145 replies to this topic

[AliveInDeath7]

Nothing created "God". It is everything.

[Zeta Reticulum]

The New Richard Nixon, on 28 July 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I always wanted to know this but who or what created him? was it himself? created by other gods? a super-god?

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

You are equating GOD to human existance.  Our brains are not capable of understanding the truth.
He or she always was... and always will be.   Something we are not capable of understanding.

[Zeta Reticulum]

The New Richard Nixon, on 28 July 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I always wanted to know this but who or what created him? was it himself? created by other gods? a super-god?

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

You are equating GOD to human existance.  Our brains are not capable of understanding the truth.
He or she always was... and always will be.   Something we are not capable of understanding.

[eight bits]

ALW

Quote

In stating that he reasoned such a thing about the universe - that it could exist without a beginning or an end - based upon the thought of "if a god could exist without beginning and end" he is cleary contradicting his beliefs as an atheist that God does not exist.

No, you're writing the if out of the sentence. And all that the sentence concludes is that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist. That is not an exclusively atheist position. There are whole pantheons without any world-creator gods. The crucial sentence is, at most, a step along a path away from creator-god-belief. That path, for Waspie. ended up in atheism, rather than, say, belief in Odin, or agnosticism, or perhaps the pantheism that has been advocated by two posters in this thread. Alternatives to the World Creator abound.

Quote

For someone who does not believe in God in any way, shape, or form to reach a conclusion about another subject based solely upon the belief others have regarding something they feel is fictional (in this case God) is clearly faulty reasoning and stands in contrast to their stated beliefs whether they realize it or not.

The conclusion reached in the sentence which you rely upon concerns necessity. Generating a counterexample is an adequate proof of non-necessity. In this case, a counterexample would be to point out a possible world in which the Universe exists but a creator god does not. Waspie delievered that. There is no flaw there.

Obviously, something can exist without it being necessary that the something exist. It is not necessary that you or I exist, either, and yet here we are. So, something more is needed, eventually, to argue against God's existence.

However, Waspie's post (as opposed to the one sentence) says that he had already encountered the claim that God's existence was necessary. So, a prerequisite for him to assert even the possibility that God doesn't exist is to defeat the necessity claim. And Waspie did just that.

As I noted earlier, I don't know anything more about Waspie's thought process than what he tells us. What he tells us, however, is lucid, systematic and contradiction-free.

Edited by eight bits, 30 July 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 28 July 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

It depends.

If that particular attribute is so unique that it is only associated as being real - or even possible - because people attribute it to a god, then yes, it would stand to reason that you hold a belief in that god's existence as well.

What if it isn't that unique? It's found in philosophy and other religious belief.

[Hawkins]

The New Richard Nixon, on 28 July 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

That's incomplete. In order for something to be created, he or she must not exist at a certain point. For an example, the universe needs to be created because at a certain point (say, 14.5 billion years ago) it doesn't exist, it however exists now. That's why the universe requires to be created.

This "not exist" point however doesn't apply to God. That is, you can't find out a point at which He doesn't exist. That's why He doesn't need to be created!

Edited by Hawkins, 01 August 2012 - 03:15 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Hawkins, on 01 August 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

This "not exist" point however doesn't apply to God. That is, you can't find out a point at which He doesn't exist. That's why He doesn't need to be created!

Sure, before his authors wrote of him.

[Hawkins]

Rlyeh, on 01 August 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Sure, before his authors wrote of him.

That remains your own faith and your own religion.

[Rlyeh]

Hawkins, on 01 August 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

That remains your own faith and your own religion.

And that didn't make any sense.

[Hawkins]

Rlyeh, on 01 August 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

And that didn't make any sense.

Why not? Unless you can present empirical evidence showing that God doesn't exit before humans wrote about Him, your comments are completely a made-up out of your faith!

Edited by Hawkins, 01 August 2012 - 03:38 AM.

[Left-Field]

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

No, you're writing the if out of the sentence. And all that the sentence concludes is that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist.

I am not writing the "if" out of the sentence. Essentially though, the "if" in this instance is not important. Waspie Dwarf's statement says that he is basing his belief that the universe can exist without a beginning or an end on the premise that those who believe in God believe He has always been and always will be.

You are refusing to acknowledge that Waspie Dwarf is basing his belief about the universe on something he regards as a work of fiction.

He is acknowledging God's existence in order to state why he believes the universe may be something that has always been and always will be. As an atheist the very act of acknowledging God for any reason stands in contrast to the belief atheists hold that God does not exist.

Whether you realize this or not, it is a contradiction of an atheists beliefs for them to acknowledge God existing for whatever the reason may be.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

That is not an exclusively atheist position.

I am not, and have not, stated that it is exclusively an atheists position. Having no belief in God or a higher being, however, is exclusively an atheist position. That is what the issue is here.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

There are whole pantheons without any world-creator gods.

And if a person who does not believe in these gods, whether they are world-creators or not, bases their belief on anything upon the beliefs others have about these gods then they are contradicting their belief that such gods are mere fantasy.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

The crucial sentence is, at most, a step along a path away from creator-god-belief. That path, for Waspie. ended up in atheism, rather than, say, belief in Odin, or agnosticism, or perhaps the pantheism that has been advocated by two posters in this thread. Alternatives to the World Creator abound.

It's a path they traveled down that is based on a faulty premise for anyone that states they are an atheist.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

The conclusion reached in the sentence which you rely upon concerns necessity.

The necessity my statement relies upon is that an atheist truly does not believe in God. With that being the case, as I have stated numerous times, for an atheist to base any of their beliefs upon things soley attributed to God is a contradiction of their belief that he does not exist.

Despite your efforts, try as you might, there is no way to work around that fact.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Generating a counterexample is an adequate proof of non-necessity. In this case, a counterexample would be to point out a possible world in which the Universe exists but a creator god does not. Waspie delievered that. There is no flaw there.

No he hasn't. He has not given any other scenario or reasoning other than "if God can exist without beginning or end" so can the universe.

The only way he can believe the universe exists without basing it upon a belief by others that God has always been and always been would be to say that he believes the universe has always been and always will be simply because that's how he feels the universe's being can best be explained.

If he were to do that, however, then his holding that belief would be a matter of faith because there is no scientific explanation for it - just like there is no scientific explanation for God.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Obviously, something can exist without it being necessary that the something exist. It is not necessary that you or I exist, either, and yet here we are. So, something more is needed, eventually, to argue against God's existence.

However, Waspie's post (as opposed to the one sentence) says that he had already encountered the claim that God's existence was necessary. So, a prerequisite for him to assert even the possibility that God doesn't exist is to defeat the necessity claim. And Waspie did just that.

If he did what you state above (and I'm not so certain he has) then he would still have to concede that his belief that the universe has always been and always will be is based upon faith.

Anything that one believes in that cannot be scientifically explained is a matter of faith - the only exception to that would be if someone witnessed something with their own eyes that science has no explanation for (such as witnessing a UFO maneuver in ways that our curent understanding of science implies such manuevers are impossible).

In this case, however, Waspie Dwarf clearly has not witnessed the universe always existing. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible for anyone (perhaps including God himself) to witness something always existing.

eight bits, on 30 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

As I noted earlier, I don't know anything more about Waspie's thought process than what he tells us. What he tells us, however, is lucid, systematic and contradiction-free.

For the reasons I have stated in response to all the other statements you have made within this post Waspie Dwarf's stated belief that it is possible the universe always has and always will exist is neither lucid, systematic, and / or contradiction-free.

To claim it is lucid and systematic might even be more absurd than the contradiction-free statement considering science itself has no explanation as to how the universe came into being or that it always has and always will exist.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 01 August 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

What if it isn't that unique? It's found in philosophy and other religious belief.

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon something they regard as fictitious then they are contradicting their belief that the thing they don't believe in really does not exist.

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon nothing more than philosophizing it as so then it is a matter of faith for them - much in the same way those who believe in God do so because of their faith.

[Rlyeh]

Hawkins, on 01 August 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Why not? Unless you can present empirical evidence showing that God doesn't exit before humans wrote about Him, your comments are completely a made-up out of your faith!

Has what to do with faith? There is no empirical evidence of God's existence.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 01 August 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

If one bases their belief that it's possible the universe has always existed and always will (without any beginning or end) upon something they regard as fictitious then they are contradicting their belief that the thing they don't believe in really does not exist.

You're just repeating yourself now. I've already pointed out using an attribute possessed by a fictional character, only requires the acknowledgement of the attribute.

[THE INTERPRETER]

The New Richard Nixon, on 28 July 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I always wanted to know this but who or what created him? was it himself? created by other gods? a super-god?

Because in order of something to exist, he or she has to be created.

The New Richard Nixon,

God always has been, he is not confined to this concept of existence as you think of it.  

God is the Author of time, time is not the Author of God.  Thus, to say God must have been created if God is to exist places God under the authority of time which is no god.  God is not 'something' as in existing in a physical body but he is Eternal.

Remove the concept of time and know the Eternal.