No2Atheism:

1. Not part of their training.
2. Not part of their job description.
3. A good worldly leader sometimes needs to make decisions that are not spiritually correct e.g. going to war, signing off on the deaths of certain people, secret service issues and all.
4. Being a pastor is a spiritual matter not an administrative matter.

I sense a huge contradiction here. In the past many men of God have been leaders of their countries, from David, Ezekiel, Constantine, to many Christian Emperors of Europe and Asia. These men of god have been guided and advised by god or prophets of god. So why do you think such a model could not be achieved today? Have you lost confidence in the power of god to get some order here on earth?

Could not god arrange for a christian or Pastor President to only arrive at "good" decisions? If he cannot, why call him all powerful?

No2Atheism:

@topic

No

Why would a pastor not make a good president?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBF2ybZWmeQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nVIluSG69k&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mn5i467e5k&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbNE9mGDtw&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4DJP8hj5I&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC2wR8DfJQY&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHO7dYVRiAY&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lVrQtbfK5I&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3xrWofgXKI&feature=related

Where the hell is Deep Sight? I did ask some question which he has singularly failed to addrress. Here they are again:

1) What is Something?

2) What is Nothing?

Once we think we know what these terms are, can we apply them to tghe concept of god?

3) Is God Something or is God Nothing?

And crucially

[size=16pt]
4) If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size]

Mazeje, am enjoying the story already. Nicely written up! Cheers

What became of holy Mary, the Blessed Mother of God or Jesus? Did she rise up into heaven to be with her son or God. Or was she eaten up by worms and is now part of the soil of the earth?

have you tried the zuka pill - it will make you into any race or skin color you want.

This a harbinger of what we stand to expect if the Christian held sway in a nation or country - nothing but mental and fiscal corruption.

Yes, Mazeje, we would like to know when the transition happen and what pursauded you to make the conversion.

Are true Christian capable of sinning? Please, answer biblically.

Amen and God bless you!

Is anyone interested in know more about Sussicorn?

muhsin:

Who did it?

God, of course.

Which god? Was it Sussicorn, Zeus, Thor, Wothan, Yahweh, etc, etc, etc?

For me, I would certainly not have wanted to have lived before the discovery of DNA and its associated technologies. Such technologies are the greated liberators of the human race from the ignorance and darkness of religions, racism, etc, etc.

Nonetheless, I would like to pay homage to some of the great men/women in the past who were responsible for laying down the foundations of this modern world.

Deep Sight:

Knights! Arthur is back! Where's Lancelot,

Excellent comments guys, esp Prizm, Pastor & my dear Tudor. For me this is getting more interesting.

Let me make something very clear: I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ABRAHAMIC GOD - A BIG DADDY SITTING IN THE SKIES WHO CARES AND LISTENS TO PRAYERS.

I AM TRYING TO PROVE -

1. An Uncaused Cause Exists

2. It is Intelligent

3. It possesses attributes such as law, logic, a sense of order and a sense of the beautiful.

4. The composite picture formed reveals the existence of God - as should be properly understood.

5. That element, even if misrepresented, is the element referred to by established religion as God
.

Huxley: Your fisrt question above takes us back to the first equation. It is true that something cannot come out of nothing and this applies in every possible realm, world, or trajectory. See my previous explanation on this on the first page. Basically, we said even if physical laws do change from world to world, the equation on the zero quantity can never change, because zero refers to nothingness and accordingly there is nothing to change in all circumstances. Your second question i will address by simply saying that once we agree that 0 + 0 = 0, THEN EVEN IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FIRST CAUSE WAS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ONE.[/b]The job now is to determine its nature!

@ Tudor: good question, but as i have said to huxley above, there will perforce be an uncaused cause since we have seen that the things in existence [b]which we see needed a cause. For existence to be, there must be a principle that exists in itself without needing a cause. Think of the number 1 for example. Even if all the universe dissolved today and nothing exists at all - would the idea of "1" cease to exist? Or better still, the idea of zero - nothingness. Can this idea cease to exist? Can it be caused? Can it be created? No, it always was! Even nothingness itself is zero. These are things that cannot not exist - and thus do not need a cause. That's the sort of thing that the Uncauses Cause would be,

Will be back to answer Pastor soon,

OK, it seem like we are agreed in the premise that "Something cannot come out of Nothing".  As Pastor has alluded in one of his posts, this premise itself might be a little vague in the sense that some of the words have not been given a firm definition yet;

1)  What is Something?

2)  What is Nothing?

Once we think we know what these terms are, can we apply them to tghe concept of god?

3)  Is God Something or is God Nothing?

And crucially

[size=16pt]
4)  If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size]

Deep Sight:

@ pastor aio, the "1" in the equation is not necessarily God, just as the resultant 1 is not necessarily the universe. The equation is really metaphorical: to show that somethingness must be involved in the coming to be of somethingness.

As regards the question of intelligence - would you really compare the water in your kitchen sink to the cosmos? The cosmos is staggering in its beauty, tangents, movements, regeneration and the endless worlds it contains. Our earth, a mere pin prick in the universe, is similarly structured. The composite picture that emerges requires billions of perfectly interlocking relationships to form the resultant world.

I am certain you have seen the image of the eaarth as taken from the moon. Aside from the complex interlocking relationships that support its existence, it is also a spectacular work of art. I would suggest that it is a more stupendous body than water in your kitchen sink.

Is it really possible or logical that we can deny the existence of the element of intelligence, and also a sense of beauty? These elements are perforce attributes of the something that i talked about.

@ tudor, a proper understanding of the equations i set out earlier rules out your suggestion that the universe is itself the cause and intelligence. The basic law of cause and effect demonstrates this.

Hello. Did you see the questions I posted earlier. Here they are again;

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

Krayola2:

Read genesis. God clearly tells us how he did everything. What else do u want u condemned child of satan??!! So called scientists and their inconclusive findings. Men playing God. . . When Jesus comes back dem eye go clear. . . shior!!

there Huxley, I've responded on their behalf. . . what next?

This means nothing - how do you go from the god you you claim created the universe about 14 billion years ago to the one that created the world in six days about 6000 years ago?

Pastor AIO:

what is the definition of existence? When can something be said to exist and when can it be said not to exist?

I've asked this question before and it got ignored. But it is important that we have it defined before we go around claiming this exist or not. To make that claim we need to know that the things referred to fulfill the criteria for existence.

Does existence mean merely to have a position somewhere in Space/time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

It got ignored because it is not a frivolous question. CAn we hope to see what you think existence is, or is that asking for a lot?

Having said that, let me attempt a definition. For something to be said to existence, it must display some or all of the following;

1) Realisable in space/time
2) It is mind-independent
3) It has effects that can be perceived (such as energy, heat, light, minds, etc).

That is my vary basic definition and I am sure if your examine it in details you would find many faults with it, or you would find some circularity in the reasoning.

What is your definition for existence? And how would the following fair if assess against you definition?

a) A lump of coal
b) A 10 billion year old star
c) Your mind
d) The football worldcup event

Deep Sight:

Knights of the Round Table!

I'm back. Sorry i had to hurry off last night for my nightly round of beer. Lets get the discussion back on track please. Prizm, Pastor, thanks for useful insights. However indulge me a little, cos i'm going with logical decuction only for now, will come to intuition later if necessary.

We stopped at 0 + 0 = 0. I am pleased to note that every body seems to have accepted this. Prizm helped put the nail on that. I hope those who dont see the relevance of that equation to this discourse can ponder a little more on the fact that nothingness clearly cannot spwan somethingness.

[size=15pt]Let it be well understood that the world, the universe, existence, whatever you may choose to call it - is something and accordingly could not come out of nothing. That is what the equation proves.

Therefore something caused the universe. (0 + 1= 1)

The question we need to ask is - what is that "something".[/size]

The argument now is about the basic attributes of that something. I do not by any means seek to prove or show the totality of the nature of that something, but just a few incontestible attributes, that should be enough to form a composite image.

Once the composite image of that something is formed, any man can chose to call it what he will.

The key attributes of that something which i intend to infer are:

1. Intelligence

2. Law

3. Order

4. A sense of the Beautiful

5. Duality

Stay tuned,

Hello, nice to see you back.

So far, the only thing with which we all appear to agree is that the universe is something. There are two other points of contention, namely;

1) Something cannot come out of nothing. Although I accept the fact that the universe did not come from nothing, as it is accepted in cosmology that the universe came out of a singularity, it is not altogether clear whether this (ie, Something cannot come out of nothing) is true in all possible worlds.

2) That the universe is caused. You have not demonstrated this, but simply stated it as a fact. What are the conditions that obtained before the singularity started to expand, thus forming the universe? Is it conceivable that under those conditions uncaused things might have been happening?

Please, address these two points before proceeding to the rest of your arguments, otherwise your fundamental premises are untenable.

Some theists have argued that this universe MUST have been created, especially since it is generally accepted that this present form of the universe came into existence about 14 billion years ago.  If atheists are to grant that this universe was in fact created by a being, whatever that being may be, is there any link or correspondence between this being and the Abrahamic god of the bible, koran or torah?

The theist who pursue this line of reasoning relies on scientific data to buttress his/her "first cause argument".  Could they similarly rely on science to make a link between the being who, in their view, created the universe and the Abrahamic god?   If they could, we would like to see them do that here!

Tudór:

@huxley. . .
Check you recent posts it should be there. . .
Try copy half post it then copy and post the remaining. . . . In that way you have two relatively shorter posts immune from the spam bot. . .

@krayola
LOL. . .
Is it the same anointing barca used last season?

Tudor, thanks. I have done that, but it still disabled it. It was not even a long post, just about 15 - 20 sentences, about a tenth of Prizm post, yet his was not disabled.

Krayola2:

It has before.

I read your post though, so it did show up briefly. u responded to 3 and 4 of prism's post. It sucks when u type that much stuff and it just disappears

You can still see them if you click on my username (huxley) and click of the "Show last posts of this user" link at the bottom of the page.     But how does it know to disable some and leave some ok?

There seems to be a problem whenever I respond to Prizm's post by quoting his post.  This is my last response to his post:


Does familiarity with a belief systems or point of view necessarily mean that such beliefs or views could never be wrong or false?


Exactly -  "An Atheist's rejection of God is something done voluntarily", how else could it be done?  Under duress?  Under hypnosis?   As a theism, did you accept the God hypothesis involuntarily or under duress?

Exactly - you will often find that an atheist has to willfully refuse to accept  such arguments.  How else should one act to accept a proposition?  Unwillfully?


The onus is on the proposer of a claim to demonstrate that his claim is true and not the other way round.   If I accuse you of a crime, it is my responsibility to demonstrate that you have committed the crime.  You may not be obligated to demonstrate that you are innocent of the crime.   Such is the way most (if not all ) legal systems work.

[size=16pt]It is the responsibility of the theist to demonstrate that there is an entity called god.  Firstly, they will have to provide an ontology of god, which task you have proven incapable of doing.
[/size]

Which of the over 30,000 gods that theists past and present who have had experiences with these gods are you talking about?

Whymake yourself hostage of the fortunes of science.  Supposing it was to be demonstrated unequivocably that there exist multiple universes or some such, wouldn't your argument fall to pieces?

Yes, our current state of science confirms that this form (ie the inflationary and expanded form) of the universe is not eternal.  But how does that imply a personal god with whom you have experience and communicate?  You have not demonstrated that.


(Let's see if the spambot gets it)

Krayola2:

@ huxley, i think its the spam bot.

is the spambot also attacking you?

what is happening to my posts on this thread? They appear to be being disabled.

skydancer:

I have really begun to think. All these people that claim they do not believe in God. Is it madness or something close? How can one prove that there is no existence of any supreme force. If there is one who claims so, is he so wise that he can with facts, nullify the beliefs of his forefathers. Anyway, I have heard some people actually denounced the existence of God or supreme forces but later changed their views after one thing or the other happened to them. That you cannot understand something is not the reason you should not believe it. Proclaiming yourself an atheist even exposes your narrow-mindedness. Science itself has even accepted the existence of an unkown supernatural force that creates.

Where has science done so and where did science say this force is god?

wheeere Deep Sight don go naah? Is he tired of his own arguments so quickly?

Deep Sight:

I agree with you!!! I did not state that any scientist has stated that the universe started from nothing. Slow down, and you will understand my basic premises. We cannot jump too far ahead in a discussion of this nature or we will easily get lost.

I did indicate that this is a very profound discussion which needs to be taken step by step.

We both agree that the universe did not come out of nothing - very good! We will take it step by step from there.

I started it from zero, because you may not be aware that some persons would go so far as to contest that and state that it could have come from nothing. Like i said, we are building a pyramid here, every block has to be in place, dont worry, its 1 careful step at a time

OK, move on then! We are not kids here - do you think we are incapable of comprehending several steps in one post?

Deep Sight:

There is no difference!!! Look at the equations carefully and understanding will come: it simply shows that 1 cannot be produced by zero and that is the first plank of my thesis.

If that is the case, why did you start your argument with 0 + 1 = 1 ? Why did you not start with 1 = 1, or A = A? Are you familiar with Ockam's razor? Why introduce extrenous elements when they are not necessary?

Deep Sight:

Mantraa - you are getting brilliant!!!! But -

We know that the Universe is not eternal because it is expanding. That much is verified. Since it is expanding, if you follow the process backward you will find that you will see a smaller and smaller universe until you arrive at a point in the distant past where it was nothing more than a single point. So there - it started at some point - and this reasoning remains intact even if applied to the existence of any other universes. Nevertheless, since the existence of other Universes will at this point be speculation, let us confine our discussion to this universe, which we are certain had a beginning. You see, the continuous expansion of the universe is what led some scientists to initiate the big bang theory - because at some point. that expansion must have started. And the whole point of my 0 + 0 = 0 equation is to prove that it could not have started out of nothing - that something started it.

Whoever said the universe started out of nothing?  Can you show any reputable scientific source that says that?   As far as I know, currently scientific findings only says that the present universe was created out of a singularity.   The singularity is NOT nothing, or is not no thing.   PLEASE, please, note the difference and go educate yourself on the scientific data first.