Quote unquote skepticism

[جوري]

No, that is not correct. Creation does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

Actually you are the one who is incorrect.. we have every right to draw the conclusions we do about atheists, as this is what they have offered and it is fair game to be taken apart and mocked to the highest degree and deservedly so!

The Earth doesn't 'create' volcanoes, neither does the sun create heat.. those are mere properties that each of these objects may emit.. we may know how it happens but the question of why will always remain. Further what you personally deem 'Natural' is nothing but an imaginary standard by which things are measured or compared. If everyone were born a cyclops then that would be the new definition of 'Natural' -- This 'Natural' order however follows a very specific, intricate and balanced pattern not to mention an aesthetically pleasing one.. if anything is left to its own devices nothing 'Natural' nor orderly nor beautiful would come of it. Leave some clay out with a little sunshine and little wind and a little water and come a thousand years later to see if complexity, sentience or beauty come of it..

all the best

 

[titus]

Actually you are the one who is incorrect.. we have every right to draw the conclusions we do about atheists, as this is what they have offered and it is fair game to be taken apart and mocked to the highest degree and deservedly so!

I am not mocking anyone, nor am I arguing that anyone should be mocked. You are the one that appears to want to make fun of people for believed differently than you. I am simply explaining my beliefs.

The Earth doesn't 'create' volcanoes, neither does the sun create heat.

The sun doesn't create heat? You can play semantics all you want but only a fool would believe that the sun does not create heat.

we may know how it happens but the question of why will always remain.

And that is a difference between us. I don't believe everything has a "why". I think most things just "are".

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

 

[tango92]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

are we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

ok this is a starting point at least. now if the earth creates volcanoes, can it create a volcano heavier than itself? no. the earth must be of equal or greater weight than the volcano. yes?

the sun produces energy. however it cannot produce more energy than its own equivalent mass. i hope you can see it logically also applies the same to the universe.

my key point is highlighted in bold, if you are simply hell bent on disbelief you might was well try to rebut this and remove cause and effect from the list of things you believe in aswell...

 

[IAmZamzam]

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

No, we believe that God has "always existed" only in a poetic sense that makes the idea of an eternal entity easier to swallow for a layperson than if we put it any other way. A more accurate word would be that God is omnitemporal. It's like the difference between being omnipresent and happening to be big enough to possess the physical mass and dimensions necessary to fill all of space anyway. You atheists are stuck either thinking that the universe has always existed or that the chain of causation in the interconnected web we call the material cosmos began itself somehow, or that somehow the whole thing is uncaused. And I don't know which of the three makes the less sense. The only logically viable option is that the cause of it all is something not itself part of that web and not subject to the confines of spacetime.

 

[tango92]

I believe the Universe has always existed.

the universe had to have a starting point. please try to understand this, ill admit it does take a bit of brainpower.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

we have problems when it comes to infinity in the real world especially when we apply it to the past. if the past was infinite would we even exist? clearly we cannot because imagine this: (sorry my hands are freezing and i cant draw very well)

with an infinite number of events before us, time will never catch up to us there will always be more events before our event. and we know that we do exist and we know that time has caught up to us because we are able to do things. in an infinite sequence of events we simply cannot exist.

i hope you realise at any "point" time begins it can never catch up to us at an infinite distance away. and we know there was definitely something there before we were born.

 

[جوري]

I am not mocking anyone, nor am I arguing that anyone should be mocked. You are the one that appears to want to make fun of people for believed differently than you. I am simply explaining my beliefs.

And we reserve the right to take those beliefs apart and show why they are faulty!

The sun doesn't create heat? You can play semantics all you want but only a fool would believe that the sun does not create heat.

Actually only a fool can draw such a conclusion using a very simplistic explanation. The sun no more creates heat than we humans create children. Surely even you can tell the difference between creation and production!

And that is a difference between us. I don't believe everything has a "why". I think most things just "are".

outside of you most inquiring minds want to know!

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

Glad you admit that you place your faith in something and live in accordance to it!


all the best

 

[titus]

re we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

If by source you mean that there was something that came before us, then yes. If you mean a creator then no.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

Actually only a fool can draw such a conclusion using a very simplistic explanation. The sun no more creates heat than we humans create children. Surely even you can tell the difference between creation and production!

Do you believe that only sentient beings can create, then?

In that case let me rephrase things so that you can understand them better:

No, that is not correct. Production does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth produces volcanoes, or the Sun produces heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens. The fact that humans have been produced is not proof of a God to me.

The only logically viable option is that the cause of it all is something not itself part of that web and not subject to the confines of spacetime.

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

 

[IAmZamzam]

outside of you most inquiring minds want to know!

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

Just a few pages after I mention the "if God created everything then what created God?" evasion, it pops up again. I gave you a sensible, detailed argument as to how we know there has to be a source external to the physical universe and to time (and therefore to causation), and you quote one out-of-context snippet of it so as to make it look like a self-contradictory declaration instead of the natural conclusion of a process of elimination and sneer at it with an issue the omitted context has already made clear (for a thinking person).

I don't know if you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest (I don't want your opinion on the matter, lily) or if you just are so caught up in the ancient evasion in question that it's caused you to simply overlook every other word of my argument. The best I can hope for is if you're just being a sloppy reader.

 

[جوري]

Do you believe that only sentient beings can create, then?

sentient beings can procreate that differs from creation I believe my above explanation sufficed.. although it needed no explanation since it is simple common sense!

In that case let me rephrase things so that you can understand them better:

I doubt you'll be able to do that!

No, that is not correct. Production does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth produces volcanoes, or the Sun produces heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens. The fact that humans have been produced is not proof of a God to me.

and I was right of my doubts--who said anything about 'sentience'?. You have this incredible ability and almost on every thread to inject it with some piece that is completely irrelevant and doesn't draw from the previous premise. Outside of that what you choose to see or not see as 'evidence' is nonsensical at best since in fact you offered no explanation either way, it is merely your assertion!

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

what does this mean?

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

The mistake you make here is attribute a sensory faculty to a supreme being, thereby to bring him down to that low common denominator that atheists enjoy building upon The creator doesn't have the same properties of the creation.. God is outside of the laws of our known universe.. once you make that distinction you can have more developed philosophies.. if you insist on attributing human qualities to God then it is best done on a christian forum or an atheist one!

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

The universe had to have a starting point. please try to understand this, ill admit it does take a bit of brainpower.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

we have problems when it comes to infinity in the real world especially when we apply it to the past. if the past was infinite would we even exist? clearly we cannot because...with an infinite number of events before us, time will never catch up to us there will always be more events before our event. and we know that we do exist and we know that time has caught up to us because we are able to do things. in an infinite sequence of events we simply cannot exist.

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, titus. The "spear" thing you mention would just be confusing magnification of a finite amount of existing space with an infinite abundance of new space between the spear and its target. The proper analogy would be that we have been stabbed by a spear that has crossed an infinite number of yards in reaching us. Can't happen, can it?

 

[Pygoscelis]

So atheists believe that the universe can be created by aliens, but it can never be created by God.

Is that correct?

That is correct. Atheism would not prevent a person from believing that aliens created the universe. You can believe in all sorts of things and still be an atheist so long as you do not believe in Gods.

Better question may be do many atheists believe that the universe was created by aliens. The answer would be no. But there may be a few that do.

 

[Pygoscelis]

are we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

That seems to be an unfounded assumption.

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

 

[tango92]

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

i think bro yahya sulaimans answer is sufficient. your analogy applies only to finite distances not infinite as per your claim. can u accept the universe ie anything within our physical laws must have a beginning?

 

[tango92]

That seems to be an unfounded assumption.

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

 

[Pygoscelis]

how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver.

The real question is can you be moral with a "higher moral lawgiver", or is that just a display of obedience and subservience to power?

 

[Pygoscelis]

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

That argument applies to the concept of infinity itself. And yes, when we talk infinity, logic tend to break down. "What is infinity plus one?".

Of course if you want to throw out the concept of infinity then you have to throw it out entirely, including the idea that God is in any way infinite. Brings to mind the old "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" thing, another argument against infinity.

Also note that one way around infinity is to loop something around on itself (ie, oroboros). Perhaps time is a big loop and our future is our distant past or something crazy like that. Wouldn't that be interesting, if we are to become the beings who create the universe we then are created from. That sounds like it should be in a nifty science fiction novel.

 

[Lynx]

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

The beginning of the universe was the Big Bang and we've known this for quite some time now. I think what the non-muslims are disagreeing about is what came before the Big Bang. Our ideas of time and causality cannot be used to reason about the conditions before the big bang since causality and time, as we know them, might not have existed before the big bang. In other words, every thing we say about prior big bang conditions is mere speculation. "I don't know" is a great answer.

 

[M.I.A.]

That argument applies to the concept of infinity itself. And yes, when we talk infinity, logic tend to break down. "What is infinity plus one?".

Of course if you want to throw out the concept of infinity then you have to throw it out entirely, including the idea that God is in any way infinite. Brings to mind the old "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" thing, another argument against infinity.

Also note that one way around infinity is to loop something around on itself (ie, oroboros). Perhaps time is a big loop and our future is our distant past or something crazy like that. Wouldn't that be interesting, if we are to become the beings who create the universe we then are created from. That sounds like it should be in a nifty science fiction novel.

ah well i guess some of you are old enough to remember the beetles.

and those guys that built the pyramids... not personally though.

 

[IAmZamzam]

The real question is can you be moral with a "higher moral lawgiver", or is that just a display of obedience and subservience to power?

It's obedience to something or other no matter what that something is, even if it's just the laws themselves. But it is not a requisite that you know that it is from a higher moral lawgiver in order to be following it anyway, and if you do then just because you are being obedient to said power doesn't mean that it's just a display.