Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Mountain Man]

[37818]

Change "reality" for "existence" does not alter your problem about causation.

Causation, that is not my problem: Causation, whether unique or there never being any first one, still requires prior existence.

Here - try this: give me an example of causation that is NOT related to anything within this universe.

The Son of God (John 1:3).

Actually, I am not automatically predisposed to reject things simply because they are in the bible. I accept many things in the bible in many ways. I accept a great deal of the history related there. I accept and value some of the common sense wisdom recorded there. I admire (and use) may of the teaching stories.

Well, what was it that you discover was not true?

But before someone makes a claim that I need to accept "X" from the bible, they have to substantiate that the bible is an authoritative source for "X." Much of its history has been corroborated, so I accept those elements as such. Much of its wisdom dovetails with my own experience. Those things for which there is no basis - or at least none have been provided - I take with a grain of salt.

Well, if what its writings claim is true, the God of the Bible would be the reason. What evidence do you have that God is not?

It may surprise you to know I still have my bible, and my breviary. They even occasionally get used!

At any time did you know from them God and eternal life for certain?

[37818]

The reality remains that Natural Laws and our possible eternal existence may possibly be "uncaused."

Natural Laws (plural) still requires them to exist. Uncaused existence (one thing).

[carpedm9587]

Causation, that is not my problem: Causation, whether unique or there never being any first one, still requires prior existence.

Your causation "problem," 37, is that you are applying a concept/principal learned from within the universe to the universe itself or even thing "outside" or "before" the universe (without even knowing if THOSE terms have meaning in that context).

The Son of God (John 1:3).

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. That concept you got from a book that is most definitely part of this universe, written by a person who is most definitely part of this universe, using language that is most definitely part of this universe. You see there is no way to conceive of anything that has no relationship to this universe.

Well, what was it that you discover was not true?

That is a huge question. I can try to partially answer it, I guess. Many (most) of the historical claims about the bible are demonstrably not true. So those who believe that the creation story in Genesis is "actual history" are misinformed. Most of Genesis is a blend of mythology and legend. To my knowledge, none of the "miracle" claims in any part of the bible have been shown to be true. Obviously I have rejected the claims in the bible of direct interaction between a god-being and humans as mythology or legend (I am, after all, atheist). I guess that's a decent start...

Well, if what its writings claim is true, the God of the Bible would be the reason. What evidence do you have that God is not?

My beliefs about god are rooted in my understanding of our history as a species, my understanding of human psychology and sociology, and my understanding of the various physical sciences. I cannot prove to you that god does not exist. However, the evidence seems strongest to me that the idea of a god or gods is of human derivation, and is not rooted in the objective reality of a god. One major piece of evidence for me is the pervasive presence of religions throughout human history - and the tendency to fragmentation. In my experience, when a claim is grounded in an objectively real thing - eventually beliefs about that thing tend towards unity. When there is no objectively real "anchor" for the belief, there is nothing to keep the beliefs unified, so they fragment. Religions tend to fragment.

At any time did you know from them God and eternal life for certain?

I considered myself a "born again" Christian from the time I was very young (around 11 years old) until I was in my late 20s. I very involved with my church in those years, and spent 4.5 years in the seminary preparing for ministry. I left the seminary in late 1985 (around my 27th birthday), left the church within the next year, left Christianity within another year, and finally left theism somewhere around my 30th year.

[shunyadragon]

Natural Laws (plural) still requires them to exist. Uncaused existence (one thing).

Plural or singular? There may well be only one ultimate Universal Natural Law, and than again there is nothing that requires only one by the evidence, which there is no objective verifiable evidence that here was anything preceding the one or many natural laws.


If everything needs a preceding cause than what caused God? Another God or is it turtles all the way down.

[37818]

Plural or singular? There may well be only one ultimate Universal Natural Law, and than again there is nothing that requires only one by the evidence, which there is no objective verifiable evidence that here was anything preceding the one or many natural laws.

What would be the ultimate Natural Law?

If everything needs a preceding cause than what caused God?

What ever needs a cause or even existence is not God.

Another God or is it turtles all the way down.

Not gods.

[Tassman]

What ever needs a cause or even existence is not God.

If you are excluding God from your argument that "everything needs a preceding cause", you've invalidated your argument. If you are asserting that God does not need a cause you are committing a 'proof by assertion' fallacy, i.e. an informal fallacy

[shunyadragon]

What would be the ultimate Natural Law?

The ultimate Natural Law that results in the other natural laws and the nature of our existence.

What ever needs a cause or even existence is not God.

You said everything must have a cause. The fallacy of special pleading.

[37818]

The ultimate Natural Law that results in the other natural laws and the nature of our existence.

That makes no sense. ". . . nature of our existence?" Existence before existence? Space-time is how we experience "our existence." The best we can tell, space-time has a beginning. [13.7 billion years ago.]

One has to begin with an uncaused existence. Think. An uncaused existence has to precede everything else.

You said everything must have a cause.

Never did. Quote me.

The fallacy of special pleading.

Your fallacy of Natural Laws.

[37818]

If you are excluding God from your argument that "everything needs a preceding cause", . . .

Where did I say that? Quote me.

Now caused things have a preceding cause.

. . . you've invalidated your argument.

Actually quote me. I have argued that there is an "uncaused" existence which precedes everything.

. . . If you are asserting that God does not need a cause you are committing a 'proof by assertion' fallacy, i.e. an informal fallacy

Wrong. I have argued Uncaused Existence to be the identity of God. Uncaused Existence. No matter what, one has to begin with an uncaused existence. there is no escaping this.

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense. ". . . nature of our existence?" Existence before existence? Space-time is how we experience "our existence." The best we can tell, space-time has a beginning. [13.7 billion years ago.]

One has to begin with an uncaused existence. Think. An uncaused existence has to precede everything else.

Absolutely NO, that is not the best science nor anyone else can do. Science does not consider the beginning of our universe the beginning of everything, It remains possible that our physical existence and natural laws.

Never did. Quote me.

I will in a following post.

Your fallacy of Natural Laws.

No, because I only consider it possible that our physical existence and natural laws are eternal, which is based on our present knowledge of our physical existence. I do not conclude that God is an uncaused cause without any more evidence than whether Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal or an uncaused cause. Both are possible.

All you can claim is the anecdotal 'personally knowing God,' nothing else and nothing more based on the evidence.

[37818]

Absolutely NO, that is not the best science nor anyone else can do. Science does not consider the beginning of our universe the beginning of everything, It remains possible that our physical existence and natural laws.



I will in a following post.

No, because I only consider it possible that our physical existence and natural laws are eternal, which is based on our present knowledge of our physical existence. I do not conclude that God is an uncaused cause without any more evidence than whether Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal or an uncaused cause. Both are possible.

You have no evidence that physical existence (space-time) or natural laws are eternal. Only what exists is real.

All you can claim is the anecdotal 'personally knowing God,' nothing else and nothing more based on the evidence.

What evidence are we asking for, regarding what?

Uncaused existence is metaphysical argument. That Christians know God is a New Testament argument. Space-time is a physics argument. Space-time requires matter.

[shunyadragon]

You have no evidence that physical existence (space-time) or natural laws are eternal. Only what exists is real.
What evidence are we asking for, regarding what?

We have no objective verifiable evidence for definitive beginning of our universe. All the present evidence points to an existnece

You have no objective evidence for the existence of God.

Uncaused existence is metaphysical argument. That Christians know God is a New Testament argument. Space-time is a physics argument. Space-time requires matter.

Which reduces it to an anecdotal claim on your part nothing more.

[shunyadragon]

Uncaused existence is metaphysical argument. That Christians know God is a New Testament argument. Space-time is a physics argument. Space-time requires matter.

In contrast the same argument can used for an eternal Natural Law and physical existence. Both are possible.

[Tassman]

Where did I say that? Quote me.

Now caused things have a preceding cause.

Obviously, by definition, if they are “caused”.

Actually quote me. I have argued that there is an "uncaused" existence which precedes everything.

It may well be an eternal, infinite universe.

Wrong. I have argued Uncaused Existence to be the identity of God.

This is, as I said, 'proof by bald assertion', i.e. an informal fallacy.

Uncaused Existence. No matter what, one has to begin with an uncaused existence. there is no escaping this.

Yes, the infinite, eternal universe.