Why do you believe in God ?

You assume the necessary is a "being" in premise 1 and that is where you go wrong when it could be a necessary thing or necessary force. What if we are just contingent on the big bang and if that was caused naturalistically then where is the need for God? You also ignore quantum mechanics which posit that some particles pop into existence without cause. The theory of relativity states that time and space are the fabric of this universe but "before" or "outside" this universe we can't assume these exist and therefore cannot assume traditional causality. So this leads us to question whether the origin of the universe followed the rules of causality that many of these arguments for God assume.

 

No. I admitted that there wasn't proof. There is plenty of evidence.

 

I never claimed you didn't see pink unicorns so why would I set out to prove it? Do you have a theory as to how life began? Prove it.

 

Only evidence when believers declare it to be evidence, other than that it just is, proof of nothing.

 

Some of us realize that there is and can be no proof and just accept the fact that life did begin. No driving need to present it as a gift from some god or another as there is nothing to back up that supposition.

 

Yes I have a theory...these was this guy Zeus. He was king of all the gods. He had one god pull the sun across the sky, another grow the crops, another was head of the underworld and then there was a god for war etc. there, now you know .its true. I can prove it the same you can

 

I don’t know how everything began, but I don’t have to make up supernatural sci fi stories that defy rational thinking .
I do know that every time I make a successful speech it was because of my good luck earrings ......

 

Then You believe I saw pink unicorns. They were so cute and promised me great things

 

Right, evidence is not proof. I thought we had established that already. And it's only "not evidence" when you declare it not evidence.

 

Sure I believe you even though I don't know you. Are you not a trust worthy person, or are you not to be believed? If you say you saw them then you saw them. Did you lie? Are you a liar?

 

Translation - you got nothing as I thought, so you choose to tap dance away from the question. You don't have a clue how life started but yet you're dead sure how it couldn't have started.
For the record - where is this proof you claim I accomplished? Maybe you can reread the posts and quote me where I said I had proof of anything.

 

Those things are the result of "cause and effect", not my "opinion". Try again.

 

Yet all of the theists claim to have this nonexistent proof is indeed a fact, with no evidence at all. Funny how that works.

 

So you claim to not believe in cause and effect as being the way to know a gawd. Inconsistent to say the least, fantasy to state the truth.

 

Wrong again....cause and effect IS IS IS a way to know God.
"Once you realize that everything that exists, comes from nothing that is something, it's easy to wear stripes with plaid."- Einstein

 

Wait a minutes, why is that theory any different than yours? It was believed for centuries
You are right I don’t have a clue how life started but I am not going to make up a story that defies any logic and belongs in a science-fiction movie. People couldn’t understand how the sun moved.....this the god pulling the chariot. Perhaps one day science will answer the questions....the same way the Greek myths did.

 

Thank you...of course I saw them. I’m waiting for them to bring me chocolate

 

Still haven't explained why YOU believe. Parroting the statements of others does not provide factual evidence, just shows the lack of ability to think for yourself.

Once again, I don't believe there is a gawd, period. Seen or experienced nothing to alter my view.

 

Provide actual proof and end the conversation. Except you can't. All you can do is present what YOU accept and try to foist it off on others as proof. Playing with definitions is evidence, evidence of theists trying to make something true that isn't. Another false premise.

 

It doesn’t matter....you believe me .

 

Quoting science or Einstein shows that I'm not ignorant. The lack of ability to think, is someone that refuses to learn from science and Einstein. What you believe is not my problem, it's yours.

 

No, quoting others, your betters, only shows that you do not think for yourself and sort of read, nothing more. The problem remains yours.

 

Being is actual, or in the case of contingent being, actualized existence.
Necessary being must be at least personal because contingent person actually exists.
No effect can transcend its cause. Person transcends non-person.

Something transcends something else if the latter has the potential to be the effect of the former
and the former has no potential to be the effect of the latter.

Non-person has the potential to be the effect of person, but person has no potential to be the effect of non-person. Indeed, nothing has the potential to be the effect of its own absence.

'God' must be, at least, a person having intellect, emotion and volition.
Neither intellect, emotion or volition have the potential to be the effect of their absence.

 

The closest thing we contingent being will ever have to proof is experimental repeatability.

 

You define transcend to be that the transcendent thing can cause the thing that is being transcended. This is different than the dictionary definition so you just made up your own word. Transcend means to "surpass" or "be beyond." These are highly subjective terms and different things can surpass each other in different ways so nothing truly transcends anything else.

But lets rolls with your definition that a transcendent thing is one that can cause the thing being transcended.

So you are saying is that a things cannot be caused by something that is the absence of it. Well, pressure differences causes wind, yet pressure differences is the absence of wind. Humans cause computers but we are the absence of computers. Gravity causes stars but gravity is the absence of stars. This world is full of structurally different things impacting and reacting together to change each other or make different things.

Remember when you defined "transcend" as "can be the cause of." So you are saying that the effect cannot ever be the cause of that which created it. I never saw any justification for this.

Mountains causes rivers, but rivers can carve mountains. Warming can cause ice to melt, but melting ice makes the earth darker soaking in more heat and causes more warming, which causes more ice to melt. So do these transcend each other? What if something is caused my multiple things? Do all those things transcend it? Its possible that something can cause itself. For example, computers can build computers. So do computers transcend themselves?

Also Aristotle defined four types of causes, material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. You will have to clearly define which cause you mean.

I sort of addressed this one a couple quotes back. But I'd also like to point out that you are over-generalizing and there may be many different types of persons and non-persons and maybe one type of person can cause a certain type of non-person but that certain type of person can cause a different type of non-person.