God is only one

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Here is my problem. I think God exists. Now I doubt that it is my thinking that causes God to exist. Likewise I don't think, that me thinking that God doesn't exist, determines that God doesn't exist.
So that is the limit of thinking and that has never so far been overcome. I.e. what I think can only have an effect on something else if it can be show to have an effect.
Now that says nothing about where God exists or not. I just doubt that it has anything to do with what I think.
And yes, if you think that is different for you, I like to hear your argument.

 

[firedragon]

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

Brother. This is my way. I just do not go to "links" that people simply post here. I have been here for a long time.

Someone just reads a summation somewhere on the internet, repeats it here, does not understand the logic and the philosophy behind some argument, but just gives some link expecting you to read and discuss it here, then he calls you lazy.

So its not gonna happen. Hope you understand.

Peace.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Not this atheist. Stop doing that,

 

[wellwisher]

Disagree



First i am atheist so no gods exist.

Second there have been at least 3600 creator gods worshiped throughout known history. So assuming a creator god does exist then which one? Or maybe they all did a bit.

And third, again assuming a god exists and it's the god you favour, how do you know what your god wants?

God is a 3-D concept, while human language is 2-D; cause and affect.

A 3-D concept like God is analogous to a 3-D ball. A 3-D ball or sphere can be approximated by an large number of 2-D circles, all with a common center, with all at different angles.

Each religion, based on human language for thought and perception, is like one of the 2-D circles. Since each circle touches the common 3-D center; one God, each will intuitively sense a connection to the one God; partial truth. But since they are all 2-D circles and none are 3-D, each falls short of the 3-D nature of God. Instead, from the many; all religions, comes the one 3-D God. Faith is the 3-D key.

The ancients thought in terms of symbolism which is based on a 3-D language. God was not reduced to a 2-D circle of language based on cause and affect. He is the sum of all such language based perception circles. The integration of all the many religions fills in the 3-D nature of God.

The analogy is there are 6000 known languages on the earth. Each is like a circle with a common center; universal 3-D language, but at different angles. Each has it own sounds and unique rules but any can be used by humans to express the same meanings. There is no one universal language, since they all work at some level. It is the sum of all languages that approximates the universal language; 3-D.

The story of the tower of Babel was when the 3-D language of the unconscious mind became manifest as large number of 2-D circles; many 2-D languages from one 3-D language. We can all think the same things even if the sounds and rules do not seem to overlap.

 

[DNB]

judaism, christianity, islam has got many of their teachings from zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is according to many the first and oldest monotheistic religion. Zoroastrianism is older than judaism, christianity. Zoroastrianism believe in hell and heaven, one God, prophet of God, beings that is similar to angels

I know many people believe judaism is older than zoroastrianism. Maybe this is true. If it is true then that do not change my view that zoroastrianism is similar to judaism. It is so similar that historians know zoroastrianism and the three Abrahamic religions is influenced by each other

The fact that some religions preceded the true monotheist ones, does not necessitate a collusion if you will, but merely a recognition of certain axiomatic truths that God has revealed through natural revelation.
But, also, it can be argued that the devil, who is entirely familiar with the Word of God, has influenced many people to contrive religions that have a semblance of the truth.

 

[ChristineM]

God is a 3-D concept, while human language is 2-D; cause and affect.

Having spent my working life as a successful 3D artist id like to know what the hell you are talking about?

Also note there are almost as many named gods throughout history as there have been languages.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

What, you want me to copy and paste it for you? My argument would consist of the same points mentioned in the link.

 

[firedragon]

What, you want me to copy and paste it for you? My argument would consist of the same points mentioned in the link.

With all due respect, I didn't ask you to cut and paste anything. I asked you to make your own argument.

 

[Tiberius]

Come on, I have to say that @Tiberius is not being unreasonable here.
The link he provided is brief, and not difficult to analyse.

Thanks.

 

[Tiberius]

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..

Time is a property of the universe. There was no "before" the big bang. It's talking about a time before time even existed. The question is non-sensical. It's like asking where you were a thousand years ago.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Time is a property of the universe. There was no "before" the big bang. It's talking about a time before time even existed. The question is non-sensical. It's like asking where you were a thousand years ago.

We don't know that, because we can't observe outside the universe. So we don't know if there is something there or not. Be a skeptic and admit to the limits of knowledge.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Time is a property of the universe. There was no "before" the big bang. It's talking about a time before time even existed. The question is non-sensical. It's like asking where you were a thousand years ago.

True. It is difficult to explain the infinite in common language
Calculus uses the notion of infinitesimal quantity. It can be shown to be valid.
i.e. As we approach time t=0

So, does t=0 actually exist? Zero is problematic.
In any case, the argument still applies. "Where" did the universe come from?

 

[Sheldon]

certain axiomatic truths that God has revealed

 

[Sheldon]

We don't know that, because we can't observe outside the universe. So we don't know if there is something there or not. Be a skeptic and admit to the limits of knowledge.

That's just a subjective opinion...

 

[lukethethird]

God is only one. God wants us to only worship him because it was God who created us. This i believe.

Do you agree or disagree?

I believe that God is a character from a collection of books called The Bible, so I guess that's a disagree.

 

[DNB]

You're incorrigible!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's just a subjective opinion...

Yeah, as all other subjective opinions about the objective and metaphysical status the universe in itself. All beliefs in the set of beliefs about the objective and metaphysical status the universe in itself are opinions. Notice I didn't all beliefs as all kinds of beliefs. I wrote All beliefs in the set of beliefs about...
That you are apparently unable to understand this: Philosophy of science - Wikipedia is not my problem.
In effect that you don't understand that the reason we can't know as agnostics whether there is a creator god or not, is tied to that wikipedia page. It is about the limitations of knowledge.
So if you claim that the world is physical, you know that there is no god, because there can't be a god, because the world is physical. Yet you are an agnostic and thus you admit that you don't know that the world is physical, because you admit that the world could be non-physical as created by a god.

So as a skeptic, I admit subjectively when I don't know and state my opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

You're incorrigible!

You seem to be irony impaired.

 

[Tiberius]

With all due respect, I didn't ask you to cut and paste anything. I asked you to make your own argument.

You want me to make my own argument, when you can't do the same? You came out with a tired old rehash of the First Cause argument.

 

[Tiberius]

We don't know that, because we can't observe outside the universe. So we don't know if there is something there or not. Be a skeptic and admit to the limits of knowledge.

All the evidence we have indicates that time is a dimension of our universe and thus doesn't exist outside our universe. But even if I were to grant you point (which I don't), the same logic works in reverse, and we can't assume that there WAS time "before" the Big Bang, so Muhammad's claim still fails.