|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described. What attributes then might it have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5954 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
quote: Wait a minute.Why can't nothing be something? Kind of like zero is a number just like -2,-1,1,2,3... Maybe "nothing" is just a temporary "even" transition state between a negative and a positive condition. It would just appear that nothing lasted forever prior to what we know as something. (And we all know that nothing lasts forever! ) All we "know" is that something comes from something" based on our experience and tests of cause and effect.You are in faith of speculation of any variant of "___ comes from ___".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why can't nothing be something? You want to define it that way? Fine. Why can't yes be no? Why can't plus be minus? This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:27 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So the universe came from the universe? It could have came from something else and the something else doesn't have to be a god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4872 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:So say I think the universe arose from some mega-universe, or from some other existence that the term "universe" doesn't apply. To this, I think you'd say that, "Well, that is option #2. It existed in some form, the mega-universe." Well, how is that any different than supposing a God created the universe? Just as the mega-universe falls under category #2, wouldn't God also fall under that category? That is, if you think a mega-universe is the universe in "some form," why wouldn't God be the universe in "some form?" I don't see a false dichotomy, I don't even see a dichotomy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It could have came from something else and the something else doesn't have to be a god. Revert to option #2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described.
What attributes then might it have?
whatever, it just doesn't have to be the ones you described.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2. Nope. The basic actions of cause and effect can easily exist before the universe comes into being. Even if they didn't, nothing would stop them from applying the very second the process starts. But your response suggests that you're just defining your terms incredibly loosely... ie, "the universe" is everything that does not involve the supernatural, and "God" is anything supernatural, outside nature. That would be a fun little semantic game, if you weren't trying to then shoehorn incredibly specific definitions onto the terms, and insist that you can still slot every possible answer into one of the two. Then it just becomes silly.
What are you talking about? The fact that I hope you have a box of tissues nearby for when you finish your posts. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Revert to option #2. forget it, I'm through wasting my time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
wouldn't God also fall under that category? No. God is a Being. The universe is a thing. Big difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5954 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
You misunderstand my point.
There are positive, negative AND neutral states for just about everything: Yes, no, and neither (equivalent of nothing)Plus, minus and zero It took Arabs to "discover" the number zero, but it always was part of the number system. Previous folks just couldn't figure that out. Maybe the same is true with what we think of "substance" (i.e. when you refer to "something"). Maybe the Arabs will pull us out of this one too in a few hundred years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
A being is a kind of thing.
Maybe I should have started simpler than a logical fallacy. Try this. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Nope. The basic actions of cause and effect can easily exist before the universe comes into being. Even if they didn't, nothing would stop them from applying the very second the process starts. But your response suggests that you're just defining your terms incredibly loosely... ie, "the universe" is everything that does not involve the supernatural, and "God" is anything supernatural, outside nature. That would be a fun little semantic game, if you weren't trying to then shoehorn incredibly specific definitions onto the terms, and insist that you can still slot every possible answer into one of the two. Then it just becomes silly. This makes no sense at all to me. How about refuting my argument with some clear statements, instead of hiding behind this vagueness?Tell me about these "specific definitions" and so forth. And then there's this kind of bullshit:
The fact that I hope you have a box of tissues nearby for when you finish your posts. In the long run, I've probably made some logical error. It's very easy to do, and I do it a lot. But all you are doing is spouting out rhetoric. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Tell me about these "specific definitions" and so forth. "All-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, ideal, the answer to everything, always objective, never subjective" doesn't sound specific to you?
But all you are doing is spouting out rhetoric. Actually, the portion you're quoting is a fairly straightforward joke about masturbation. I spout those out too. "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"All-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, ideal, the answer to everything, always objective, never subjective" doesn't sound specific to you? Yeah, so what's the problem with all that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024