Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 214 of 301 (302153)
04-07-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:18 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
quote:
Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:32 PM JustinC has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 229 of 301 (302173)
04-07-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
quote:
No.
God is a Being.
The universe is a thing.
Big difference.
What the hell are you talking about?
A being is a thing, even if you are referring to a mind.
And if the mind isn't a thing, then how do you define thing? Or mind for that matter?
And if by thing you are referring to matter, in what sense would a mega universe be composed of matter?
Even still, I don't think that gets to the heart of the question. Why couldn't the universe be a product of the mind? And if it is, why couldn't the mind be considered the universe "in some form," that form being the mind.
It seems you are just arbitrarily defining words and concepts. I mean, what does "in some form" even mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:32 PM robinrohan has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 240 of 301 (302217)
04-07-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Muddying the waters
It's not trying to muddy the waters, its an attempt to show that you need do some rigorous defining of your terms because no one but yourself seems to know what you are talking about.
Now, there are 2 explanations for the origins of the universe:
1. It was created by an eternal Being
2. It has always existed in some form.
There are your choices. There are no others.
From what I can tell, here are your definitions:
Universe = everything which is not an eternal being
Then your dichotomy is:
1. Everything which is not an eternal Being was created by an eternal Being.
2. Everything which is not an eternal Being has always existed (dropping the "in some form" since it is redundant).
Is this what you are trying to say?
[EDIT]typos
This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-07-2006 07:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 6:13 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:21 PM JustinC has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 244 of 301 (302234)
04-07-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-07-2006 7:51 PM


Re: I also see only two options logically speaking
quote:
2) Universe was brought into existence by all-powerful self-existent Being
Again, you guys need to define what you mean by universe. What if our universe is apart of a larger structure? Or is that the universe also?
Even so, why all powerful? Why not just powerful enough to create our universe?
And why does it need to be self existent? It could be created by another being, which was created by the another being, ad infinitum. No eternal being in that scenerio.
Or what is the being that created our universe was "created" or "evolved" in another structure (purposely not using universe because I don't know how you define it yet). And this structure was created by a being, which evolved in another universe, ad infinitum.
Maybe if you can define the universe this would be easier. Look at my previous post and tell me if that is what you mean by universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 7:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:06 PM JustinC has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 270 of 301 (302403)
04-08-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by robinrohan
04-08-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Beings and Things
quote:
So the question is, whether an eternal mind created the universe, or whether this thing, the universe, has always existed, and from it sprang forth creatures with minds, such as ourselves and perhaps certain animals.
From our experience with the mind, it can do nothing without the aid of "things," namely our body.
So another option would be that the mind is eternal, along with the "things" it uses to create the universe we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by robinrohan, posted 04-08-2006 10:24 AM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024