Guys, for the third time. i dont want you to tell me im wrong, i know for a fact that no matter what i say everyone here will tell me in wrong. i want to know WHY. WHY AM I WRONG? please explain to me exactly where i began to stop being logical (serious answers, please).
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Why shouldnt I believe in God?
- Thread starter spacetrex
- Start date
spacetrex said:
I don't have the strength to go through each point you make, it's late here, and I've been studying for an exam for most of the day. Sorry.
But I would like to say I think your view on matter/time/space are in very layman terms and I think you are building a very unsolid ground to build your arguments on, I would advice you to use more time and don't take as much as "obvious". Also you define time as causation, yet claim causation can exist without time? How? And you write about the 'before existence period', how can something exist BEFORE time exists? "Before" looses all meaning. And also you claim that there must be "something supernatural out there", why does it have to be super-natural? And I think you are begging the question when you claim that it has to be a concious entity. Even if space/time/matter is finite, why can't it be that they still exist as a sub-set in an infinite universe?
PS: I don't really care to much about spelling, I don't write with a spell-checker myself. But please start using basic grammer, like capital letters and apostrohes, it would make everything a LOT easier to read and it takes you about 1 minute more to write.
Cryogeneric
New Member
spacetrex said:
Which then if you are inquisitive by nature immediately leads to the question "Where did God come from?". You're setting up a rule that everything must obey, but then defining God as outside that rule.
If you go on to think God had a beginning, then what created him? And what created that? And so on backwards for infinity.
If you say that God always existed, then in the words of Carl Sagan, why not just skip a step and conclude that the universe always existed in one form or another.
spacetrex said:
I believe this answer was already given to you as "lack of evidence". As the person making the claim that a God exists, the burden of proof is on YOU. You are the one who must prove that God exists and until you do the default position is disbelief. That's just the way science is done.
Welp, I hope youre all very proud. An entire forum dedicated to 'reason' has proven itself unable to follow metaphors, and a simple instruction asked three times by someone trying to get help. I appreciate your time, but I guess I'll have to look somewhere else - again.
and here is the 'i lose' i promised in the OP:
good job guys! you managed to not follow the instructions in the OP within 2 pages! you win! horray! if im going to get banned or something for this entire deal - go ahead. i have no reason to be here anymore. see ya.
and here is the 'i lose' i promised in the OP:
good job guys! you managed to not follow the instructions in the OP within 2 pages! you win! horray! if im going to get banned or something for this entire deal - go ahead. i have no reason to be here anymore. see ya.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Well, you completely blew off the very first place you went wrong, which is the definition of terms. Why should we believe that you'll pay any attention to anything else people say?spacetrex said:
Very quickly - the reason you are wrong is that you are using a misapplication of one of Zeno's paradoxes. It's the one about infinitesimal amounts of time if you want to look it up.
Sorry, I have to go
I'll check this thread at the end of the day and read through everything properly then.
Edit: Well it looks like he's gone, Ozy said pretty much what I wanted to say anyway.
Sorry, I have to go
I'll check this thread at the end of the day and read through everything properly then.Edit: Well it looks like he's gone, Ozy said pretty much what I wanted to say anyway.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Yep, you're a troll.spacetrex said:
Cryogeneric
New Member
spacetrex said:
The answer you'll get from most of the people here was given to you 4 replies in.
Right, I first found Joe's accusation of trolling to be baselss, uneccesairy and rude, but now it seems they have been confirmed. While somebody might have not answered you directly, there are several posters here and you should wait at least 10 minutes to see people respond, especcially to a post that long, when you yourself demand thorough debunking. I tried to play your game, I tried to be forthcoming and nice.
You misunderstand us, demand that we bend over backwards for you and shriek when we answer the way we want to, then you offend us all. You have offended me. I don't know if you have already left this forum, but I challenge you to a debate, 1on1, we can do it wherever you like. If you do not respond to me, I will always see you as a cowardly, brainwashed troller.
You misunderstand us, demand that we bend over backwards for you and shriek when we answer the way we want to, then you offend us all. You have offended me. I don't know if you have already left this forum, but I challenge you to a debate, 1on1, we can do it wherever you like. If you do not respond to me, I will always see you as a cowardly, brainwashed troller.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Whoever explained Xeno to you REALLY doesn't understand Xeno. He plays with ideas of infinity that have nothing to do with reality. They are just logic games, and have nothing to do with actual physical reality. As well to ask what the square root of -1 means for life on earth. The motion paradox has to do with space (not matter, as your explanation claimed), which 1. is just a human construction and 2. may be quantized. Same with Time. Time and space don't even Exist as such, they are just methods for understanding the way things happen, they are ideas, not reality. They both require frames of reference and are two parts of the same thing. Infinity paradoxes cannot be used to prove or disprove anything about them.
We have many real and non-'goddunit' answers to how the universe could have existed forever or how it could have come into being (oscillating universe, multiverse theory, etc). They all make WAY more sense than the deistic explanation for me, which ultimately just begs the even MORE complicated question of where did the infinite being come from. Your robot question has the EXACT same answer, what created the robot's creator? Eventually you have to admit that something JUST WAS. It makes the most sense to say that thing is our universe, as it is necessarily the least complicated thing that can explain what is... if something created it, the circumstances of THAT thing's creation would have to be infinitely more complicated, which then asks how could such a thing could come into being?
We can't know what is true with absolute certainty, but either way if 'he' no longer interacts with our universe then he doesn't matter at all. And there is no evidence that such a being does interact with our universe. There is no reason such a being would create this massive universe that follows all these laws and then care about the race on a tiny speck of dust. Thus, it wouldn't even matter if he DID exist (which he almost certainly doesn't).
We have many real and non-'goddunit' answers to how the universe could have existed forever or how it could have come into being (oscillating universe, multiverse theory, etc). They all make WAY more sense than the deistic explanation for me, which ultimately just begs the even MORE complicated question of where did the infinite being come from. Your robot question has the EXACT same answer, what created the robot's creator? Eventually you have to admit that something JUST WAS. It makes the most sense to say that thing is our universe, as it is necessarily the least complicated thing that can explain what is... if something created it, the circumstances of THAT thing's creation would have to be infinitely more complicated, which then asks how could such a thing could come into being?
We can't know what is true with absolute certainty, but either way if 'he' no longer interacts with our universe then he doesn't matter at all. And there is no evidence that such a being does interact with our universe. There is no reason such a being would create this massive universe that follows all these laws and then care about the race on a tiny speck of dust. Thus, it wouldn't even matter if he DID exist (which he almost certainly doesn't).
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I had the sense of it when he quoted HIMSELF to agree with HIMSELF. Actually, I meant to say "sock puppet" but troll seems to have worked just as well. :geek:Josan said:
Ozymandyus
New Member
Wow, that was a lot of posts in a short time. Man, I was all excited to get someone who actually believed in a deistic God here that wanted to talk about it. Shame to see him run away so soon =(.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
When someone behaves that way, they don't actually want to talk about anything... troll troll TROLL!!Ozymandyus said:
I've actually seen people post a "question," ignore everything anyone says to them, throw a tantrum, and then go back to their Xtian friends and use their failure as "proof" that we're a bunch of evil meanies.
Ozymandyus
New Member
In his defense, you are pretty scary Joe :lol: . I'm not entirely convinced he's a troll, but I am convinced he has a fragile ego.
Edit: No offense is intended towards Joe of course. I'm just actually afraid of him.
Edit: No offense is intended towards Joe of course. I'm just actually afraid of him.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Oh yeah, I'm a giant demon with TWO pitchforks! :lol:Ozymandyus said:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Thank you!IBSpify said: