- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (charity @ May 24 2009,20:33) I'm still creating myself out of chocolate cookies an chicken legs
That is funny, nice to see you posting again. Welcome back.My Foot Doctor said to me that I have Chicken legs. Also
funny.
Peace and Love Irene
Quote (t8 @ May 20 2009,17:11) OK, Stu has faith that the universe has no cause. What a faith.
You argue as being the only right one here, and when it boils down to it, your faith is that everything came from nothing.
Why don't you take your profound discovery around the world and organise talks at major universities. I am sure that they will want to see a model as to how something comes from nothing.
Also if you can demonstrate how this works, then I have a business proposition for you. I look forward to your reply and the possibility of unlimited energy and wealth. Clink! (goes the wine glass.)
Shall I order the domain name everythingoutofnothing.com, in case someone takes it in the meantime?
If the universe has no cause, then stu has no cause.Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,23:44) Quote (t8 @ May 20 2009,17:11) OK, Stu has faith that the universe has no cause. What a faith.
You argue as being the only right one here, and when it boils down to it, your faith is that everything came from nothing.
Why don't you take your profound discovery around the world and organise talks at major universities. I am sure that they will want to see a model as to how something comes from nothing.
Also if you can demonstrate how this works, then I have a business proposition for you. I look forward to your reply and the possibility of unlimited energy and wealth. Clink! (goes the wine glass.)
Shall I order the domain name everythingoutofnothing.com, in case someone takes it in the meantime?
If the universe has no cause, then stu has no cause.
You mean if the universe has no cause, then its contents cannot be traced back to a first cause. That is not quite the same thing.Stuart
hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
stuart,
try to be nice, comments like that may be the reason for your tile, possible, maybe, wild guess.
much love to you stuart.
Quote (t8 @ May 19 2009,04:34) The skeptic asks, “Who created God if God created the universe?” God, by definition, is uncreated, so the question, “Who created God?” is illogical. A better question would be, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need one?”
Everything which has a beginning has a cause. If the universe had a beginning; then the universe has a cause. The universe requires a cause if it had a beginning. God, however had no beginning, so he does not need a cause.
Einstein's general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.
It is like explaining a finite number and an infinite one. If you quote any whole finite number you will theoretically be able to count backwards to zero one number at a time (if you live long enough). If you quote an infinite whole number, you cannot count back to zero one number at a time. There would never be enough time to count back to zero.
God has no beginning and no end and if you don't believe that this is possible, perhaps because of a lack of results from experiments using finite objects and instruments, then your pre-requisite of such proof will mean that you will never be able to see the infinite God. See as in insight.
In other words by limiting your findings to finite experiments means that you will only ever see finite results.
If we understand the concept of infinite, then why not understand that the cause of all finality is perhaps infinite. If the universe is big, then the cause is even bigger. If the universe is beyond comprehension, then the cause even more so. And if the universe contains life, then shouldn't the cause have life?
For whatever we observe, the cause must have the original qualities, possibilities, or imagination of that which it put in motion.
The atheist closes his eyes to such possibility.
I agree with your statement. This question is logically problematic.If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created, correct?
To be created means that someone or something had to create it.
But then, who created the creator and so on?
Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators, and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that everything needs a creator) there wouldn't be any uncaused cause.
This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal.
But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators?
We must remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator, even the eternal sequence of creators, which becomes logically absurd.
If there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered.
In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that all things need a creator.
Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin?
Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks, and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered.
Therefore, it is invalid.
The question is better phrased as a statement: Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else.
This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question.
In the revised statement, Everything that has come into existence implies that the thing that has come into existence did not already exist.
If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence, because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute).
This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical uncaused cause since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators and since an infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things, including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist.
If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it, and it would be full.
But it is not full.
Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.
By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2).
He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter.
This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause, and is the ultimate creator.
This eliminates the infinite regression problem.
But who created God?
The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.
Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.
Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.
Quote (Douglas @ Aug. 05 2009,16:37) Quote (charity @ May 25 2009,22:30) Do not confine your children to your own learning, for they were born in another time.
-Chinese Proverb
Very apt, and yet that's what dogmatic adherence to the Bible does.I suggest the best way to get to the bottom of God, for those who can, is simply to ask.
Forget all the human preconceptions. Start with a blank slate, and write on it only that which you know.
Then your life is no larger than that slate.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.hi stu
yes in deed you problably can give grammar lessons ,english is not my regular language ,but i am sure you must be intelligent to compensate for the eye sore i put you through.so will try to avoied you ,so not to disturb your eyes.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 19 2009,12:16) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.
Would you care to explain in what way that is an ad hom?Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2009,16:38) hi stu
yes in deed you problably can give grammar lessons ,english is not my regular language ,but i am sure you must be intelligent to compensate for the eye sore i put you through.so will try to avoied you ,so not to disturb your eyes.
You could download the Mozilla browser. It spellchecks as you write.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2009,21:56) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 19 2009,12:16) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.
Would you care to explain in what way that is an ad hom?Stuart
Your irrelevant attack upon the grammer deflecting the argument from the facts and reasons of the posters response. Simple enough.Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 20 2009,02:11) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2009,21:56) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 19 2009,12:16) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.
Would you care to explain in what way that is an ad hom?Stuart
Your irrelevant attack upon the grammer deflecting the argument from the facts and reasons of the posters response. Simple enough.
Sorry, wrong answer. If I had been using the point of poor spelling as an argument to support my claims then it would have been an ad hom. As I wasn't, it isn't.Stuart
Quote (princess of the king @ Nov. 19 2009,11:41) stuart, try to be nice, comments like that may be the reason for your tile, possible, maybe, wild guess.
much love to you stuart.
Sorry P of the K I didn't spot your reply earlier.You would think that you have to break one of the Heavennet rules to get a tile. Being nice is not compulsory or even defined according to my reading of the rules here.
I think most people I know personally would be willing to call me “nice” (a ridiculous word really), however christianity brings out the worst in me!
Stuart
stuart,
pray tell some christians bring out the worst in me also, so you are not alone.
do not know which thread it is, i had read a comment about 'emotions' you had commented on. i believe it was elevated emotions. you seem to perceive the negative emotions as being not well received.
as i read the post, i had thought that laughter, love, hugs are all elevated emotions and they can make someone day. a honest smile has brighten my day, what of you? even a cat, has made my day brighter.
remember stuart, you are loved even though you might not want to be loved. your intelligence is very impressive, at times when you and douglas converse i cannot follow some of what is written. i do know one thing stuart, if the passion that you have to disprove christianity would ever change you would be a great gift to others.
i tend to think you would be greater then 'bozo'.
much love stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 19 2009,09:25) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 20 2009,02:11) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2009,21:56) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 19 2009,12:16) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.
Would you care to explain in what way that is an ad hom?Stuart
Your irrelevant attack upon the grammer deflecting the argument from the facts and reasons of the posters response. Simple enough.
Sorry, wrong answer. If I had been using the point of poor spelling as an argument to support my claims then it would have been an ad hom. As I wasn't, it isn't.Stuart
Quote Sorry, wrong answer. If I had been using the point of poor spelling as an argument to support my claims then it would have been an ad hom. As I wasn't, it isn't. Actually I am correct, ad hominem isn't used as an arguement to support anything, it is actually used to deflect from any argument at hand. Grow up.
Instead of answering her statement you attacked her grammer, giving the example if one has poor English grammer then maybe one cannot give a logical opinion. You have used this style before several times within this forum.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
The term ad hominem has sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.
Swift (2007). “Syvia Browne on the Ropes”. Swift – Weekly Newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020207geller.html#i3. Retrieved September 10, 2007.
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 20 2009,13:22) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 19 2009,09:25) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 20 2009,02:11) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 18 2009,21:56) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 19 2009,12:16) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 17 2009,22:57) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2009,17:15) hi stu
your are a non believer ,so your faith in yourself as to be greather than the believer,you no matter wath you do even by putting all the scholars together will only understand how the things are composed,and then they only thing you will try to do is copy it,and die.in mean time we believer dont waste our time to wath is obvious to us by our faith in the creator of all things ,and spent our time to know him and live.
stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.
I am sorry to bore you.Perhaps you might learn some spelling from me?
Stuart
Shameful ad hominem.
Would you care to explain in what way that is an ad hom?Stuart
Your irrelevant attack upon the grammer deflecting the argument from the facts and reasons of the posters response. Simple enough.
Sorry, wrong answer. If I had been using the point of poor spelling as an argument to support my claims then it would have been an ad hom. As I wasn't, it isn't.Stuart
Quote Sorry, wrong answer. If I had been using the point of poor spelling as an argument to support my claims then it would have been an ad hom. As I wasn't, it isn't. Actually I am correct, ad hominem isn't used as an arguement to support anything, it is actually used to deflect from any argument at hand. Grow up.
Instead of answering her statement you attacked her grammer, giving the example if one has poor English grammer then maybe one cannot give a logical opinion. You have used this style before several times within this forum.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
The term ad hominem has sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.
Swift (2007). “Syvia Browne on the Ropes”. Swift – Weekly Newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020207geller.html#i3. Retrieved September 10, 2007.
Would you care to quote the statement or argument I was deflecting from? You have this to choose from:Quote stu you are wasting your time and your comments are after a wile boring whitout substence.
I wish you could contribute more in a inteligent way.…which was what I was responding to when you interloped.
It is not an ad hom to suggest that terraricca could learn some spelling from me, it is actually a direct and potentially appropriate response to terraricca's last statement.
As you should be aware, ad hominem means 'to the person', and it is a logical fallacy because it involves attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing the argument presented. It is not necessarily 'deflection', but is an attempt to discredit the opponent, making an emotional appeal to any audience that happens to be listening.
At least that is what my Oxford Concise Dictionary says.
Stuart
By the way, you need to support your claim that I have used ad hom arguments before. Except in relation to creationists, who are either completely deluded or liars, I do not ad hom people. Examples of my ad homs are required otherwise you have two things wrong.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 19 2009,19:56) By the way, you need to support your claim that I have used ad hom arguments before. Except in relation to creationists, who are either completely deluded or liars, I do not ad hom people. Examples of my ad homs are required otherwise you have two things wrong. Stuart
You just admitted to using ad hominem towards creationist, that would be the bulk of us, we can count your athiest crew on one hand. Thus I am in fact right.You also had absolutly no need for attacking the poster over her grammatical errors, you could have kept it on topic, but you chose otherwise.
So quit trying to balance it out as a contest as whether one of us is right or wrong.
If you cant leave the personal stuff on the sidelines then simply stay out of the game.
To the cornfield with you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
