I can imagine the existence of a first cause... the Deist god. I can attach any features I want to it because it's all in my head... I could succumb to emotions by claiming this "first cause" must have special feeling for me more than monkeys just to feel good... I could imagine a better place where I would spend eternity with my "first cause" after I die... afterall it's all my wish.

But KingEbukasBlog/Felixomor have failed to show us how Yahweh must be that "first cause" we want so badly to exist and not Odin or Zeus. Why should a character like Yahweh be my "first cause"?

I can actually do better than Yahweh in my imaginary world.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I can imagine the existence of a first cause... the Deist god. I can attach any features I want to it because it's all in my head... I could succumb to emotions by claiming this "first cause" must have special feeling for me more than monkeys just to feel good... I could imagine a better place where I would spend eternity with my "first cause" after I die... afterall it's all my wish.

But KingEbukasBlog/Felixomor have failed to show us how Yahweh must be that "first cause" we want so badly to exist and not Odin or Zeus. Why should a character like Yahweh be my "first cause"?

I can actually do better than Yahweh in my imaginary world.

Are you a deist?

felixomor:


Are you a deist?

Nope

Deism is simply a postulation which has long been proposed by early philosophers. Every person is entitled to engage in the rational quest for the origin of the cosmos. But none of these claims can be submitted as fact or true.

Scientific facts are the only proven reality.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Nope

Deism is simply a postulation which has long been proposed by early philosophers. Every person is entitled to engage in the rational quest for the origin of the cosmos. But none of these claims can be submitted as fact or true.

Scientific facts are the only proven reality.

So the topic u raised is an argument between the deist and theist on the nature of God
because both already agree that God's existence is undisputable.

And also for side note,
There is nothing like "proven reality" in science.
Science can change its opinion at any time. What is wrong today can be right tomorrow in science.

Is this guy actually listening to himself? Whatever being that exists must have a creator basically God is not a being Nawa o circular argument. well most deist arguments is base on ignorance

felixomor:

And also for side note,
There is nothing like "proven reality" in science.
Science can change its opinion at any time. What is wrong today can be right tomorrow in science.

Yeah like how 1 + 1 = 2 can change to = 5 tomorrow

Deicide:

Yeah like how 1 + 1 = 2 can change to = 5 tomorrow

Ignoramus,
You dont even know that 1+1 in base 2, can be equal to something else ........

Mscheww

felixomor:

Ignoramus,
You dont even know that 1+1 in base 2, can be equal to something else ........

Mscheww

One plus one in base 2 is still equal to two in base 10 in base two itll be 00000010 which is still 2 in base 10 it amazes me how you think sha or did you think you actually made any sense? or does 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10 equals 5?

KingEbukasBlog:



1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause

This premise agrees that there are somethings that are without a cause and those things are uncreated . Eg God , abstract/mathematical objects

Infinite regress solved !

Issues with this argument are mainly: why is the creator an exception to the rule?

LightandDarkness:


Issues with this argument are mainly: why is the creator an exception to the rule?

There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever that begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

Isn't there an assumption then that said creator never began to exist but always existed, with no justification for this assumption.

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

Abstract things do not exist in the real world. Take numbers and lenght- these are abstract concepts that men use to count and measure.

You are admitting that your God doesn't exist

Separately this argument of existence and the nature of that which exists is interesting. I believe to assert that something exists you must describe it's nature, without a description of it's nature then it doesn't exist. To simply describe the existence of something is to state it's nature.

LightandDarkness:


Isn't there an assumption then that said creator never began to exist but always existed, with no justification for this assumption.

There is no assumption here . We know that something cannot come from nothing and infinite regress is impossible . And we have things coming into being , the expected corollary is to affirm that things that came into being must have been caused by something that has always existed or never came into existence .

This is a very simple argument

1. Whatever ever begins to exist must have a cause

This is just focusing on things that came into being or began to exist acknowledging that there are things that have always existed or never began to exist due to the necessity of their nature .

If all things have causes , then nothing will exist . There is no such as an thing as a infinite chain contingent things .

LightandDarkness:
Separately this argument of existence and the nature of that which exists is interesting. I believe to assert that something exists you must describe it's nature, without a description of it's nature then it doesn't exist. To simply describe the existence of something is to state it's nature.

Nice. This is what I have been telling Ebuka

LightandDarkness:
Separately this argument of existence and the nature of that which exists is interesting. I believe to assert that something exists you must describe it's nature, without a description of it's nature then it doesn't exist. To simply describe the existence of something is to state it's nature.

You can affirm the existence of something without describing its nature , true of false ?

Existence is a state of being

Nature is just a description

Two different things

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no assumption here . We know that something cannot come from nothing and infinite regress is impossible . And we have things coming into being , the expected corollary is to affirm that things that came into being must have been caused by something that has always existed or never came into existence .

This is a very simple argument

1. Whatever ever begins to exist must have a cause

This is just focusing on things that came into being or began to exist acknowledging that there are things that have always existed or never began to exist due to the necessity of their nature .

If all things have causes , then nothing will exist . There is no such thing as a chain contingent things .

I see, but can you justify the something that always existed is a creator being or beings or it possessed any form of consciousness or sentience.

JackBizzle:



Abstract things do not exist in the real world. Take numbers and lenght- these are abstract concepts that men use to count and measure.

You are admitting that your God doesn't exist

I'm not here up by this time to indulge in silly arguments . You've had your chance .

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm not here up by this time to indulge in silly arguments . You've had your chance .

Why is this one feeling special?

Ogbeni, open your eyes. You are in my thread.

LightandDarkness:


I see, but can you justify the something that always existed is a creator being or beings or it possessed any form of consciousness or sentience.

Of course . The universe came into being . For the universe to come into being , it shows that its creator expresses freedom of will evidently showing that it is conscious .

The creator is aware that it caused the universe's existence .

Deicide:

One plus one in base 2 is still equal to two in base 10 in base two itll be 00000010 which is still 2 in base 10 it amazes me how you think sha or did you think you actually made any sense? or does 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10 equals 5?

You are furthering your ignorance
"000000010 " ot whatever isnt base 10

My point is made, all I needed to show you was that your "1+1 = 2" is wrong in a different context.
Period.
If you wrote "2 in base 2" as your answer in a maths exam, you will fail woefully

And that clearly tell you that before the introduction of number bases, 1+1 anywhere was 2....

And that was the point I meant by what is right today, can be wrong tomorrow.......
I guess u didnt read it before commenting.

KingEbukasBlog:


You can affirm the existence of something without describing its nature , true of false ?

Existence is a state of being

Nature is just a description

Two different things

Your definitions are shallow

KingEbukasBlog:


You can affirm the existence of something without describing its nature , true of false ?

Existence is a state of being

Nature is just a description

Two different things

How can you affirm the existence of something without knowledge or awareness of an aspect of it's nature. Something exists could mean everything exists and is not specific to anyone thing, to even justify the existence of a thing you must've observed something that made you think the thing exists-that would be a proposed quality, property, feature, functions-essentially something pertaining to it's nature.

felixomor:


You are furthering your ignorance
"000000010 " ot whatever isnt base 10

My point is made, all I needed to show you was that your "1+1 = 2" is wrong in a different context.
Period.
If you wrote "2 in base 2" as your answer in a maths exam, you will fail woefully

And that clearly tell you that before the introduction of number bases, 1+1 anywhere was 2....

And that was the point I meant by what is right today, can be wrong tomorrow.......
I guess u didnt read it before commenting.

Which means that your belief in God could change tomorrow as things change

KingEbukasBlog:


Of course . The universe came into being . For the universe to come into being , it shows that its creator expresses freedom of will evidently showing that it conscious .

The creator is aware that it caused the universe's existence .

Your answer assumes knowledge of the nature of that which always existed.

LightandDarkness:


How can you affirm the existence of something without knowledge or awareness of an aspect of it's nature. Something exists could mean everything exists and is not specific to anyone thing, to even justify the existence of a thing you must've observed something that made you think the thing exists-that would be a proposed quality, property, feature, functions-essentially something pertaining to it's nature.

Kingebukasblog, these facts keep coming back to hit you, eh?

This is the exact same thing I told him

JackBizzle:




Why is this one feeling special?

You always argue and abuse when your argument has been shown to be specious and untenable .

Prove me wrong : How does the existence of abstract object like numbers , sets etc prove that God does not exist ?

If it is not a senseless cavil , then it is not JackBizzle

Ogbeni, open your eyes. You are in my thread.

Oya come and chase me

KingEbukasBlog:


You always argue and abuse when your argument has been shown to be specious and untenable .

Prove me wrong : How does the existence of abstract object like numbers , sets etc prove that God does not exist ?

If it is not a senseless cavil , then it is not JackBizzle



Oya come and chase me

We can look at this thread and see how calm I was until you and your ill started throwing insults.


You are asking me to prove the illogical fallacy you spouted?

You said God is like abstract concepts and I told you that abstract concepts do not exist

LightandDarkness:


How can you affirm the existence of something without knowledge or awareness of an aspect of it's nature. Something exists could mean everything exists and is not specific to anyone thing, to even justify the existence of a thing you must've observed something that made you think the thing exists-that would be a proposed quality, property, feature, functions-essentially something pertaining to it's nature.

Are existence and nature two different things , yes or no ?

JackBizzle:


Which means that your belief in God could change tomorrow as things change

Hian,
We are talking about science and how it operates,
We are not talking about God.

JackBizzle:

You said God is like abstract concepts and I told you that abstract concepts do not exist

Show me where I said God is like abstract objects .

felixomor:


Hian,
We are talking about science and how it operates,
We are not talking about God.

Special pleading for God?

What if science disproves God tomorrow?