Only atheists

[Koldo]

Yes

Sure. Go ahead.

 

[interminable]

Sure. Go ahead.

When A wasn't existed where was exactly???

 

[Koldo]

When A wasn't existed where was exactly???

It didn't exist, therefore it wasn't anywhere.

 

[interminable]

It didn't exist, therefore it wasn't anywhere.

So when it wasn't existed then was existed by itself it means it created itself which means when it wasn't existed it was existed and this is contradiction

At a same time A is either existed or non existent

That's why something else should create A to jump into existence

 

[Koldo]

So when it wasn't existed then was existed by itself it means it created itself which means when it wasn't existed it was existed and this is contradiction

At a same time A is either existed or non existent

That's why something else should create A to jump into existence

No. It didn't create itself. It just came into existence. Nothing created it. It didn't exist before it came into existence.

 

[interminable]

No. It didn't create itself. It just came into existence. Nothing created it. It didn't exist before it came into existence.

How weird
R u kidding me?

If isn't created by anything and isn't created by itself so how it came to existence?


Actually this argument is very simple

 

[Koldo]

How weird
R u kidding me?

If isn't created by anything and isn't created by itself so how it came to existence?


Actually this argument is very simple

It just came into existence. No creator required. No 'how'. It just did. I am not kidding you. I am serious.
Why do you regard it as impossible for things to come into existence without a creator ?
Are you using what you know about this world to infer that ? Are you making strict use of 'common sense' ?

 

[interminable]

It just came into existence. No creator required. No 'how'. It just did. I am not kidding you. I am serious.
Why do you regard it as impossible for things to come into existence without a creator ?
Are you using what you know about this world to infer that ? Are you making strict use of 'common sense' ?

Actually I can't help more. Sorry about that

 

[interminable]

Now I have trouble taking you seriously. With every exchange, your claims get wider and bolder, until it's all mixed together with claims that suggest a collection of rambling text is somehow beyond reproach, suggesting that using the medium of poetry is supposed to have additional explanatory power, and how some hastorical warlord is supposed to have performed miracles.

All this to explain why you aren't afraid of death.

You don't know any of this for yourself, and anyone who wasn't raised to believe it finds it to be a garbage argument from authority.

Give me a real argument based on things that you actually know, stop appealing to authority, and throw out the garbage.

Actually what made us to reach here?

And I don't know what u r trying to know exactly

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that
U always focus on some parts of my claims and in other times on some other parts

... which is perfectly fair. For your argument to be correct, every single part of it must be correct. If any part is wrong, then your argument can be thrown away.

When we proved everything that is created needs a cause we will face a chain of possible existents

I don't think you proved anything yet.

U have 2 options
1. All of them are possible existents which we say infinite regress is impossible

2. Some of them should be necessary and some are possible existents

In this case u proved my claim that there is something that is necessary and isn't created by anything else

Clear??????

Not at all. Especially since I think that calling things that exist "necessary" and "possible" is usually just a word game.

 

[Koldo]

Actually I can't help more. Sorry about that

To be honest, I don't understand why I had to get into any of this when you have used modal logic terminology in some of your posts.
The concept behind 'possible,' as in 'possible worlds', is that anything that doesn't contradict logic would be 'possible'. Something that came into existence without a creator doesn't contradict logic.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I told before mysticism has many levels that to some extent unbelievers can reach but after special point they can't go further.

Well, guess what? You are quite wrong.

I can't prove it just told what I heard from our gnostics

It seems that we will both have to accept that our parameters of reference do not agree with each other.

 

[YmirGF]

It just came into existence. No creator required. No 'how'. It just did. I am not kidding you. I am serious.
Why do you regard it as impossible for things to come into existence without a creator ?
Are you using what you know about this world to infer that ? Are you making strict use of 'common sense' ?

Works for me, but I can see how a person with a deep emotional belief in a creator may not be able to understand.

 

[columbus]

How weird
R u kidding me?

For most of human history everybody believed that the sun revolved around the earth. The idea that something as huge and immovable as earth could revolve around something small and movable was too weird to believe.
Finding out differently caused a lot of trouble for religious people because their Scripture didn't say that either.
But it was just as true then as it is now. We just understand reality better than we did then. Gravity, and the sheer scale of the Universe, are now known about. Before, they weren't. And that's when the Abrahamic scriptures were being invented.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Works for me, but I can see how a person with a deep emotional belief in a creator may not be able to understand.

It may also be to some extent na environmental issue. How possible exactly can it be for a person to consider a line of thought that may bring with it severe clashes with Family and friends?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Actually what made us to reach here?

And I don't know what u r trying to know exactly

This conversion started because I said that most of the fear of death comes from religion. Then that same
Religion offers a "cure" with salvation, eternal life, etc.

You questioned this. Then I asked questions.

So far, every time I ask "how do you know this?" you just say something along the lines of "my religion says so."

That pretty much sums it up. Getting bored. Later.

 

[interminable]

Works for me, but I can see how a person with a deep emotional belief in a creator may not be able to understand.

For most of human history everybody believed that the sun revolved around the earth. The idea that something as huge and immovable as earth could revolve around something small and movable was too weird to believe.
Finding out differently caused a lot of trouble for religious people because their Scripture didn't say that either.
But it was just as true then as it is now. We just understand reality better than we did then. Gravity, and the sheer scale of the Universe, are now known about. Before, they weren't. And that's when the Abrahamic scriptures were being invented.
Tom

I can't and couldn't question causality since everything of my life and science is based upon it

And it's weird too that he says I can't understand it. To say something without any reason is easy for u but I can't

 

[interminable]

This conversion started because I said that most of the fear of death comes from religion. Then that same
Religion offers a "cure" with salvation, eternal life, etc.

You questioned this. Then I asked questions.

So far, every time I ask "how do you know this?" you just say something along the lines of "my religion says so."

That pretty much sums it up. Getting bored. Later.

Fear of death depends on somethings

One and the most important one is that how much u stick to this world and its beauty
Those who don't care about it can die easily without fear


Besides when I have no knowledge about something should I invent?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's clear because everybody can speak and write

Instead of all these arguments wasn't better to bring some verses like the Qur'an and make me atheist too?

I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I for one do not have such a goal.

Convincing you of choosing more reliable paramenters than the Qur'an and having a more questioning, more skeptical attitude towards them, sure.

But making an atheist out of you? No. There is no point in having that as a goal. Not everyone is confortable with atheism, nor is that likely to change.

Everyone should learn to accept and respect atheism. But not to adhere to it or even to attempt to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

First thank u
Look

This very simple question that Luis didn't answer to it proves that the concept of running will never happen.

And this is what we say when we talk about impossibility of vicious circle. In this example two runners are existed but just they decide not to run until the other runs.

So imagine two existents which both of them aren't necessary existents

Which one is creator????
A created B and B created A?
This is impossible



This simple reason shows that infinite regress is impossible
When we proved that infinite regress is impossible and consider causality too we must prove that there is an existent that is necessary and isn't created by anything else.

Is it hard????


Please if u wanna reject my claims just use logic.

Sorry, I didn't see this, else would have responded sooner.
Perhaps it's too late now, but for what it's worth...

Assuming your logic of infinite regress is true (for the sake of this discussion) that tells us nothing about the pre-existing agent of change. It certainly doesn't tell us that said agent requires women to wear a head covering. Religion makes (in general) more specific claims of the agent than can be supported.

I have no need to try and reject your logic, for the same reason I don't bother arguing with Deists, pantheists or panentheists. If there is an original cause, and you want to call it God, that's fine. But once you start defining God, and God starts impacting on how people behave or how they expect me to behave, I expect more of a rationale than 'infinite regress' to explain why.