God is only one

[Tiberius]

Its alright. I dont get my knowledge from websites and believe them like they are Gods word.

So you can of course use an ad hominem to feel good. Cheers.

I gotta laugh. You ask me a question and I provide an answer. You refuse to actually read the answer, and yet it's my fault.

I think you just don't want to have to deal with your argument being debunked.

 

[blü 2]

To worship is to love God, follow his rules and thank God for blessings in life

And never to criticize, I notice. l'd have thought an omnipotent god would have to take responsibility for the bad as well as the good.

Ah well. Thanks for your reply.

 

[idea]

To worship is to love God, follow his rules and thank God for blessings in life

To me, if you love something let it go. Love is trusting one another not controlling one another. Love is unconditional, accepting, celebrating one another.

To love yourself is to control and command others to obey.

To love others is to support them in their choices, to embrace them as they are.

 

[firedragon]

I gotta laugh. You ask me a question and I provide an answer. You refuse to actually read the answer, and yet it's my fault.

I think you just don't want to have to deal with your argument being debunked.

What argument?

 

[Tiberius]

What argument?

And once again we have the dishonest debate tactic where someone who can't support their position or answer the counter arguments claims to have forgotten what was being discussed so they don't have to deal with it.

I was talking about the debunking of your "first cause" argument. I linked to a website explaining the problems with it and you refused to read it.

 

[firedragon]

And once again we have the dishonest debate tactic where someone who can't support their position or answer the counter arguments claims to have forgotten what was being discussed so they don't have to deal with it.

I was talking about the debunking of your "first cause" argument. I linked to a website explaining the problems with it and you refused to read it.

But you still have not presented the argument that "debunks" the so called "first cause argument". A link, is just a link. Its not your argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But you still have not presented the argument that "debunks" the so called "first cause argument". A link, is just a link. Its not your argument.

Come on, I have to say that @Tiberius is not being unreasonable here.
The link he provided is brief, and not difficult to analyse.
However, in another thread, he asked me to show the maths behind relativity to prove that a fixed future is implied by it.

That, I am not prepared to do .. he is relying on that as a means to deny truth
I DID provide a link to a website that explained the maths, but he ignored it.

1. The universe exists
2. Most scientists conclude that it had a begininng
3. What existed BEFORE the "big-bang" .. nothing at all?
4. That goes against reason. How can intellect evolve from absolutely nothing?

It makes no sense to me .. if @Tiberius thinks it does, then fine..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Come on, I have to say that @Tiberius is not being unreasonable here.
The link he provided is brief, and not difficult to analyse.
However, in another thread, he asked me to show the maths behind relativity to prove that a fixed future is implied by it.

That, I am not prepared to do .. he is relying on that as a means to deny truth

1. The universe exists
2. Most scientists conclude that it had a begininng
3. What existed BEFORE the "big-bang" .. nothing at all?
4. That goes against reason. How can intellect evolve from absolutely nothing?

It makes no sense to me .. if @Tiberius thinks it does, then fine..

Well, that is the problem of reasoning. You end with a dogmatic claim, circular reasoning or infinite regress. As a skeptic, I have stop trying to make claim of what the world really is as for its objective reality including these kinds of debates.

 

[firedragon]

Come on, I have to say that @Tiberius is not being unreasonable here.
The link he provided is brief, and not difficult to analyse.
However, in another thread, he asked me to show the maths behind relativity to prove that a fixed future is implied by it.

That, I am not prepared to do .. he is relying on that as a means to deny truth
I DID provide a link to a website that explained the maths, but he ignored it.

1. The universe exists
2. Most scientists conclude that it had a begininng
3. What existed BEFORE the "big-bang" .. nothing at all?
4. That goes against reason. How can intellect evolve from absolutely nothing?

It makes no sense to me .. if @Tiberius thinks it does, then fine..

See brother, you must understand that in making arguments, just linking to some website is not an argument. You have to take the information and present it as a valid argument and say why you think its a valid argument.

The internet is large. Millions of websites.

I dont know if you understand this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See brother, you must understand that in making arguments, just linking to some website is not an argument. You have to take the information and present it as a valid argument and say why you think its a valid argument.

The internet is large. Millions of websites.

I dont know if you understand this.

Yeah, now make a valid argument in your own words, how your version of valid is valid. Or declare what what valid is, is irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, now make a valid argument in your own words, how your version of valid is valid. Or declare what what valid is, is irrelevant.

Some one said the first cause argument has been debunked. So to make a valid argument, you have to make one. Giving some random website link is not a valid argument.

A valid argument is making the argument. If you dont make an argument, its not an argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some one said the first cause argument has been debunked. So to make a valid argument, you have to make one. Giving some random website link is not a valid argument.

A valid argument is making the argument. If you dont make an argument, its not an argument.

Okay, is that all? Is that an argument itself or a dogmatic assertion or something else?

Yeah, I am going argument on what arguments are. Is that making an argument?

 

[Mock Turtle]

4. That goes against reason. How can intellect evolve from absolutely nothing?

Sorry for butting in, but would you have asked this question several thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago? Unless one ignored the overwhelming evidence as to the history of the human race. Since our 'intellect' was rather meagre so long ago. And the natural processes of information informing future knowledge is a better explanation as to why we often do have intellect now - but not always the case.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, is that all? Is that an argument itself or a dogmatic assertion or something else?

Yeah, I am going argument on what arguments are. Is that making an argument?

You are defending someone else who gave a "link" as an argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are defending someone else who gave a "link" as an argument.

No, I am asking you what an argument is.

 

[firedragon]

No, I am asking you what an argument is.

In my opinion, an argument is a gathering of reasonings that help proving or supporting a particular point of view or regulation.

 

[firedragon]

1. The universe exists
2. Most scientists conclude that it had a begininng
3. What existed BEFORE the "big-bang" .. nothing at all?
4. That goes against reason. How can intellect evolve from absolutely nothing?

Which first cause argument argues that "the first cause evolved from absolutely nothing"?

Please quote. Thanks.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which first cause argument argues that "the first cause evolved from absolutely nothing"?

Please quote. Thanks.

What's your point here?
I don't think that it's possible that anything can evolve from "nothing at all".
I believe that Allah SWT is "the Evolver from naught"..
..meaning that this physical universe appeared as if from nowhere,
because physical reality cannot exist WITHOUT Allah.

 

[firedragon]

What's your point here?
I don't think that it's possible that anything can evolve from "nothing at all".
I believe that Allah SWT is "the Evolver from naught"..
..meaning that this physical universe appeared as if from nowhere,
because physical reality cannot exist WITHOUT Allah.

The Quran says that Allah is "Samadh". It is the fundamental of all of these cosmological arguments. First cause, regression, etc.

So what is your exact point? You said that you agree with Blackjevity that the God argument is "debunk". Do you think so? God is debunk? First cause argument is debunk?

Thats what you said.

So if you think the first cause argument is "debunk", provide the argument.

Thanks.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You said that you agree with Blackjevity that the God argument is "debunk"..

No I didn't
I said that his link was not unreasonable, as it was brief and to the point.
i.e. it wouldn't take long to respond to

Personally, I don't think that the existence of G-d can be categorically proved.
I do, however, think that something evolving from absolutely nothing is not rational.
I don't consider God to be "absolutely nothing"
..but naturally, an atheist would