|
Author
|
Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
Something can come from something. Nothing can come from something. Something can come from nothing. This game's no fun. No, nothing can come from nothing. There always had to be something.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
It wasn't a reply to your false delimma, it was a reply to it having to be the god described in the OP. Well, let's have your argument. How is it a false dilemma? How is my argument about the God in the OP wrong? These matters are tricky. I might very well be wrong.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
The universe arose on its own through natural means. Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2.
Well, this is a fun game. I'll play too! You can't have a being outside the natural universe. Nothing like a rollicking good round of "I said it; therefore it's true." What are you talking about?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
That doesn't refute the point that there doesn't have to be a 'reason', such as a creator, for the existance of the universe to emerge while it hasn't existed forever. It could have came into being naturally, without a god. Don't you need a "nature" for something to occur naturally? nature is another word for the universe. So the universe came from the universe?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described. What attributes then might it have?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Much to do about Nothing
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
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
It could have came from something else and the something else doesn't have to be a god. Revert to option #2.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 219 of 301 (302158)
04-07-2006 5:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by JustinC
04-07-2006 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
wouldn't God also fall under that category? No. God is a Being. The universe is a thing. Big difference.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 5:29 PM | | JustinC has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
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
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
"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?
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Satheism, Watheism
A being is a kind of thing. No, there's a difference. It's the difference between mind and matter.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Choices
Option #3: It was created by a noneternal being. If that was the case, then that non-eternal being had to arise from something--namely nature. Revert to #2.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: God of the Past - God of the Present
If your God truly created the universe as you claim then that would only mean that your God existed in the past. Great, but what has this God of the OP done today? That's a different question entirely. But the God I am talking could not die. Or at least I don't think he could.
These are the only 2 choices. According to who? It's not a matter of who, Purple Dawn--it's matter of logic. There are only 2 choices logically. There is such a thing as logic. It's like 2 and 2 make 4. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:59 PM
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 233 of 301 (302185)
04-07-2006 6:13 PM
|
|
|
Muddying the waters
Messages 228 and 229 are attempts to muddy the waters. They say that a being is really a thing and so forth. This would mean that there is no difference between nature and God, and if there is no difference, then of course there is no argument. But the idea about the God/nature argument is that there is a difference. And I think that atheists, such as myself, would agree that there is a difference between whether the universe was created by a being or always existed as a thing.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 240 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 7:23 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: Choices
According to who?
You don't know what was there before our universe. Logic, Purple Dawn, logic. One deduces it.
|
™ Version 4.2