The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 04, 2022, 06:59:36 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  The first _good_ argument for god
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Print
Author Topic: The first _good_ argument for god  (Read 10203 times)
lakota.james
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 111



View Profile
The first _good_ argument for god
« on: December 12, 2007, 11:54:38 pm »

I am a Christian, but i have never actually seen a good argument against atheism before. most of the time I try to stay out of arguements about religion, because I didn't ever see a good way to not loose.  Of course, this matters not, because if you don't believe in a god, most likely it doesnt matter what people tell you otherwise, and vise versa. oh, well. here it is.
 http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Intro/A-0201.htm
Logged
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2007, 01:31:11 am »

(1) The concepts of "cause and effect" only have meaning with respect to time. If time itself began at the beginning of the universe, there is no "before", and there can be no "cause" within our universe.
This makes "everything must have a cause" unapplicable if you talk about things that happen outside of time as we know it.

Now there can be some concept of time outside of our universe, which means that you could have cause and effect outside of our universe; you could imagine the universe as one large computer-simulation, with the universe in which the computer exists having its own time.

(2) But then the claims "If the cause is eternal, it: (a) never began to exist; (b) can never cease to exist; and (c) is itself uncaused and self-existent." are still only applicable to our own universe. The cause never began to exist in our universe; it can never cease to exist in our universe (because it can never exist there); it has no cause within our universe.

(3) If we suppose that there is a cause outside of our universe, then that still does not preclude other things from existing outside of our universe. So "The only thing that could have prompted an uncaused cause to act before the universe existed is itself." is not correct either.

(4) If outside of our universe the same rules of cause and effect apply, the cause of our universe would still need a cause itself there. (If they don't apply, the point of our universe needing a cause is moot.)

(5) Even if there is no outside influence prompting a cause to create the universe, that does not make that creation a volitional act.

(6) Even if the creation of this universe is a volitional act from some being existing outside of our universe, it does not follow that this is the god as described in any particular scripture.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
lakota.james
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 04:11:55 am »

Oh, well. I thought it was good, anyway. But I guess it wasn't, it only took two and a half hours... Sad
Logged
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 04:55:36 am »

As far as attempts to provide a rational justification for theism goes, I think this one was rather good. It's still flawed, but at least it seemed to be a serious attempt.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2007, 05:26:28 am »

I agree that the very existence of the universe doesn't seem to be "logical" in the sense that it can't possibly be deterministic. But even if you say God made it, why is there God? You can only say "well that's just the way it is", and that can be said about the universe itself too.

I find the idea that time had no beginning more appealing than the alternative, because of this lack of determinism.
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
Elvish Pillager
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2007, 07:36:19 pm »

It claims that the "fact that we exist" is "undeniable".

I think they need to define "exist". ^_^
Logged

My team of four Androsynth and three Chmmr is the most unfair team ever!
My mod
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2007, 11:42:33 pm »

"Indeed, why does anything exist at all? "

I love that question. We just don't know.

I take issue with this part though:

"2.4 What caused the universe?

The universe, by definition, is space, time, and matter. Anything consisting of, or limited by, space, time, and matter is itself merely a component part of that natural universe. So whatever caused the universe could not have consisted of those characteristics which it subsequently produced. Therefore we reason the causal force has to be:

independent of space (limitless),
independent of time (eternal), and
independent of matter (immaterial). "


This part is ridiculous imo. It's a huge supposition based on, well nothing.

For argument's sake, what if absolutely nothing existed? Couldn't everything just be deep vacuum space, devoid of matter and energy? Wouldn't the potential to move in the X,Y and Z axis still be there? So in a nutshell, did the big bang create space as we know it or is space just the backdrop or enviornment if you will where the BB took place?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 12:04:12 am by RTyp06 » Logged
ptx
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2007, 12:14:45 am »

It claims that the "fact that we exist" is "undeniable".

In fact, I would argue quite the opposite - we do not exist. We are all just figments of TFB's imagination.
Logged
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2007, 01:07:00 am »

I take issue with this part though:

"2.4 What caused the universe?

The universe, by definition, is space, time, and matter. Anything consisting of, or limited by, space, time, and matter is itself merely a component part of that natural universe. So whatever caused the universe could not have consisted of those characteristics which it subsequently produced. Therefore we reason the causal force has to be:

independent of space (limitless),
independent of time (eternal), and
independent of matter (immaterial). "


This part is ridiculous imo. It's a huge supposition based on, well nothing.

I actually roughly agree that reasoning.
Whatever created this universe, it could not be a part of it, because the universe was not around yet. If space did not exist, the Cause can not have been part of space. If time did not exist, the Cause can not have existed in time. If matter did not exist, the Cause can not have consisted of matter.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2007, 11:04:28 am »

It claims that the "fact that we exist" is "undeniable".

I think they need to define "exist". ^_^

Let's see... The author can only prove to himself that he exists as an intelligent being of some sort (I think therefore I am). But he can't prove it to us. And the only thing he can safely say about us is that we exist in his perception. So ultimately, two beings can never agree on what exists and what doesn't.

The only thing he can say is "To me, the fact that I exist is undeniable."

Not that it has much to do with God anyway... Undecided
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2007, 02:21:34 pm »

You need to define "I" first.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2007, 02:41:50 pm »

Is there more than one definition?
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2007, 03:10:12 pm »

Well, you have the body, memories and cognitive powers, conciousness, the sense of self.
You can deny that the body exists. Memory and cognitive powers can be an illusion. Who is "I" when unconcious? And "self" is rather vague in erm... itself, and hard to define.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Neonlare
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 277


Nut Case for Star Control


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2007, 07:06:37 pm »

"What is truth?"

I'm damn sure Thursdays are Thursdays.
Logged

"would newton's law theory actually work if a Chmmr Avatar did a backwards pelvic thrust towards a planet and would this constitute an X=Y-0 in the part it ran straight into a Supox Blade and lasted long enough to survive?" - Elerium (as Valaggar)
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2007, 09:13:17 pm »

It is the intelligent being making the statement, the nature of which is necessarily unknown (except that it is an existing intelligent being).
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!