- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Stu says there is no God and that there is no need for a cause.
He is wrong.
Everything comes from something and an eternal thing has no origin.
Simple as that.Here is a riddle.
On his 30th birthday, a man who wishes to build a time machine is visited by a future version of himself. This future self explains to him that he should not worry about designing the time machine, as he has done it in the future. The man receives the schematics from his future self and starts building the time machine. Time passes until he finally completes the time machine. He then uses it to travel back in time to his 30th birthday, where he gives the schematics to his past self, closing the loop.Nice explanation as the loop is now closed.
But where did the schematics come from?No explanation for it is there and this is similar to saying there is no God.
You might try and close the loop in your argument, but you ignore one big glaring fact.
It had to come from someone, somewhere, something.All things need a cause except for something eternal.
Even ignoring testimony, God is the only rational explanation as nothing or an eternal dead something (the only alternatives) do not provide a sane explanation.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05) You have not shown there is a god. Stuart
You have not shown there is life in the universe outside of Earth either.
So would that mean that there was no life anywhere in the universe but Earth?No.
If you have experienced ET by seeing him or communicating with him, then you can prove ET exists. But you cannot prove that he doesn't.
Likewise with God. You can experience God thereby proving he exists, but you can never prove that he doesn't exist. So saying that he doesn't exist goes with no proof whatsoever.
Saying God exists or life on other planets exist comes from either experience or drawing a logical conclusion from the presented facts.
If life is carbon based and carbon is I think the fourth most common element in the galaxy, then it would be kind of silly to say there is no life outside Earth.
If the universe has no explanation except that it was produced by something eternal, as nothing can be ruled out, then that too has a basis, even if you ignore experience with God.
That alone is enough to confidently say that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.
t8
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 17 2010,21:33) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2010,13:16) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 16 2010,22:11) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2010,20:34) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 16 2010,15:03) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2010,13:48) Hello PoftheK Quote Can you prove to me that there is not a creator?
No. I cannot prove anything to you, except in mathematics, which is in self-referential and therefore allows proofs.
Also, it is not possible to prove a negative.Stuart
Hi Stuart,But with Theomatics (mathematics in Scripture) it's possible to PROVE a positive! (Click Here)
With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. (Mark 10:27)Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
You have not shown there is a god.Stuart
Hi Stuart,No-one has ever shown oxygen either,
but yet you believe oxygen exists.No-one has ever shown you wind,
but yet you believe wind exists.No-one has ever shown you a mind,
but yet you believe minds exist.In each of those cases, all you can really see
is an effect, to indicate that they do exist.
Well, the same is true of YHVH! I have
shown you his effect, but you refuse
to believe. God's signature in his
book is PROOF of his existence! (Click Here)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
People have shown that oxygen exists. People have shown me wind: it is the thing that pushes on my hands when I stick them into a gale-force Northerly, and believe me we have plenty of those in Wellington. Mind is a term used to describe particular human experiences and observations, and there is a theory of mind that links it to the brain. I think there is very sound reason in each case to believe these things exist, including “mind”, even as a concept.You have never shown that any god exists.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Like I told you, you merely believe the effects!
But yet ‘you’ deny the effects that PROVE God?
Why is that? Atheists pose NO intellectual threat!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What kind of a threat could I present to something you have never demonstrated to exist?Stuart
Quote (theodorej @ Nov. 18 2010,00:00) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2010,20:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Nov. 16 2010,14:27) What actually exists?
Things that fall under the assumptions of what you see is what you get, and I think therefore I am.I don't claim to be able to prove anything, all I have is those assumption plus the evidence that can be collected in relation to things that appear to be associated with those assumptions.
If I could reduce the number of assumptions further I would.
There is one assumption held by many here that, if eliminated, would end their god belief. Is a reduction in the number of working assumptions a goal of yours, or am I ahead in that department?
Stuart
Greetings Stu….At a risk of being flipant,and with all due consideration to your position on assumptions….Is there a possibility you could be wrong on your assumption that,There is no higher authority that we all know as God….
No flippancy on your part. Yes that possibility exists of course.I assume then that you acknowledge you could be wrong about it also.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 18 2010,09:41) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:31) Hi T8, Most things come from both someone and something.
Nothing into something requires a magician.God bless
Ed J
Stu knows that rabbits don't appear out of nothing and so is not conned by the 'rabbit out of the hat' trick. But he is conned with the 'universe out of the nothing' trick.
Same dull logical fallacy.Any new LPs to put on for our listening pleasure t8?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 18 2010,10:41) Quote (theodorej @ Nov. 18 2010,00:00) Greetings Stu….At a risk of being flipant,and with all due consideration to your position on assumptions….Is there a possibility you could be wrong on your assumption that,There is no higher authority that we all know as God….
Saying that there is no God is like saying there is no life outside the Earth in the universe.It is a belief that is impossible to prove but possible to disprove.
So therefore we are all agnostic.Progress!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,13:47) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 17 2010,21:33) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2010,13:16) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 16 2010,22:11) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2010,20:34) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 16 2010,15:03) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2010,13:48) Hello PoftheK Quote Can you prove to me that there is not a creator?
No. I cannot prove anything to you, except in mathematics, which is in self-referential and therefore allows proofs.
Also, it is not possible to prove a negative.Stuart
Hi Stuart,But with Theomatics (mathematics in Scripture) it's possible to PROVE a positive! (Click Here)
With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. (Mark 10:27)Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
You have not shown there is a god.Stuart
Hi Stuart,No-one has ever shown oxygen either,
but yet you believe oxygen exists.No-one has ever shown you wind,
but yet you believe wind exists.No-one has ever shown you a mind,
but yet you believe minds exist.In each of those cases, all you can really see
is an effect, to indicate that they do exist.
Well, the same is true of YHVH! I have
shown you his effect, but you refuse
to believe. God's signature in his
book is PROOF of his existence! (Click Here)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
People have shown that oxygen exists. People have shown me wind: it is the thing that pushes on my hands when I stick them into a gale-force Northerly, and believe me we have plenty of those in Wellington. Mind is a term used to describe particular human experiences and observations, and there is a theory of mind that links it to the brain. I think there is very sound reason in each case to believe these things exist, including “mind”, even as a concept.You have never shown that any god exists.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Like I told you, you merely believe the effects!
But yet ‘you’ deny the effects that PROVE God?
Why is that? Atheists pose NO intellectual threat!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What kind of a threat could I present to something you have never demonstrated to exist?Stuart
Hi Stuart,You pose NO intellectual threat to discredit the
PROOF I have documented of God's existence!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgt8
Quote Stu says there is no God and that there is no need for a cause.
He is wrong.
I see all you have left is unfounded assertion. I think that might have been all you ever had, now I think through the wrong analogies you have tried.Quote Everything comes from something and an eternal thing has no origin.
Simple as that.
Which is a platitude until you can define the term “eternal”.Quote Here is a riddle.
On his 30th birthday, a man who wishes to build a time machine is visited by a future version of himself. This future self explains to him that he should not worry about designing the time machine, as he has done it in the future. The man receives the schematics from his future self and starts building the time machine. Time passes until he finally completes the time machine. He then uses it to travel back in time to his 30th birthday, where he gives the schematics to his past self, closing the loop.
This paradox is the basis of a suggested principle of time machines that no time machine could take you further back in time than the time of the completion of its construction.Quote Nice explanation as the loop is now closed.
But where did the schematics come from?No explanation for it is there and this is similar to saying there is no God.
You might try and close the loop in your argument, but you ignore one big glaring fact.
It had to come from someone, somewhere, something.
You could try addressing some of the other paradoxes that are closer to home for your god: the omniscience paradox or the omnipotence paradox, for example. Just as with the time machine paradox, christians have invented “out clauses” for omnipotence and omniscience paradoxes. Of course the time machine’s out clause is an obvious conclusion, while christians’ out clauses are piecemeal assertions about nature and character of gods. The other thing gods and time machines have in common is that neither appears to exist, so the arguments are all hypothetical. The time machine arguments are more interesting, of course.Quote All things need a cause except for something eternal.
An unsupported assertion and a platitude, dismissed as easily as they were made.Quote Even ignoring testimony, God is the only rational explanation as nothing or an eternal dead something (the only alternatives) do not provide a sane explanation.
Who said it had to be sane? In any case, “god” is not an explanation, it is the name of something whose existence has never been demonstrated. Naming is not explaining.Quote You have not shown there is life in the universe outside of Earth either.
So would that mean that there was no life anywhere in the universe but Earth?No.
Fallacy of composition.Quote If you have experienced ET by seeing him or communicating with him, then you can prove ET exists. But you cannot prove that he doesn't.
You cannot prove anything about ET, neither his existence not his non-existence. You can have evidence from which you conclude his existence, and you can have no evidence from which you provisionally conclude no existence.Quote Likewise with God. You can experience God thereby proving he exists, but you can never prove that he doesn't exist. So saying that he doesn't exist goes with no proof whatsoever.
Wrong for the reasons given above. You can delude yourself that what you perceive as your experience is this thing you call god, but then what? The burden of proof (or rather the burden of evidence) still lies with you the claimer. No god believer has supplied any unambiguous evidence for his god. There is much evidence that god belief can be induced by genetic effects and other factors. This says nothing about the existence of gods, but it does provide a much more plausible explanation for the supposed experiences of gods.Quote Saying God exists or life on other planets exist comes from either experience or drawing a logical conclusion from the presented facts.
That really does suggest that you are going to give us some facts that are unambiguous evidence for your god, t8. Feel free…Quote If life is carbon based and carbon is I think the fourth most common element in the galaxy, then it would be kind of silly to say there is no life outside Earth.
You are big on what is silly and what isn’t, yet curiously you do not appear to classify belief in invisible Sky Friends, virgin birth, walking on water and walking again after execution by the Romans as silly beliefs.Quote If the universe has no explanation except that it was produced by something eternal, as nothing can be ruled out, then that too has a basis, even if you ignore experience with God.
You still are holding out on us t8. Until you can define “eternal” you may as well say “passionfruit flavoured” for all the difference it makes.Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 18 2010,13:56) Hi Stuart, You pose NO intellectual threat to discredit the
PROOF I have documented of God's existence!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I don't remember you posting any kind of response to any of the three or four people who have shown you that your numerology does not constitute evidence for anything in particular, other than perhaps the gullibility of the numerologist.When you can show that it is not your bias that is causing apparent patterns then maybe you will have earned the right to claim others prove no threat to your numbers.
Perhaps you can show me where you have posted thus. I would not expect such a post to contain any numerology, of course because this is a consideration of the validity of numerology.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,14:19) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 18 2010,13:56) Hi Stuart, You pose NO intellectual threat to discredit the
PROOF I have documented of God's existence!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I don't remember you posting any kind of response to any of the three or four people who have shown you that your numerology does not constitute evidence for anything in particular, other than perhaps the gullibility of the numerologist.When you can show that it is not your bias that is causing apparent patterns then maybe you will have earned the right to claim others prove no threat to your numbers.
Perhaps you can show me where you have posted thus. I would not expect such a post to contain any numerology, of course because this is a consideration of the validity of numerology.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You stopped looking at the evidence, even though I kept producing more and more?
Then you proclaim there is there no significant pattern??You were unable to understand the information as a whole,
because you didn't see the whole of the information! (Circular!)I even tried to explain this to you before it happened,
for which you accused me of patronizing you! Remember?…Quote (Stu @ Sep. 11 2010,13:44) No need to patronise me Ed. Why must there be a god?
Stuart
I do in fact have more evidence, but you cannot understand it's significance
unless you begin to grasp “The Big Picture”, and you can't grasp “The Big Picture”
without first understanding many of the individual pieces; a sort of ‘catch 22’ situation.Most people understand The Bible with the understanding of a man. (Isaiah 55:7-11)
“The Bible” is best understood in much the same way “Optics” are understood.
What I mean is: “The Bible” must be understood as “a whole”, Gen. to Rev.But how is this done? Let us use “Optics” as a comparative example; OK?
The closer you look at something, the less that can be seen in the field of view.
And likewise, the focus of detail is lost with the greater field of view. I hope you are
getting all this? This is quite a conundrum, as you can only read one Bible verse at a time.Consider what it would take to make a map without the advent of aerial photography?
First you must understand each and every section of terrain. And then fit all sections
of terrain by scale into their respective positions. Scale is imperative to the whole.
But in order to fit all the sections by scale into the whole, “The Big Picture” has
to be clearly understood in the mapmakers mind; then all the pieces will fit!When beginners start to read The Scriptures they don’t understand what
“God” wants them to, because of what the ‘systems of religion’ taught them.
If they have been baptized with The “HolySpirit” and are open to His teachings,
then they will be like a skilled mapmaker understanding the terrain of God’s Word!Sincerely,
Ed JQuote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,13:50) Stu knows that rabbits don't appear out of nothing and so is not conned by the 'rabbit out of the hat' trick. But he is conned with the 'universe out of the nothing' trick.[/quote]
Same dull logical fallacy.Any new LPs to put on for our listening pleasure t8?
Stuart
In other words, you are lost for words.
You have never given a clear indication on where you stand here and that is because you are clueless. You are so clueless that you say with certainty that there is no God.You lost Stu, just admit it.
It is braver to admit defeat than to just ridicule that which has defeated you.It takes courage to face up and admit when you have no answer. It is nothing but pride to put on a brave face and pretend that you have the answer when you don't.
A close definition would be infinite.
Stu, eternal is something that exists forever.
Sure you can have eternity going forward, such as the gift of eternal life, but that which has always been has no cause or beginning because it has always existed.If there is nothing with this attribute, then ultimately everything came from nothing as anything else is finite and therefore hasn't always been.
As you may be aware, it is foolishness to say that everything came from nothing.
Stu, maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this subject is way over your head and you truly cannot understand it?
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 18 2010,16:39) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,13:50) Stu knows that rabbits don't appear out of nothing and so is not conned by the 'rabbit out of the hat' trick. But he is conned with the 'universe out of the nothing' trick.
Same dull logical fallacy.Any new LPs to put on for our listening pleasure t8?
Stuart[/quote]
In other words, you are lost for words.
You have never given a clear indication on where you stand here and that is because you are clueless. You are so clueless that you say with certainty that there is no God.You lost Stu, just admit it.
It is braver to admit defeat than to just ridicule that which has defeated you.It takes courage to face up and admit when you have no answer. It is nothing but pride to put on a brave face and pretend that you have the answer when you don't.
Sure bodhitharta, anything you say.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 18 2010,16:44) A close definition would be infinite. Stu, eternal is something that exists forever.
Sure you can have eternity going forward, such as the gift of eternal life, but that which has always been has no cause or beginning because it has always existed.If there is nothing with this attribute, then ultimately everything came from nothing as anything else is finite and therefore hasn't always been.
As you may be aware, it is foolishness to say that everything came from nothing.
It seems that this “foolishness” is the best model we have for the appearance of the universe, although these days we can't be sure which sense of “nothing” you are using, the abstract or the strawman concrete sense you appear to have invented and expect people to take seriously.So “infinite” is close to “eternal”, but not exactly it. Eternal has that special extra mysterious quality that shall remain because clear definitions are deadly to religious dogma.
You intend to imply that your Imaginary Friend had “no beginning”. That means you can have it as an initiator of the universe without requiring it to have a creator in turn, and also mocking Big Bang cosmology while simultaneously embracing it because it provides the “beginning” that your book of mythology claims. You just reject “uncaused” in relation to the universe, but you want that word back again when it comes to discussing your god. Use of abstract terms like “eternal” which you fail to explain do not hide this act of hypocrisy.
Presumably you also intend to imply that your Imaginary Friend also has the property of never ending. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, both directions of this “eternity” are unsupported assertions. Whether or not your god existed before the Big Bang or not, you cannot possibly know it. You should be honest and say that this eternal existence is something you can neither define clearly or possibly know to be true to the standards of probity we are used to, say for example in medicine. If people could rely on the safety of their pills to the same degree we can rely on your assertion of this “eternal” property, no person in his right mind would take a single dose of anything pharmaceutical.
If we pretend for a minute that your god actually exists, are we just to accept your word that it had anything to do with the appearance of the universe? You have never addressed this point. Your book of spells says that the Earth was present before light was created. That flatly contradicts all the evidence we have on cosmology. You appear to want your Big Bang model and not want it all at once.
There also remains the question you have disingenuously ignored: what is your mechanism for the appearance of the universe, and how does it explain the observations we have made over the last century? Goddidit will not do. Even your strawman of “something from nothing”, which no one believes, is far more plausible than your own exercise in naming things that you cannot show even exist. Meantime the evidence for Hawking's eloquent expression of the standard cosmological model stands, undented by anything you have written.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,18:37) It seems that this “foolishness” is the best model we have for the appearance of the universe, although these days we can't be sure which sense of “nothing” you are using, the abstract or the strawman concrete sense you appear to have invented and expect people to take seriously.
Let me debunk this.What else is there besides Someone, something, nothing as the options for where everything originates?
Waiting…..
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,18:37) Meantime the evidence for Hawking's eloquent expression of the standard cosmological model stands, undented by anything you have written.
Has Hawking gone back to the originator. If so, what is it? Gravity? And is this thing (gravity) someone, something, or nothing.Just give me an option to work with so we can progress. It has to be one of them.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,18:37)
Your book of spells says that the Earth was present before light was created.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why do you persist in telling this LIE?
Both “The Sun” and “The Earth”
were created the first day! (Gen.1:1-5)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Nov. 19 2010,12:38) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2010,18:37) It seems that this “foolishness” is the best model we have for the appearance of the universe, although these days we can't be sure which sense of “nothing” you are using, the abstract or the strawman concrete sense you appear to have invented and expect people to take seriously.
Let me debunk this.What else is there besides Someone, something, nothing as the options for where everything originates?
Waiting…..
Was that you debunking something?All religious apology is lost if you are a shining example.
Curious expression that, religious apology. Much to apologise for and yet one never hears the word sorry.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
