-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
evo said:Now,we both appear to agree that 'everything has causes' -empiricism can't alway tell us all those causes but we can agree this is the case.The law of excluded middle tells us "Everything must either be or not be." Thefore either everything is caused,or it is not.We 'know' somethings are caused,so everything must be caused-'God' as defined has no cause so within our structure he can't be considered.He doesn't exist.
All this tells us is that god is not a material part of our universe. Nothing in our universe can exist without cause, so the ultimate cause must be beyond this universe. Furthermore I would say we know God MUST exist because of the purposeful laws of this universe - leading to matter, to life and ultimately to conciousness. ;D
Djevv said:evo said:Now,we both appear to agree that 'everything has causes' -empiricism can't alway tell us all those causes but we can agree this is the case.The law of excluded middle tells us "Everything must either be or not be." Thefore either everything is caused,or it is not.We 'know' somethings are caused,so everything must be caused-'God' as defined has no cause so within our structure he can't be considered.He doesn't exist.
All this tells us is that god is not a material part of our universe. Nothing in our universe can exist without cause, so the ultimate cause must be beyond this universe. Furthermore I would say we know God MUST exist because of the purposeful laws of this universe - leading to matter, to life and ultimately to conciousness. ;D
I refer you back to the scholarly work of S. Buddha, on p. 29 of the thread.
antman said:Djevv said:evo said:Now,we both appear to agree that 'everything has causes' -empiricism can't alway tell us all those causes but we can agree this is the case.The law of excluded middle tells us "Everything must either be or not be." Thefore either everything is caused,or it is not.We 'know' somethings are caused,so everything must be caused-'God' as defined has no cause so within our structure he can't be considered.He doesn't exist.
All this tells us is that god is not a material part of our universe. Nothing in our universe can exist without cause, so the ultimate cause must be beyond this universe. Furthermore I would say we know God MUST exist because of the purposeful laws of this universe - leading to matter, to life and ultimately to conciousness. ;D
I refer you back to the scholarly work of A. Buddha, on p. 29 of the thread.
I don't believe in a God that pervades all things - I believe in a God who is separate from the material universe. I am not a Pantheist.
I find it amusing that so many seem to attempt to mystify and make over complex this very simple idea.
Isn't it S.Buddha?
Kind sir,with all due respect it is irrelevant what you 'believe' only what we can deduce 'IS'.This is not a mystification of the matter,it is a simplification of it.Djevv said:
It is the ultimate application of Occam's Razor.Ironically devised by one of christs own people.
In short Aquinas was full of it, a laughable logician.
God is invented to fill a knowledge gap illogically by arguing he should be only thing considered outside the Universe,material or otherwise.
evo said:
What I was attempting to say was the reason Buddha disbelieved in a creator God was his misconception of God 'pervading' the material universe. In other words how can God create God? I agree with him on this point.
You can deduce God from Newton's Third Law. From what Buddha said we can further deduce that the said God cannot be part of the material universe. QED ;D.
Further the really remarkable thing about Buddha's statement is two things:
1. He had a really good understanding of a Judeo-Christian concept of a personal God despite being from a Pagan background, which seems to me to back up the truth of this scripture: Rom 1:20-21' 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ' He chose to reject God, just as many of you do.
2. The arguments for belief/unbelief have changed little over the millennia.
You have misconstrued my argument,and for that matter Buddhas position.Djevv said:
When he(and I ) posit that "everything is caused" we mean literally everything.Phenomena, "things" thoughts and so forth.Everything!
Not just the material universe.You are creating a strawman argument although perhaps this is my fault I didn't emphasis this point more clearly.
We can?Do tell.I'd be really interested to hear this one.
QED God is a figment of your imagination?
I think you'll find that Buddha was around long before Jesus showed up.In fact many have argued that some of the concepts of the Bible are lifted from Buddhism.
This idea of 'accepting or rejecting' however, is a Christian concept.If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of Buddha ;D he sees there is nothing to reject.
This is true.
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly today announced his intention to organize a boycott of the 2007 World Series, on the grounds that it is part of what the fiery right winger calls “the War on Christmas.”
“This is disgraceful; this is absurd. This is a classic example of the fanatics on the cultural left trying to push their secular agenda on the county,” fumed O’Reilly without explaining what he was talking about.
“You want me to explain myself? Fine we’ll take it right into the no spin zone. Matt Holliday. That’s the problem. Why won’t the liberals and the secularists just call him Matt Christmas? You know why? Because they want to take religion out of American life.
“This is disgraceful; this is absurd. This is a classic example of the fanatics on the cultural left trying to push their secular agenda on the county,” fumed O’Reilly without explaining what he was talking about.
“You want me to explain myself? Fine we’ll take it right into the no spin zone. Matt Holliday. That’s the problem. Why won’t the liberals and the secularists just call him Matt Christmas? You know why? Because they want to take religion out of American life.
