a state of mind too. This your words most importantly confirmed that atheism is a religion.

Atheists are people, theists are people, religions need people therefore atheism is a religion. This makes no sense. Listen in case you misunderstood me. Religion is much more than a state of mind. Now, a deist believes in God but deism is not a religion. Can you see how that works? By calling atheism a state of mind, I meant the position on the belief in a God or Gods. Nothing more than that. Whenever you define religion to include sports, politics etc, then you expand it to include just about everything under the sun that is an observed practice eg early morning ablutions.

Chiam55:
I find atheists to be very similar to those who buy into religion. They have a lot of similarities such as both arguing something that can not be proven either way. If I had to pick between the two I really couldn't because both are very strong. What I mean by strength is that to have a belief and faith in something higher than yourself even though there maybe no guaranty of it's existence is very admirable. As for those who choose to do it on their own having faith in their abilities and governing themselves is very brave.
I am an agnostic and chose to stand between these two opposites and smh lol.

It depends on what definition of atheism you adopt.

Simply put an atheist is one without belief in God. Thats all there is to it. There are atheists who declare positively that there is no God but that is not necessary to come under the umbrella of atheism.

Only one question needs to be asked "do you believe in God". If your answer is "No" then you are an atheist regardless of whatever approach you adopt.
Now you describe yourself as agnostic so may I put the same question to you?

Chiam55, do you believe in God? Its a yes or no question. You may elaborate if you wish after answering but please try to answer with a yes or no first.

KoloOyinbo:
Yes, but only if we are considering a 'Boolean'. i.e. 'A' or 'NOT A'.

In this specific case - God exists OR God does not exist.

Wrong again.

One can disbelieve in A without believing in NOT A.

Using football, do I believe Brazil will win the next world cup? No! Does that mean I believe Brazil will not win the world cup? No! They may win it or they may not even qualify for the event. However I simply dont believe that they will win. Its difficult to grasp but think about that carefully.

Do I believe you have a car? I dont. I have no evidence to lead me to believe you have a car. However that is not to say that I believe that you do not have a car. You actually might own one, but I dont believe it. Is it clear now?

A disbelief in one thing is not a belief in the opposite.

Do you still contest the point?

KoloOyinbo:
I am immediately attracted to the word (dis)belief. Belief - pro or con - in the absence of any evidence to prove or disprove - seems to imply FAITH?

Question: Is disbelief in a thing/outcome the same as the belief in the opposite thing/outcome?

Nice reply Folykaze. I suspect that KoloOyinbo will argue along your lines but I do not want to preempt him.

Going by your third definition, several things can be defined as a religion. You mentioned hockey in Canada, thats one. Speaking of hockey as a religion is understandable, perhaps even apt, but only in a metaphorical sense. To consider it a religion in any other sense is truly ridiculous.

Atheism falls outside your third category. Atheism is not a belief, interest or activity. Its simply a state of mind as to whether one has faith in the existence of God. An atheist lacks this faith. One can like nokia phones and be an atheist while another atheist is into iphones. One might love okra and another likes ewedu. Sure, you might find some common traits among atheists but that is not because they are following the same rules. I play chess very devotedly and I play the guitar equally devotedly. Never have I once thought of either of these my passions as a religion.

Atheism did not bring about darwinism as you call it.

Sorry but you have failed to prove or even convince that atheism is a religion.

KoloOyinbo:
Agnosticism is not well understood. But I stand by my definitions and what I said.

Definition by Websters of an Atheist - "a person who believes that God does not exist" i.e. They believe there is NO GOD.

Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

For further emphasis, gnosis means knowledge. You put an "a" there, it means without. Eg sexu@l and asexu@l, theist, and atheist.


Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Now see number 2a. That is what atheism really is. b under is one of the classifications I mentioned previously.

PLEASE don't go by most people on this forum try some reputable academic source. Not just Nairaland but almost all open forums and blogs are a mix from the best to the most uneducated fools with the craziest ideas. Rather enjoy the ideas etc and when the mood strikes point those that genuinely want to learn in the direction they should be going or towards some proper source material.

We are on nairaland so thats my first point of reference. There are atheists here who you can verify some of my claims with (for instance being hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God) and thats why I mentioned them. Im not a stranger to academic research and so I will not point you in the direction of a nairaland post as empirical proof of some scientific fact or theory. If I point you in a certain direction on nairaland, its for a reason.

Sorry if I appear condescending but I try to simplify matters as much as I can to assist.

Thats not what I meant, but ok.

Very interesting idea you have - "Is atheism a religion?"

I can see a strong argument for YES! Very similar in fact to Humanism. Humanism is accept in many quarters as a religion 'of sorts' (my quote marks).

There are counter arguments of course but it has the makings of an interesting debate. Perhaps you should open a thread about it. Although first we would have to define religion! To me 'Religion' is more than a belief in God. I know many people who accept God but reject religion. Yup a complex set of arguments await there.

Atheism is NOT a religion, not even if you define it (erroneously so) as the belief in the non existence of God. I would be interested in seeing how you make a case for atheism being a religion.

Here, I've opened a thread for you https://www.nairaland.com/2285941/atheism-religion-kolooyinbo-explains

KoloOyinbo, thread opened. Over to you.

Almost sounded like spanish fly.

KoloOyinbo:
OK.. Look at point two. Apply some logic and thought rather than a knee jerk 'first thought into the head' reaction. To believe there is no God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this is FAITH. Every bit as much as to believe this is a God when there is (and cannot be) any evidence to support this.

BOTH stances are based on FAITH.

You are the one with the knee jerk reaction and misapplication of logic. You need to be careful about what you say my friend. My views are very well considered. Like I mentioned earlier, I have found that most people find this concept very difficult to grasp. I'll give you another chance, since you have a self proclaimed IQ of over 140.

Now,

my definition of agnostism is not wrong. In its truest sense, it refers to those who say they lack knowledge. Note the knowledge rather than faith. Even if we use your word "may" can you say that someone who admits that there may be a God or there may not be believes in God? Can you answer that question with a yes? Because if you cant, then that person is an atheist.

An atheist is one who DOES NOT believe in God. Its really that simple, however these days, a lot of classification has been done and so you hear things like strong atheist (which is what you define as atheism), weak atheist (which is what you think of as Agnosticism), christian atheist, "evangelical atheist", and even here we have heard Folykaze refer to himself as a spiritual atheist. The list goes on.

When someone does not believe in God, that person is an atheist. It doesnt matter if he allows the possibility for Gods to exist or if he positively denies the existence of God, his non belief is the issue and try as you may, you cannot make a faith out of that.

Possibly you also believe that atheism is a religion.

Advice, try to be less condescending in your reply.

Most atheists try to base their beliefs stance on arguments and rational that in fact lead ONLY to Agnosticism. non belief in God.
Corrected

So in fact most atheists have FAITH in the belief of no God!

Unsubstantiated, hasty generalization. I repeat, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God. On this forum, I know only of one who says so and that is Ooman. There might be others but they will be very few. Most atheists simply do not believe. In fact, its like this, "I do not believe in God. You do so, not out of knowledge but out of faith. Give me proof." This is the stance of most atheists.

KoloOyinbo:
(1) If faith had a basis then it would not be FAITH!
Agreed.

(2)Plus are we talking FAITH in the belief that there is a God OR FAITH in the belief that there is not?
You would be hard pressed to find anyone with "faith" in the "belief" that there is no God.

(3)BOTH points of view have no rational basis.
Sure, especially when you couch it that way. Its a strawman however (see two above)

Please note the above remarks.

Now everything depends on your definition of what atheism is and what agnostism is. I for one do not believe in a God/Gods. That is not the same thing as believing that there is no God. Even the people you consider agnostics ie the "I dont know" people, I consider atheists because they dont believe.

Ive found over the years that this is a very difficult concept for people to grasp so I would like to hear your take on it.

Elummah:
By Usman Mohammed
For some people, many people, I guess, 1876 witnessed a major scientific breakthrough that was to affect the lives of many in both positive and negative ways. But for a few others, like myself, it rather saw the birth of another world problem.

In 1876 you saw it as a world problem? Lol. You must be the oldest nairalander then.

Meanwhile, smart phones are tested. The industry is regulated and OEMs make sure they comply with safety standards.

Lol. Its a joke you guys. Relax jor.

Ever heard of tongue in cheek?

DeepSight:
I would like to find time to share some of my new perspectives on the meaning life.
Please leave Mallam Madam Kalam,
Salaam.

Anytime.

DeepSight:
And as human beings, will we ever experience something outside human experience?

If you cant, on what basis do you pronounce what is outside your experience?

Is there anything that can be argued, propounded or contended, by human beings which is outside human experience of reality?

Yes we can argue. Its different from stating something as absolute fact

Can you see the futility of that which you are advancing?

The question is can you?

If you want to talk science, by all means do so. If you want to talk logic, feel free. Perhaps you subconsciously realise the flaws in the Kalam yet you keep arguing. God CANNOT be proven logically. The Kalam attempts to present a logical explanation for God and it has been refuted severally.

Now,

DeepSight:
Where this is true, it still forms no particular ground for disputing commonly observed laws of physics.

One should only do so where one has positive evidence that those laws are controverted by clear observations at quantum or other extraenous levels.

It begs the question to simply asseert, as you do, that since quantum laws or happenings are a mystery, then all known laws are laughable and should be condemned in discourses such as this - and cannot and should not be applied to understanding reality and existence as a whole.

Commonly observed laws of physics aka Newtonian Physics do not apply very well to the quantum level. Do you recall the saying of Einstein "God does not play with dice"?

Your hand cannot talk, your leg cannot talk, your eye cannot talk, therefore, you cannot talk. You cannot apply the characteristics of the components to the whole to reach a valid conclusion. Simple!

If this reasoning is followed, as I have pointed out to you, nothing can ever be discussed in existential terms for all eternity - because every stage of knowledge will always remain "as far as we know." It is absurd to rebut the known with the unknown. The unknown, being unknown, cannot serve to rebut anything whatever. You rebut the known with the known.

Ah, but you dont know what you are asserting, you just think so based on your convictions and a fallacious argument.

Whether you recognize it or not, this is frankly the summary of what you say and this is the position you are taking and I hope you can see what a futilist position it is: a position which renders it impossible to have any sensible discussion on any logical matter. A position which renders it even absurd to make a statement such as that you will have breakfast at 8 a.m.

It is a position which is meaningless and has no substance or reason whatever.

It is not a position that any serious discussant can take seriously even for a moment. It simply shows that you are not inclined to be a serious discussant.

Wrong again. It is a position which checks arguments from ignorance. Have you ever wondered why in most of the religions, the deities have huiman attributes? People imagine Gods as humans imbued with traits and emotions of humans. Thus Gods are angry, happy, jealous, sad etc. Gods fight, weep (rainfall), run, hide, smite, betray, protect etc. That is because we cannot think outside our everyday experience. Imagine a time when time did not exist? You cant. I cant. Even the sentence "a time when time did not exist" cant! Apply every day observations to every day phenomena. Do not force them on other phenomena that are clearly outside the scope of every day phenomena.

Its ok to seek to understand the wonders of the Universe (I once told you of hot ice and recently I learnt there is a cloud or planet somewhere full of rasberry scented rum {Sagittarius B2}) through your every day experience but as I reminded you in the past, it used to be the truth based on every day experience that the earth was flat. Anyone who would have suggested otherwise would have been scoffed out. In addition, until gravity was understood, it used to be the truth based on everyday experience that what ever was thrown into the air would come back to the ground.

It is impossible and illogical to aver that something is causeless if it emerges within a given non-void environment.

Indeed, those who advance the issue of virtual particles recognize this even though you do not! - - - > Because the exact reason that they advance the issue of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is to attempt to show that something may emerge from nothing! They thus know very well that the minute a non-void environment is the context, the argument would not fly. This is the very reason and also the only reason that a quantum vacuum is the field discussed.

It is beyond sad that this very elementary and obvious fact - which the makers of the argument know very well - misses you.

In all this, it still does not answer the question, what is the cause of virtual particles? What really is beyond sad is your championing a flawed argument. Its much better for you to say you have faith and leave it at that. And I never said they were causeless by the way. I asked a question to get you to think. Sadly you arent.

Unless you think that a day will come when earth-man will have a birds eye view of the entire universe - and all possible universes and realities in existence in totality - then it must irrevocably be your position that no known principle or law should ever be used to attempt to understand the nature of existence.

Futile, no?

You cant force a position I have not adopted on me. If we all assumed that illnesses were caused by demons, we'd all be spilling bird blood on lepers. We would be binding and casting out demons instead of taking medicine. When you know something, you apply that knowledge to its appropriate setting. One of the most dangerous things to do is making universal statements based on a limited perspective.


I sincerely hope that is obvious to you.


FLIPPING THE KALAM
1) Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause which is physical (this is borne out of observation)
2) The Universe "began to exist"
3) The Universe has a purely physical cause, no God required.

Joagbaje isnt tithing part of the law?

PastorKun, why is the old testament still part of the bible?

Both of you, did Jesus not say not a jot or tittle will pass from the law (and that he did not come to destroy the law)?

Octaves:
I heard my brother got a job at a maintenance firm in PH. I came back for Easter and on sunday after attending holy saturday vigil mass (we are catholics), and that morning, he dressed up for service at some other church.

I asked why he was going there, and he started explaining that it was part of the job he took- the employer's wife is the owner of the church and the man makes it compulsory for every one of his employees to attend else a certain amount will be deducted from your salary. If you don't come during weekdays to cut grass and do clean-up, money will also be deducted.

I fail to understand how a human (somebody that calls himself a man of God) would violate people's freedom of religion like that all in the name of job.

The most annoying part is that he forces them to receive communion. That is particularly worrying because you don't know what really you are receiving especially since there is tattle that the man could be an Ogboni man.

The money being deducted ranges from about 5000 to 15,000 and their salary is about N50,000. If there is any donation in the church, the man deducts it from your salary.
So I need advice.

Sue the bastard.

I'm feeling a little generous so I'll add

Premise 1

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

One can only make this statement based on our experience at the macro level. Let's say at the level of Newtonian physics. We see cause and effect almost everywhere and so its pretty easy to think that this would hold true in every situation. However,

Premise 2

The universe began to exist and

Premise 3

The universe has a cause

Taken all at once, we have the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of composition.

The equivocation.

Things beginning to exist in premise one are not the same as a Universe beginning to exist. A universe doesn't "begin to exist" the same way a car is said to begin to exist. The current theories of the beginning of the Universe AS WE KNOW IT, indicate that it was a quantum event. Things happen much differently at the quantum level than at the Newtonian level. This much is clear.

I have for instance asked my friend to tell me the cause of virtual particles and he couldn't except to insist that they did not occur in nothing (which was not the question I asked).

When a car is made, it is made from previously existing materials transformed and assembled to a purpose. So what is the Universe made out of? What was transformed and assembled to fashion out the Universe? According to inflation theory (please cross check as this is all from memory), the Universe AS WE KNOW IT, grew from a singularity of infinite mass/energy. All that expanded and became our world. So was the Universe made from the Universe? Or someone brought the materials and made the singularity and then set it off?

The point is, when talking about things that begin to exist, cars and Universes are in different leagues.

Fallacy of composition.

This occurs when you take your observation of parts of a thing and apply it to the entire thing.
I might examine the wings of a plane, the tires and the seats of a plane. None of these items can fly and then I conclude that the plane can't fly. Its the Blind Men of Hindustan all over again.

In the observable Universe, things do seem to be brought into being. However as noted, there is a quantum level that is far from what we are used to. We are yet to know about so many things in the Universe and for anyone who knows anything about quantum physics, it is downright laughable to apply personal observations to quantum phenomena. We are component parts of the Universe and as such, we cannot apply our limited observations to the whole. Its really simple.

Special pleading is the God part but I'm getting tired.

KoloOyinbo:
Yes but the logic fails immediately!

Everything that began to exist therefore EXISTS!

So the argument relies on the presumption (with no shred of proof) that something can exist without a beginning. IF this is so then it could be the Universe as easily as it could be a Creator.

There are links with what are called the 'tautological' arguments for Gods existence. Which (a personal opinion) are some of the more esoteric arguments but also fail quite miserably as they fall into circular logic.

So far everything here is rather basic philosophy 101!

You will soon hear about necessary and contingent things, things mutable and immutable.

DeepSight:
Events.

Simple.

Events?

How long did it take for you to come up with that.

I drank water. When did that begin to exist?

Perhaps you might want to clarify precisely what you mean by events. There must be something in that water.

DeepSight:
How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?

Is this not the worst form of magical thinking which you and your ilk here so vociferously condemn the religions for?

Do the laws of motion and the laws of causality support this?
Do you recall that your refutations of these laws was only to suggest that they may not apply at a cosmic level which we have no access to and cannot determine? So on what basis really do you refute these simple propositions of logic and so vociferously condemn them?

If you are agnostic, is it not more sensible for you to quietly say that we do not know much about the totality of existence and leave it at that, rather than continuously refute everyday obvious logic based on that which - according to you - we do not know and cannot even know?

Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

Anyhow, you and I have been down this path before and I suppose there is nothing that we can say to one another on the subject. You are free to regard the idea that things that begin require a cause as fallacy - just as I am free to know that you are the one being fantastical when you insinuate that anything may begin untriggered.

Not just fantasitical, but more incredulous and superstitious than the worst religionist out there.



You, and your ilk, are clearly subscribers to voodoo.

I wont be baited into arguing. Your post up there did not address anything I wrote. The earlier you realise that you cannot prove the existence of God logically, the better for you.

EDIT:
Oh and Im also interested in your example of things that "began" to exist.

KoloOyinbo:
WOW! A lot of intertwining debates here!

My thoughts currently are running in three strands:

1. From a logical point of view we have a problem as the first premise requires proof.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

How can we prove this? Especially as the cause - a Creator - would then require a cause. And that cause also requires a cause - ad infinitum!

Ah dont worry about that. You see, this is not the Cosmological Argument, it is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As to your concern, "God" is said to be uncaused. Note the careful wording "whatever begins to exist". The unmoved mover. Lol.

Special pleading anyone?

The kalam is a salad of assorted fallacies.