₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi3:
Of course there will always be something and there has always be something. I just don't see any sensible reason to believe that that thing is the physical universe. The physical universe clearly decays. There is no argument about that. That means that, say what you will about energy, it is destined to decay in perpetuity barring some intervention of an external factor that must of necessity be greater than itself.

Thus, the physical universe does not self-exist. Something else made it. And it is that something else that sustains it and that can renew it or perpetuate it.

As for looking for something outside the Universe when I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, that is neither here nor there. There is no reason at all to consider the Universe self-existing. That, of necessity, points to some cause outside the Universe itself.

When you say the physical universe clearly decays, what do you mean?

Change?
Or
Diminish (in the sense it phases out of existence gradually)

Pray tell.

Ihedinobi3:
How does it not imply will? In what way can a thing self-exist, that is, it is not only uncaused but it is also unaffected by any cause and it also created the Universe ex nihilo, and still be insentient? Why is this assumption unnecessary or incorrect?

Again, the premise here is self- existent, you keep make logical leaps.

Something is self existent means it is uncaused and unaffected by external influence.

You jump gun and make a conclusion it implies will and sentience.

That is an unfounded assumption, probably typical to human propensity to anthropomorphication.

"The river wants to flow downhill"

You have to show how self-existence means sentient without making logical leaps and assumptions

DoctorAlien:
I'm sorry but how does this relate to the unarguable fact that the universe right now is running of usable energy, and thus could not have been here since forever, or else it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago?

Actually my counter is that an eternal universe is a self-contained system therefore wouldn't run out of energy since energy would not be lost.

So, if the universe is eternal then it is a closed system.

DoctorAlien:
what is this self-contained system?

It's basically self explanatory. A closed system without external influence.

DoctorAlien:
If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

Uuuhm, no, not if it is a self-contained system.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

So, do you agree with everything physicists say or only when it suits your argument?

Because there are several other things they say in the pravailing cosmological model that you most likely do not believe or agree with.

Ihedinobi3:
When something is self-existing, it means that it exists because it exists. There is no cause or external explanation for its existence. This implies a will.

No. It doesn't imply will, that is the assumption on your part.

Because if we who are contingent alter our state of existence as we please, then the Cause of all existence must of necessity be able to govern its own existence as it pleases. It cannot be insentient.

As i said before, you are assuming the nature of this cause, you are assuming it must be sentient to be uncaused.

hahn:
Now how is that trolling?

The concept of a creator is illogical because the people who came up with such assumption have failed to provide any proof of any sort to support their claims.

Unless we are talking about a created that loves playing hide and seek

Christ

Ihedinobi3:
I believe I have explained that the cause cannot be other than self-existing and therefore sentient. If you believe that it can be - as it seems to me that you do -, I would be glad to hear how you explain it.

You are basing your premise on the assumption that self existent which means independence of any other or lack of cause to connote sentient.

Self existent means something is without cause or require external influence doesn't mean sentient.

So, i am to counter a derived from your own assumed meaning of the concept of self existence

hahn:
This is wrong.

Theist: Someone created the universe

Atheist: Show me this person

Theist: He is invincible. You can't see him. He is in your mind and he sent his son 2000 years ago to die for your sins

Theist 1: No. God did not have a son. That is blasphemy.

Theist 2: No. God was dating a lesser god

Theist 3: No. God is a holy dwarf

Etc with over 2,000 different descriptions

Atheist: Obviously you guys are assuming and pulling gods out of your anuses. *eats popcorn*

Ok. Go troll someone else

LordReed:
Yes.

So, a theist follows same pattern of observation;

Facts: Precision of gravitational force (too weak or too strong would mean the universe as we know won't exist)

Precision of the weak nuclear force, which anything less or more means life won't exist.

What are the odds of those happening?

Conclusion; something designed this.

How is this not a conclusion since it follows the same pattern of reaching an answer through a set up observables facts?

Ihedinobi3:
I do agree that God is necessarily sentient, as I said in that post. But that is not an assumption behind anything I said there. I am quite happy to present a case for God's Sentience - as you are requiring me to do anyway - but the conclusion that some ultimate cause of the Universe exists is one that can be made by just the consideration that the Universe is not itself self-existing. There is no special need to assume sentience on the part of the Cause because all that matters here is that the Universe would not exist without It.



I don't find this to be true. There are multiple definitions of God in philosophy and common speech (as well as mythology) so the term does not have a precise definition, as you put it.

For that reason, there can be some debate between us as to what God as a term means.

I really don't see how anything captures the essence of the word more than the total independence of its existence. A true God would be One Whose existence is completely invulnerable to anything external to It and Whose Own Nature is so stable as to pose no threats to Its Own Self. This seems to me to be common sense. Power, that is, the ability to exert one's will is the characteristic most easily associated with deity. If a true God did not possess perfect sovereignty over Its own Self, then in what way is it a God at all?

Now you also said that self-existence is only an attribute of God, not the entirety of Its definition. This is where you can take that further. How would you define God and how would you relate that definition to self-existence as an attribute?

A self existing non sentient entity is far from the definition of God.

Reaching a conclusion that anyone who doesn't believe God created the universe implies such a person believes in a causeless universe is based on a fundamental assumption on the nature of this cause.

LordReed:
Assemble a body of facts then follow where they lead.

Like the big bang?

Facts:
Microwave background
Redshifts
Mixture of elements

Conclusion: Big bang.

Is this it?

Ihedinobi3:
Although it is impossible that the Creator is other than sentient, the argument did not go so far as to address sentience at all.

It does, by implication. God by definition is sentient, so when you make a conclusion that whatever caused the universe = God, you are making an argument that, universal cause = Sentient.

God is a technical term in philosophy of religion. It does not necessarily refer to a particular identity. It is a title for anything which is self-existing and an ultimate reality/cause.

No. God defines a particular type of sentient entity not just anything which is self existing. Self existing is one characteristic of God not the actual entirety of its definition, so, this is wrong.

So, if anyone does not believe that a God exists, they necessarily believe that the Universe is causeless and self-existing (which means that it is God in that worldview).

Uuuhm, No. God has a precise definition not an ambiguous term to define anything that is self existing.

Ihedinobi3:
Logic is a good tool when it is used right. But it is true that it can be misused.

Any honest person can tell that the Universe around us and our own selves can only be explained in one of two ways:

1. We have always been here.

2. Something more powerful and greater than the Universe put us here.

#1 proposition is obviously false. That which is eternal would necessarily be stable in its existence but the Universe decays.

#2 proposition is then left by elimination. But any honest observation of the Universe and our own nature as human beings leads straight to the conclusion that a God exists.

Isn't this conclusion based on your assumption that this powerful thing is a sentient entity?

As for the question that you pose to theists in the end, unbelief in a God is illogical because it is a deliberate divorce of an obvious effect from a cause.

So according to you, anyone who disbelieves in God thinks the universe has no cause?

Or could it be that you are assuming the nature of this cause therefore making a projection?

LordReed:
My take on this is, a god is a logical assumption but not a logical conclusion. Just like in conducting experiments you have to state your initial assumptions, a god proposition is a presupposition necessary to make the religious world view work. Its like having an answer already then working backwards, the very opposite of attempting to work towards a conclusion.

How do you arrive at a conclusion?

Nath9638:
Please read below it

Please everyone report this slowpoke

MuttleyLaff:
You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical because you are being honest

Yes because, every oil painting and/or artwork, has a painter

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..."
- Psalm 14:1

People think Psalm 14:1, is speaking ill of atheist, that it is making wickedly cheap potshots but no, that verse, Psalm 14:1 and another one which is Psalm 53:1, are just being frank to the fact about a supposedly knowledgeable person concluding and making a wrong decision (i.e. foolish) concerning the existence of God.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit bowl or fruit salad. The fool might though. So we see, it is a wisdom problem, we have on our hands with atheists here about God

Back to the matter, unbelief in God is an illogical conclusion because it is foolish to take the decision to come to that conclusion of an unbelief in God. Nobody is against logic, nobody is against common sense, nobody is against conventional wisdom, but some, starve the best part of the mind because of false logic

Ok

seun please ban this guy up there spamming this forum with fixed match nonsense

When you wake up in the morning, you could see the sun rise from the east, journey across the sky and then gently sink in the western horizon. It repeats this journey every day and you observe this supposedly fixed pattern.

To conclude based on this apparent observation that the sun went round is the earth is completely a logical conclusion to make.

So, to be clear, something being logical isn't the same truth as being true.

Logic is simply the application of valid chain of reasoning principle.

a = b
b = c
therefore a = c

Now that we have this off the way, i am asking this question particularly to the atheists/agnostics like myself here.

Do you think a creator is a logical conclusion to make

You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical.

What do you think?

If yes, Why?

If No, Why not?

To the theists

Do you think unbelief in God is a logical conclusion?

Why?

Why not?

odeguaomon:
Palm oil rice for dinner

Oh God!!

Please can you tell me how to make this? I've been dying to eat one for a long time now.

Michellekabod1:
So lets continue

Good. Now i can be sure

Michellekabod2:
Ok

I'm waiting

Michellekabod2:
Doesnt make sense to have a thread on why i left christianity and my return back after a month in the same account

Actually that is the only way it makes sense. It brings a connection and nuance to your person.

So, can we continue this discussion on your first account?

Michellekabod2:
Olaf i really like you



Not impersonating

What happened to your first account then?

Your delusion is only matched by the overinflated nature of your hyper narcissistic ego

Michellekabod2:
Awayu,
My apologies as well for rude response.lots of love.
Have a blessed day

Can you stop with the impersonation. it honestly is not funny anymore

PapiFlin:
you just a bitter bloke.
Archaeological evidences have proven the existence of different occurrences as stated in the bible.
White atheist I can understand
But being an AFRICAN growing up in AFRICA and still being an atheist is the greatest form of fuvkery this earth has seen.

Even if Jesus Christ appears to us all atheist will prolly shift goalpost to say our brains went through a phase.

lol. ok

paxonel:
You mean, there are people who can see beyond this physical existence?
How did they come to this ultimate conclusion that God do not exist or there are no spirit God?

You don't need to see anything to disbelieve and unproven idea.

How did theists come to the conclusion that a spirit God exist?
It's simple!
They saw it in their holy books and believe that he exist.

That is as much valid as saying Harry Potter exists in actuality because you saw it in a book. It is the height of stupid.

Do atheists have some kind of record or book to depend on, in order to acertain their position that there is no spirit God?

Yes. They looked at the same books the theists looked at and concluded it was bullshit.

Its so frustrating that there is no such record among atheists,they depend on their instinct which is not reliable.

Nope, there is a record that informed their conclusion. The same books that made theist believe made the atheist say "This is a a load of nonsense"

And you know how important a record of what has happened in the past is necessary to sustain an idea or belief.

Lies are the backbone of belief.

For instance, lets look at the record christians have to show as an evidence that a spirit God exist which is the Bible.

Jesus Christ about 2000 years ago predicted in one of his parables that christianity is going to be the largest religion on earth matthew 13:31-32

I bet it also predicted that human population would increase.

Now google today
Which religion is the largest religion on earth, no doubt it is christianity.

Can a mere man make a prediction 2000 years ago and we see the prediction happening today when we google it?
It takes only a spirit God to do that!!

Yes.

Therefore God exist.

Therefore, your conclusion is idiotic.

Atheists, what are your proves or evidence that a spirit God do not exist?

1. Apparent observation
2. Absense of evidence
3. Inconsistency of belief
4. Inconsistencies of source material
5. Ambiguities of intended evidence
6. Illogicality of arguments such as yours
7. Dependency of belief on lies or exaggerations.

A sincere question

Sincere answers

Utthaan4:
Christianity is not the largest, do your assignment well.

it is

HenryDion:
I looked at the mirror and I found god.

He was looking right back at me.

I am no longer an atheist, I'm a god.

Lmao. These are the lines of a criminally insane human.

You are not a God.

You are human and that is perfectly ok to be.

JujuSugar:
How about this?......
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is absurd. But no more or less than any religion....
There is no evidence for this FSM just as there is equally no evidence for Vishnu, Yahweh, Allah etc..

I agree. Just saying it's an ill thought out tired joke

JujuSugar:
Never gets old bruv ....
Its a play on the absurdity of the believe in a deity without solid evidence....
If you're allowed to push your god beyond human understanding and make him unfalsifiable......
Why can't I do the same with my FSM?......

Actually No, it's a play that replaces one form of deity with another in a mockery form.

If i was a theist, I'd very much like it when people use that cus I'd simply retort

"Great, we both agree there is a God behind the universe"