65 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Thank you for your contribution of:

• Some book on amazon by someone who "mixes biblical teaching and Christian apologetics." (I wager its called apologetics because the things perpetrated by religion have been so horrible)
• A Christian blog post
• A link to some fundamentalist Christian page
• A video that doesn't work

I know you don't understand the concept of original content, but thanks for trying.


This is why religion was invented: ^^^^^^^^^

Well this is real proof. I am not interested.

[johnross47]

WHO MADE GOD?

Amazon.com: Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (9780310247104): Ravi Zacharias, Norman L. Geisler: Books

HE said what?: Who Made God? An arguement for the existance of God.

Who created the creator? Who created God?, etc. | True Freethinker

Who Made God?

If Eveything Needed a Creator, Then Who Created God? Watch Free Videos Online - Vidbox.org

Who invented the idea that man made God? – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I don't have the time to read all this stuff.....i don't imagine anyone with a proper life to live would have. You presumably have it all listed in your obsessions folder ready to use. I have picked out one of these pieces randomly for examination.


Wednesday, February 3, 2010

<a name="872383738494668823">
Who Made God? An arguement for the existance of God.

How can you prove that God exists? What logic is there to support such a position? One of the best possible arguements to support that it can be logically proven that God does exist comes from Dr. Norman Geisler, so I won't try to use my own puny arguement, I will simply outline his. His arguement, as outlined here, is only a summary of the key points, and does not included in-depth detail. For more detail please see his book entitled "Christian Apologetics".
Here is the arguement:

• Some things undeniably exist
  
  • It is undeniable that some things exist. To deny one’s own existence cannot be done without affirming it.
• My nonexistence is possible
  
  • 3 logical categories of existence:
    
  • i. Impossible
  • ii. Possible
  • iii. Necessary
  • So, my existence is not impossible.
  • What exists only proves that its existence is possible. Only impossible things can not exist.
  • My existence is not necessary. A necessary existence is on that cannot not exist. If there is a necessary being, then it must exist necessarily.
• How do I know that I am not a necessary being?
  
  • i. A necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality
    
  • If it had potentiality, it would be possible for it not to exist, but this is precisely what a necessary existence cannot do.
  • Actuality is the state of actually existing, pure actuality is the state of existing without being able to exist in any other way
• ii. A necessary existence would be changeless
  
  • Whatever changes must have the ability to change, but since a necessary existence has not possibility (potential) it cannot have the possibility to change.
• iii. A necessary existence would have to be a nontemporal and nonspatial existence
  
  • Space and time involve change of position and moment. A necessary existence cannot involve either of these.
• iv. A necessary existence would have to be eternal
  
  • If it ever did not exist, then it would be a possible existence.
  • It has no possibility of non‐existence
• v. There can be only one necessary existence
  
  • What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is real potentiality for differentiation.
• vi. A necessary existence would have to be simple and undivided.
  
  • There is no principle of differentiation in it, all is simply one
• vii. A necessary existence would have to be infinite in whatever attributes it possesses
• iii. A necessary existence would have to be an uncaused being
  
  • If it is caused, it can not be necessary &
  • It is impossible to be self‐caused,
  • Therefore it must be uncaused.

[*]Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another

• The existence of a potential existent is either;
  
• Self Caused (which is impossible)
• Caused by another
• Uncaused

[*]There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence

• Only a necessary Being can cause the existence of a contingent being. Therefore, the very first being causing the existence of a contingent being must be a necessary being.

[*]Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my existence exists

• If I undeniably exist and if my nonexistence is possible, then I must have a cause that actualizes my existence.

[*]This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all‐knowing and all‐perfect

• All‐Powerful
  
  • By power we mean what can effect a change in another or what can cause something else to be or not to be in some way.
  • This uncaused cause is infinite in its being
  • Hence, it has non‐limited causal power to do anything that is possible to do, though it cannot do what is impossible to do
• All‐Knowing
  
  • Knowing beings exist
  • I am a knowing being
  • Whatever I am, I have been caused to be
    
  • I cause my own becoming, but not my being
• Hence, the actual ability to know is caused to be
• The cause cannot give what it does not have to give
• This uncaused cause is infinite in its being
• Hence, it has non‐limited ability to know anything it is possible to know, and it must know simply, eternally and in an unchanging way.

[*]This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God"

• By "God" we mean what is worthy of worship
• If the foregoing arguments are sound we have good reason to believe that an ultimate value worthy of our worship or ultimate commitment does indeed exist. For what is infinately good, and is the ground and creator of all finite goods and persons is certainly worthy of worship. Nothing has more intrinsic value than the ultimate ground and source of all value. Hence, nothing is more worthy of worship than the infinitely perfect uncaused cause of all that exists. It is appropriate to call this cause "God"

[*]Therefore, God exists

• What in religion is known as the ultimate object of worship or commitment is by reason know to exist.
• The God the heart needs, the head has good reason to believe really exists

[*]This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures

• The God described in the Bible is said to be;
  
• Eternal (Col 1:16; Heb. 1:2)
• Changeless (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18)
• Infinite (I Kings 8:27; Isa 66:1)
• All‐Loving (John 3:16; I John 4:16)
• All‐Powerful (Heb. 1:3; Matt. 19:26)

[*]Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists
[/list]This is drivel! Firstly, the three proposed categories of existence are just nonsense. "Impossible" is not a category of existence it is a non-existent category, a category of non-existence, and we can just ignore it as vapid filler. "Necessary" is at least discussable, but I would suggest not really open to being proved or disproved. How would we go about deciding that something was necessary rather than just possible? Your guru says that a necessary existence is one that could not not exist. How would you tell? What are the criteria. This is just the usaul religious trick of conjuring up convenient special definitions to fit the argument.

[johnross47]

I had to go off and do something useful.........to continue;
The distinction between necessary and possible is empty....it suggests that the universe could be other than it is. Obviously it is not possible for us to predict in any practical sense what the state of the universe will be in a few moments time, but there is no way that it can be other than what it turns out to be. The state of the universe at any given moment is a necessary outcome of the state it was in before. In this sense anything which exists at that time is "necessary", and obviously, "possible". These really are empty statements; you cannot hang some logical argument from such non distinctions. These are the fundamental premises of this guy's argument so his argument is nonsense.

The statement further down......" A necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality" is the sort of wafty vacuous nonsense produced by smoking too much weed. He already knows a load of mystical "facts" about his god and simply writes them into his argument. They mean nothing. They are completely unsupported by any evidence or explanation.

A quick glance at your other links shows them to be no better. Frankly I am surprised by your claim to have 2 masters degrees. No university I have ever experienced would reward this nonsense. If you really studied logic and philosophy it must have been in some other dimension of reality.

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47

This is drivel! Firstly, the three proposed categories of existence are just nonsense. "Impossible" is not a category of existence it is a non-existent category, a category of non-existence, and we can just ignore it as vapid filler. "Necessary" is at least discussable, but I would suggest not really open to being proved or disproved. How would we go about deciding that something was necessary rather than just possible? Your guru says that a necessary existence is one that could not not exist. How would you tell? What are the criteria. This is just the usaul religious trick of conjuring up convenient special definitions to fit the argument.

You are arguing with an index outline of Norman L Geislers book on Apologetics. http://www.amazon.co...31766828&sr=1-4

He also wrote: “I Don’t have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”
http://www.amazon.co...31766828&sr=1-2

Check them out where you will find in the text where he develops his arguments. You are fighting a straw man and obviously have not done your homework. Frankly it is strange to argue with an index outline off the computer as if you are arguing with the actual book. All the name calling when you have scarcely looked at the cover of the book, if that. By the way I mentioned this book over two years ago. You do have a file on me! Wow! Very weird!

[mikeinnaples]

Religion is a way to control the behavior and social values of the masses, as well as provide an attempt to explain the unexplainable. There is not a shred of proof that a god exist, but there is absolute proof that religions influences behavior and social values of thier respective followers.

Once the world was flat and a god driven flaming chariot was responsible for moving the sun across the sky. Others believed that earth was the center of the universe and other yet believe that the world moved about the cosmos on the back of a giant turtle. Would you hold to those beliefs now? Most sane people wouldnt and in fact, if you preached it and tried to force it down everyone's throat, you would most likely end up in a tiny little padded room, pumped full of medication to stop your 'delusions'.

We shouldn't value false gods and false ideologies, we should value LIFE.

[mikeinnaples]

(expecting inane video links and random trolling garbage from Shadowhawk once he sees my post ...lmfao).

[shadowhawk]

(expecting inane video links and random trolling garbage from Shadowhawk once he sees my post ...lmfao).

What Proof?

[johnross47]

The only entertaining thing about you is the totally random nature of the drivel......I suggest that superstition should be put back in its own box....a seperate topic section from all the rational discussion and the sane among us won't have to see the provocatively stupid topic headings and be tempted to waste our time responding to someone who never deals with the substance of anybody's comments.

[hooter]

You are on a road. Wake wake wake shadowhawk, up. Let the butterfly spread its

Edited by hooter, 15 March 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The only entertaining thing about you is the totally random nature of the drivel......I suggest that superstition should be put back in its own box....a seperate topic section from all the rational discussion and the sane among us won't have to see the provocatively stupid topic headings and be tempted to waste our time responding to someone who never deals with the substance of anybody's comments.

You are the one making the claim! No Evidence but name calling Logical Fallacies.

[shadowhawk]

You are on a road. Wake wake wake shadowhawk, up. Let the butterfly spread its

What great points. Things can get invented!

[johnross47]

your constant calling of "logical fallacy" or "off topic" or whatever leaves me more and more convinced that you are not what you claim. Somebody who really had two masters degrees in philosophy etc would be making proper arguments and addressing the points made by others, not just shouting the same irrelevant insults. You never produce any arguments of your own; you just list more or less stupid links and quotes; every one I've bothered to follow has been the sort of nonsense produced by half educated preachers who think they are smarter than any of those college educated folks. You obviously haven't had sufficient education in those subjects to recognise them for what they are. I am calling phony! Yes, I'm calling you a name; this time I really am. I'm guessing that you're really a spotty, inadequate, unpopular teenager with religious obsessions and messianic delusions.

[hooter]

Shadowhawk, as a religious fundamentalist your very presence in this thread itself is off topic. I suggest you get off this topic. Return to your shoulder self-patting threads and stop clogging this discussion with void double-posts. Thank you.

God was invented because of certain switches in our neurology and what we experience on substances labelled entheogens.

Edited by hooter, 16 March 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[wowser]

religion is there cos God exists... aint invented mate! lol!

[shadowhawk]

your constant calling of "logical fallacy" or "off topic" or whatever leaves me more and more convinced that you are not what you claim. Somebody who really had two masters degrees in philosophy etc would be making proper arguments and addressing the points made by others, not just shouting the same irrelevant insults. You never produce any arguments of your own; you just list more or less stupid links and quotes; every one I've bothered to follow has been the sort of nonsense produced by half educated preachers who think they are smarter than any of those college educated folks. You obviously haven't had sufficient education in those subjects to recognise them for what they are. I am calling phony! Yes, I'm calling you a name; this time I really am. I'm guessing that you're really a spotty, inadequate, unpopular teenager with religious obsessions and messianic delusions.

How educated. You must be right with your straw men attacks. All Logical fallacies. Where is the Evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 March 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, as a religious fundamentalist your very presence in this thread itself is off topic. I suggest you get off this topic. Return to your shoulder self-patting threads and stop clogging this discussion with void double-posts. Thank you.

God was invented because of certain switches in our neurology and what we experience on substances labelled entheogens.

Off topic name calling.. Evidence? None.

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 March 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[johnross47]

"You must be right with your straw men attacks. All Logical fallacies. Where is the Evidence?"

Do you have any other responses? Don't you know why people are having a go at you? I'll give you a couple of helpful hints....it's not because of your charm or your wit or your scintillating repartee, nor is because we're all in awe of your erudition and the cutting aptness of your replies.

[hooter]

He's a mind control victim. I think we should stop feeding his delusions.

[johnross47]

Yes! Don't feed the troll is probably good advice. Maybe if we all ignore him he'll go away. On the other hand, going by his performance to date he might just do something really entertaining, like taking all his clothes off and dancing across our screen. It works for most three year olds.

[wowser]

just cos people who corrupt have done bad things in name of religion dont make regilion all bad... how can u say religion was invented? i dont get it!

[hooter]

Oh ok, explain muslim suicide bombers. They aren't extremists. Somewhere like 70% of pakistani and palestinian muslims support suicide bombing by civilians. Even 20% of young muslims in western countries (England, France) support the bombing of civilians. This is because it is in their scripture. They believe they will be rewarded in paradise if they drive a bus into a group of children. Do you have any idea how powerful of a motivator this is? Paradise and everlasting joy, if only you blow yourself up.

I know you won't, but I suggest reading "Letters to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.

Have you actually read the bible? It calls repeatedly for murder, over and over and over and over again. Even Jesus is said to return and 'eternally destroy the unbelievers' and put them in a pit of hell.

If you think that you are going to be uplifted into a sky realm of celestial beauty while everyone who disagrees with you is sent into a perpetual oven, I would say that is as arrogant as the Nazis putting jews in ovens for being 'lesser' people. Can you explain how this is any different?

Edited by hooter, 20 March 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[shadowhawk]

"You must be right with your straw men attacks. All Logical fallacies. Where is the Evidence?"

Do you have any other responses? Don't you know why people are having a go at you? I'll give you a couple of helpful hints....it's not because of your charm or your wit or your scintillating repartee, nor is because we're all in awe of your erudition and the cutting aptness of your replies.

Atheists on this board seem to love Logical Fallacies chief among them Ad Hominem personal attacks. Endless name calling. I would not continue to point it out if you didn’t continue to do it. Another favorite of Atheists is to go off topic. It seems hysterical to me. Usually when Atheists go off topic, their in attack mode, spewing one logical fallacy after another unrelated to the topic. Don’t point this out is the cry!

The subject before us is why religion was invented. It carries with it an assumption, and that is was it in fact invented. Where is the evidence? Is belief in God invented? If it is ,does that make it untrue and we logically should believe there is no God? Just because something is believed by man, does it follow it is therefore untrue? Evidence.

Not only do I think this is a bankrupt type of atheist argument but it is logically extremely weak.

[shadowhawk]

Oh ok, explain muslim suicide bombers. They aren't extremists. Somewhere like 70% of pakistani and palestinian muslims support suicide bombing by civilians. Even 20% of young muslims in western countries (England, France) support the bombing of civilians. This is because it is in their scripture. They believe they will be rewarded in paradise if they drive a bus into a group of children. Do you have any idea how powerful of a motivator this is? Paradise and everlasting joy, if only you blow yourself up.

I know you won't, but I suggest reading "Letters to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.

Have you actually read the bible? It calls repeatedly for murder, over and over and over and over again. Even Jesus is said to return and 'eternally destroy the unbelievers' and put them in a pit of hell.

If you think that you are going to be uplifted into a sky realm of celestial beauty while everyone who disagrees with you is sent into a perpetual oven, I would say that is as arrogant as the Nazis putting jews in ovens for being 'lesser' people. Can you explain how this is any different?

[hooter]

I think at this point you could be replaced by a perl script that just automatically creates your posts based on heuristics and algorithms...

Thanks for posting that debate by the way, Sam Harris is single-handedly the best argumentator for critical thinking alive. You've done me a great service.

Edited by hooter, 20 March 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[johnross47]

I think at this point you could be replaced by a perl script that just automatically creates your posts based on heuristics and algorithms...

Thanks for posting that debate by the way, Sam Harris is single-handedly the best argumentator for critical thinking alive. You've done me a great service.

Curiously, I've been having exactly the same thought. Is this guy real? There's something mechanical about his repetitive and inappropriate responses. The only thing that argues against this is his bad grammar and random typos, though I suppose a cunning hacker might build these in to mimic a furious teenager. To prove that he's real suppose we challenge him to actually address a point with a clear calm and logical argument with proper use of evidence and logical structure to support his contentions.

[mikeinnaples]

I think at this point you could be replaced by a perl script that just automatically creates your posts based on heuristics and algorithms...

Thanks for posting that debate by the way, Sam Harris is single-handedly the best argumentator for critical thinking alive. You've done me a great service.

Curiously, I've been having exactly the same thought. Is this guy real? There's something mechanical about his repetitive and inappropriate responses. The only thing that argues against this is his bad grammar and random typos, though I suppose a cunning hacker might build these in to mimic a furious teenager. To prove that he's real suppose we challenge him to actually address a point with a clear calm and logical argument with proper use of evidence and logical structure to support his contentions.

Good luck with that. All he seems capable of is posting links to other people's arguements instead of thinking freely for himself and making his own. On that note, I want to contribute the latter part of my statement as evidence that he is in fact a real person and not a script. Inability to freely think for yourself is a common trait of those brainwashed by religion. Given that, I would simply have to say that he is just an extreme case with a need to draw attention on himself and play the role of martyr.

[shadowhawk]

You guys are perfect examples of argument using Logical Fallacies, specializing in Ad Hominem. Where is the evidence? None. Ho Hum Rave on.

[hooter]

Whoever coded shadowhawk 0.9 beta is quite an impressive programmer, however I doubt it could come anywhere near passing a turing test. I'd suggest integrating public facebook databank correspondence so that it becomes less repetitive.

Edited by hooter, 21 March 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[johnross47]

Whoever coded shadowhawk 0.9 beta is quite an impressive programmer, however I doubt it could come anywhere near passing a turing test. I'd suggest integrating public facebook databank correspondence so that it becomes less repetitive.

They could also get it to use terms like "logical fallacy" only where it is refering to a putatatively logical, but wrong, argument. The mechanical reiteration of it's three stock responses, often one after the other and without any attempt at logical analysis does tend to give the game away.

[shadowhawk]

Whoever coded shadowhawk 0.9 beta is quite an impressive programmer, however I doubt it could come anywhere near passing a turing test. I'd suggest integrating public facebook databank correspondence so that it becomes less repetitive.

They could also get it to use terms like "logical fallacy" only where it is refering to a putatatively logical, but wrong, argument. The mechanical reiteration of it's three stock responses, often one after the other and without any attempt at logical analysis does tend to give the game away.

I assumed you guys knew what I am talking about. Here is one of many sources on Logical Fallacies I have.Read and it will soon become obvious what I am talking about. http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Where is the evidence? None

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 March 2012 - 09:17 PM.