logic1:

Time is of a dimension such that we cannot speak of a commencement of time.

Length is also a dimension. Did it commence?

logic1:

A period can commence but time did not commence.
Time is simply a measure of the interval between 2 events.

Not quite. Time is the unit that we generally use to refer to the interval between events. You may also note that time itself is measured by some events which have been shown to be regular.

logic1:

At the scale of the universe we can speak of time. Indeed the interval (time) between the big bang and now is about 14 billion years. (This is time not space time)

Yes but I meant more in the sense of locating a particular event at the scale of the universe and not the general onset of the various dimensions of the universe. e.g to locate a particular supernova, one would need to state the position and time of the occurrence.

logic1:

However, you need to be omniscient to come to the conclusion theat there is NO GOD and that was what I was trying to point out.

Given the above and the fact that you do not have absolute knowledge then you cannot logically be an atheist.

You do realize that there are monotheistic religions available. If the God of this monotheist does not exist, then for such a person, God does not exist. But, due to the numerous definitions of God available, this can be quite problematic.

The disbelief in the existence of God(s) is a BELIEF in the non-existence of God(s). . . mere wordplay

I am talking about belief in something concrete not a mere rephrasal of words.
A coherent worldview has to tell us who we are and at least attempt an explanation of why we are the way we are.

So my friend, a simple belief in the non-existence of gods does not suffice.

"My brand of atheism"?

Yes your brand (that only believes in the non-existence of gods without the burden of proof because it's just a belief not known fact!)

You said one requires "ABSOLUTE knowledge" to logically be an atheist(belief in non-existence of God). If a man is married to a woman, then it is logical to believe they've had sex based on the absolute FINITE knowledge of their marriage.

However if you were to say there is no married man who has never had sex then you would have to have knowledge of all the married men in the world to defend your statement.

To prove that black swans exist, one only has to have seen one black swan; but to say black swans do not exist, one has to have seen all the swans in existence

In the same vein for one to say there is no God one has to know all the beings there are in the universe to know that God is not one of them.

To defend a statement of non-existence one has to possess absolute knowledge.

On the other hand, when there is a lack of tangible knowledge/evidence, then the logical conclusion is not to believe, be it in God, Santa Claus or Bigfoot

Except of course when you still cannot explain an important phenomena (as important as the cause of the universe) without belief.

Electricity cannot be observed with the eyes but there is evidence as to it's existence.

We are the evidence of a creator, therefore belief in a creator is logical.

Many atheists believe in a creator. They just don't believe that the creator is God.

If you consider that no physical phenomena can materialize out of nothing then you have to agree that the cause / creator of the universe is non - physical.

If you consider that intelligibility and communication has never been observed to manifest in non - intelligent beings and life has never been observed to spontaneously materialize out of non-biological physical matter then you are left with the option that the creator must have been intelligent.

Theists call this intelligent creator God.

How one comes to the conclusion atheism is illogical beats me

Why we came to the conclusion that atheism is illogical is because it does not satisfactorily explain the fundamental issues of life.
How can atheism explain the creation of the universe without assuming that physical matter somehow spontaneously materialized from nothing (Which is impossible) ?

There is one important thing that you are missing here and need to know. Just because an entity is living in another dimension does not mean that it is not physical like us. It is just another physical being living in another dimension which is just as physical as our own. Maybe with different physical laws, yes, but still physical, anyway. Physical bodies will be needed to live in any dimension. They may be different in properties and characteristics, but still physical bodies nonetheless. It is only through our thinking that we believe entities living in another dimension have to be ethereal, but i don't believe they are. In their own world, definitely not.

We don't just assume God is non-physical because He is in another dimension. We believe He is non-physical because if He were physical He would have to have been created by something or someone else. Since we are talking about the being at the beginning of the chain, that being has to be non-physical.

logic1:

We don't just assume God is non-physical because He is in another dimension. We believe He is non-physical because if He were physical He would have to have been created by something or someone else. Since we are talking about the being at the beginning of the chain, that being has to be non-physical.

Well, other dimensions were created too just like our own, no. And if God live in another dimension, then he was also surely created along with the dimension in which he lives. No sir, we cannot assume that because this God lives in another dimension, he is non-physical. The judeo-christian God obviously has form and that makes "him" a physical entity. In the book of Enoch. Enoch was taken to heaven where he confronted this entity right at the end of the book and his very brief description of his face clearly indicates that the judeo-christian God was a physical being.

Unless we need to redefine what GOD is. A scientist once defined GOD as the sum total of all spirits of all things. To me, that is a much better definition for the true non-physical creator of the universe, or should i say, multiverse.

Jenwitemi:

Well, other dimensions were created too just like our own, no. And if God live in another dimension, then he was also surely created along with the dimension in which he lives. No sir, we cannot assume that because this God lives in another dimension, he is non-physical. The judeo-christian God obviously has form and that makes "him" a physical entity. In the book of Enoch. Enoch was taken to heaven where he confronted this entity right at the end of the book and his very brief description of his face clearly indicates that the judeo-christian God was a physical being.

Unless we need to redefine what GOD is. A scientist once defined GOD as the sum total of all spirits of all things. To me, that is a much better definition for the true non-physical creator of the universe, or should i say, multiverse.

@ Jenwetemi >>> (heady stuff, but lemme attempt it) >>> couldn't the bolded imply that God can fluctuate between physical and non-physical >>> much the way light fluctuates between matter and energy >>> i do not think it is apropos to solely place God in one realm

another point >>> your talk of God being created hints that you believe in infinite regression >>> i'd say that as sensible as the proposition is it fails to take into account the fact that infinite causes are finitely expressed >>> simply put, in an infinite chain of causes, a definite cause must be chosen as a starting point for any headway to be made

still another point is my favourite definition of God >>> a recent favourite though

"The description of God is as a a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere"
- Anonymous

Respectfully submitted,

Uyi Iredia

Uyi Iredia:

@ Jenwetemi >>> (heady stuff, but lemme attempt it) >>> couldn't the bolded imply that God can fluctuate between physical and non-physical >>> much the way light fluctuates between matter and energy >>> i do not think it is apropos to solely place God in one realm

It is quite possible, i'll have to admit. Different entities have different capabilites. Even we humans are also multidimensional beings, but suffering amnesia. We have forgotten how to switch between dimensions.

Uyi Iredia:

another point >>> your talk of God being created hints that you believe in infinite regression >>> i'd say that as sensible as the proposition is it fails to take into account the fact that infinite causes are finitely expressed >>> simply put, in an infinite chain of causes, a definite cause must be chosen as a starting point for any headway to be made

still another point is my favourite definition of God >>> a recent favourite though

Respectfully submitted,

Uyi Iredia

It is that chicken and egg thing once again. What started it all? Who or what set the ball rolling and who or what set that thing rolling that set the ball rolling . . . and so on and so forth. We will never know. I don't really bother my head about such conundrums.

@logic happy new yr. l hope to continue with our discussion soon. as regards our tithing subject, i've had to listen to different pple on same re-affirming the old belief that tithing is means to getting Gods blessing. However, l remember when i took some theology classes in 2003 and 2004, its the same thing thats been preached about tithing being compulsory for believers. l share some of ur especially if we have to consider the fact that non tithers still receive Gods blessings e,g deists& muslims. For us to move forward, since i strongly believe in doing so, (tithing) i'll rather continue as long as it favours me.

---

Now lets shift our attention to giving. unlike tithing, it has no limit. Is it also a condition to receiving blessings?

I am talking about belief in something concrete not a mere rephrasal of words.
A coherent worldview has to tell us who we are and at least attempt an explanation of why we are the way we are.

So my friend, a simple belief in the non-existence of gods does not suffice.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "atheism as a world view is illogical" and not "atheism is illogical". The former may be true(depending on your definition of the term "world view" but the latter is, well, preposterous.

However if you were to say there is no married man who has never had sex then you would have to have knowledge of all the married men in the world to defend your statement.

To prove that black swans exist, one only has to have seen one black swan; but to say black swans do not exist, one has to have seen all the swans in existence

In the same vein for one to say there is no God one has to know all the beings there are in the universe to know that God is not one of them.

To defend a statement of non-existence one has to possess absolute knowledge.

Except i never said God does not exist. . . Having read through the thread YOU seem to be the only one making categorical statements, with nothing tangible to back them up.

Electricity cannot be observed with the eyes but there is evidence as to it's existence.

Electricity CAN BE OBSERVED with other senses. . . Which of your senses is capable of observing God? Terrible analogy.

We are the evidence of a creator, therefore belief in a creator is logical.

Care to explain this?

Many atheists believe in a creator. They just don't believe that the creator is God.

I assume you are referring to the biblical God.

If you consider that no physical phenomena can materialize out of nothing then you have to agree that the cause / creator of the universe is non - physical.

No physical phenomena can materialize from nothing WITHIN our universe. . . Since you believe the cause of the universe is OUTSIDE the universe then how did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you familiar with the laws outside the universe?

Even if we assume this to be true, is "non-physical" = God?

If you consider that intelligibility and communication has never been observed to manifest in non - intelligent beings and life has never been observed to spontaneously materialize out of non-biological physical matter then you are left with the option that the creator must have been intelligent.

Shouldn't we first establish there is a creator to speak of before we start attributing it with intelligence?

Why we came to the conclusion that atheism is illogical is because it does not satisfactorily explain the fundamental issues of life.

And you think you(or anyone else) actually have a SATISFACTORY explanation of the "fundamental issues of life"?

Pardon me i had to laugh at that. You can start explaining now.

How can atheism explain the creation of the universe without assuming that physical matter somehow spontaneously materialized from nothing (Which is impossible) ?

As far as we know nothing comes of nothing. . . And yet somehow we are here. What if the "default state" is one consisting of physical matter?

Is that any less possible/logical than a creator saying 'let there be light', and then light "spontaneously materializing from nothing"?

The FACT that WE DO NOT KNOW how exactly we came into existence doesn't mean you should plug that gap in your knowledge with unsubstantiated ideas and present them as factual explanation.

Except i never said God does not exist. . . Having read through the thread YOU seem to be the only one making categorical statements, with nothing tangible to back them up.

Sorry, my mistake.

OK, so you believe God exists or at least God can exist.

@thehomer

You do realize that there are monotheistic religions available. If the God of this monotheist does not exist, then for such a person, God does not exist. But, due to the numerous definitions of God available, this can be quite problematic.

Ok so your belief that God does not exist really means that you do not believe in the existence of God as Christians believe not that you do not believe in the existence of any God right.

@ritchboy

Do you believe that there must have been a creator or cause for this universe?

logic1:

@thehomer

Ok so your belief that God does not exist really means that you do not believe in the existence of God as Christians believe not that you do not believe in the existence of any God right.

The God I refer to depends on the type presented. e.g I cannot say I do not believe in the existence of the Pantheist God.

@toba

Now lets shift our attention to giving. unlike tithing, it has no limit. Is it also a condition to receiving blessings?

Giving may not  always be a prerequisite for every kind of blessing.

Usually, blessings are the result of a relationship or covenant.
For example, a father will bless his son not because the son has done something for him but just because there is a relationship between them.

The bible says ", Give and it shall be given unto you, " It means that if one gives then the person will receive not that a person can only receive if he or she gives. The fact that the statement works one way does not mean it works the other way.

In other words, giving is a sufficient but not always a necessary condition for receiving.

thehomer:

The God I refer to depends on the type presented. e.g I cannot say I do not believe in the existence of the Pantheist God.

So you are really not an atheist, you just don't believe in Christianity or monotheism in general.

logic1:

So you are really not an atheist, you just don't believe in Christianity or monotheism in general.

I decide on a case by case basis.

Do you believe that there must have been a creator or cause for this universe?

No. We know too little to use words as strong as "must".

Sorry, my mistake.

OK, so you believe God exists or at least God can exist.

God(a creator) can exist. However i don't buy any of the popular definitions/depictions of him.

If you ask me, we are more likely to be some alien kid's science project than the creations of some good/perfect/omnipotent/omniscient/spiritual being.

Our creator is more likely to be evil(or at least "grey" than good.