You claim that God does not exist, part 2.

No! I said that you should practice what you are preaching and quit telling lies.
Only problem with that is that you have not quit... you were previously cited where you have recently told a lie.

You should quit.

 

But now I'm not, so I quit.
Is that your point?
Now I'm practicing what I preach?
Or are you lying?
Gosh, I'm so confused!

 

That is the point. But, have you really quit? I am not quite convinced.

Are you?

What would I be telling a lie about?

That is no surprise.

 

It is no surprise, when you don't even know what you are saying anymore.

 

I know perfectly well what I am saying. Remember, just at your last post you admitted to being confused.

 

Are you now suggesting that the words and phrases that I have used are not "English"? Your perception of the "English" language is quite distorted if in fact you think that I am not writing 'English'. Then your stated request for me to "decipher it" would be an clear indication that you do not comprehend the "English" language.

 

Au contraire, it only signifies that he has difficulty in parsing your peculiar usage of the language.

 

Not the way you use it.
Do you think it's a proper English sentence?
Do you know when to use quotes? When they are necessary? When to use single or double quotes? Do you know when to use "a" and when to use "an"?

 

Why should I admit to that when you've already tacitly admitted that you have done so?

 

How is it conceivable that you think there is a 'tacit' admission when in fact it has been stated on the record that I am not convinced that you are telling the truth regarding you abstaining from telling lies? You are day dreaming and entertaining those creatures of your mind again.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! So now you are wanting to put on the mantle of Grammar expert when in the past you and others have frowned on my using such methodologies. Talking about hypocrisy. Yours is the epitome.

 

Firstly, has it been proven that there "must" be a first cause? How would one even go about attempting to prove such a thing?

Secondly, it's a rare atheist who attributes everything to nothing. Keep tilting at windmills though if that floats your boat.

 

Oh dear, still having such problems with communication. He already explained that! But I'll help you out yet again...

You said you would admit to it if someone else admitted it also. Unless you are in the habit of admitting to things that you did NOT do, then it is clear that you DID do it, but merely that your admission of it is dependent on the situation.

 

I like that the poster you quoted underlined the MUST, when discussing 'first cause'. if it is unreasonable and unthinking and stupid to attribute everything (or presumably anything), to nothing, I look forward to someone explaining the cause of god. of course they'll say "everything needs a cause EXCEPT god", engaging in the usual special pleading, but by their own words EVERYTHING must have a first cause, so that plead is null and void. further, I'd like to know how they know that everything MUST have a cause

 

The "proof" is self evident. If something exists then, of course, something must have caused it to exist. Got any evidence to the contrary?

What would atheists attribute all of creation to then? "I don't know" is the answer I most frequently get.
That's the answer children give when forced to account for something they'd rather not cop to.

 

The "proof" may appear self evident to you, but it is not to everyone. As has been pointed out: if everything must be caused to exist, then by definition there CANNOT be a "first" cause, since it MUST have been caused by something else. You defeat your own argument.

It's also the only honest answer anyone can give. Nobody DOES know for sure. You think it was god, I presume; I think it was a quantum fluctuation; but none of us KNOWS, although many theists claim they do.

 

How is it "self evident"? We have exactly zero experience with observing things coming into existence and this argument leads to an infinite regress. Unless, of course, you're going to claim that something (God, perhaps?) has always existed which was the "First Cause". And that would destroy the entire argument because it would mean that this "rule" isn't absolute.

No, that's the answer you should use to a question that you don't know the answer to. Quick, is there life beyond Earth? Obviously if you don't know, then the "that's the answer children give when forced to account for something they'd rather not cop to." Silly, silly.

 

Another tacit admission.
Can you figure this one out on your own?

 

Why bother trying. You will deny that you are telling another lie.

 

Get some food. Much more than that was pointed out.
It started with a sentence so garbled that it was incoherent, and then went from there.

- - - Updated - - -

What lie would that be?

 

Name something, anything, that doesn't have a cause or source.
I'll be waiting for your reply.

Big Bang? Before Big Bang nothing. Afterwards?
A still expanding universe.

It's absolute as far as we are concerned and that's really the whole point. God, by definition, is outside such a restriction or paradigm.



No, that's the answer you should use to a question that you don't know the answer to. Quick, is there life beyond Earth? Obviously if you don't know, then the "that's the answer children give when forced to account for something they'd rather not cop to." Silly, silly.[/QUOTE]

 

Just because we have no experience of something does not mean it is not true. Name a street in my home town that I haven't driven on!

Also: does god (assuming it exists) have a cause/source?

We have evidence suggesting it, but not EXPERIENCE of it. And, the big bang does not necessarily represent things 'coming into existence'. It could merely be a change in form.

Says who?

Rephrased, basically what you're saying is, "This rule is absolute, except when it isn't, and I get to decide when it isn't." Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

Name something, anything, that has come into existence that we've observed. The only thing that we have observed is causal relation between already existing materials.

This is the begging the question fallacy. You're attempting to prove that the Big Bang had a cause. You can't use it as an example of something that had a cause if it is exactly what you're trying to prove had a cause in the first place.

What definition are you using for God that somehow puts it outside of the restriction?

 

So you choose to post this rather than name something that has no source? I have to say I'm not surprised.

Using the yardstick of all of creation we'd have to say he does.
But then we really can't apply the same rules to an all powerful creator as we do to his creation, can we. It's outside of our realm of knowledge.

It would be rather impossible to experience something like the singularity
so really evidence is all we have.

Could be but that still requires a triggering force. That would necessarily have to be God.

Says science.

The rule IS absolute unless you have evidence to the contrary, and it MUST not apply to God (unless there is some force greater than God which by definition is impossible).

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see a response to this very sound point. Try explaining how/why it might be invalid. Step it out and explain in clear and direct terms, if you don't mind.

- - - Updated - - -

by whose definition?

and what's with all the MUSTs?

 

So you are suggesting everything has been here forever?
Where is the proof of that?

I've read this sentence ten times and it makes no sense. If you have a point try making it intelligible.

What definition of an all powerful creator would NOT be put outside of the limitations attached to the universe he presumably caused?