>For God to be ETERNAL there can NEVER have been a time BEFORE he was God; and yet---logically---unless God __assumed__the attributes of "god-ness" he would merely be an alive "something" or other and not God.
Dear Terry,
1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
A. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
B. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God. if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes which cannot be. This is paradoxical. By definition, God is uncaused. You cannot take it any further back than that. We reach a limit to rationality that is beyond our comprehension, just as our limit on understanding both immensity and the complexity of it all.
Rex
The most EERIE passage in a Watchtower Publication leads to atheisim
by Terry 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Terry
>For God to be ETERNAL there can NEVER have been a time BEFORE he was God; and yet---logically---unless God __assumed__the attributes of "god-ness" he would merely be an alive "something" or other and not God.
Dear Terry,
1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
A. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
B. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers.1.Things exist. Yes. But, alleged things don't necessarily exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist. *(Not really; not all. The constituency of all things is matter/energy. It is NOT possible for matter/energy to not exist.) Oops. There goes your argument.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. (An awkward construction! We've established that matter/energy IS the constituency of all things which exist and this undermined your argument once and for all. Asking it inside out doesn't improve it.
4.There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. (Matter/energy are equivalent. Matter converts to energy and vice-verse. This bypasses the cause-effect nature of your statement because of the equivalency. It is called the Law of Conservation of Energy.)
Let's skip the redux and head for the biggie:
THE UNCAUSED CAUSE must be GOD.
Nope.
You are trying to perform a magic trick by pulling a convenient (to your reasoning) rabbit out of a hat.
You cannot account for God. You are willing to stipulate that God just-happened-to-exist and that is fine with you. But, you tear your hair out trying to account for matter/energy and insist there just HAS TO BE a fella behind it all (albeit an invisible one.)
This is vapid reasoning and impractical and, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
Can't you see that?
T.
-
Shining One
Terry,
>1. Things exist. Yes. But, alleged things don't necessarily exist.
Things most certainly do exist, for example: you cannot be dreaming all of your reality. If you step in front of a speeding vehicle or jump off of a cliff.....do you see what I am saying? This argument leads to other fallacies.
>2. It is possible for those things to not exist. *(Not really; not all. The constituency of all things is matter/energy. It is NOT possible for matter/energy to not exist.) Oops. There goes your argument.
Where does my argument go? Since the universe is not eternal, a point of existence had to occur!
Let's follow this up now:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe cannot be infinitely old because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy long ago.
A. Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics that states that all things are moving toward chaos and no-usable energy. In other words, everything is running down.
3. The universe is not in a state of entropy, therefore it is not infinitely old.
4. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning.
5. The universe could not have brought itself into existence (Indeed, if the 'Big Bang' is the result of a First Cause and the theory is more or less correct, why did the matter gather in 'clumps' and not spread out universally even?).
6. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into existence.
7. That something is God.
>You cannot account for God. ; You are willing to stipulate that God just-happened-to-exist and that is fine with you. ; But, you tear your hair out trying to account for matter/energy and insist there just HAS TO BE a fella behind it all (albeit an invisible one.)
>It is a conclusion that defeats the logic of your own reasoning, that's what it is (see statement 5, above)!
>This is vapid reasoning and impractical and, frankly, intellectually dishonest.Can't you see that?
Actually, no I can't. Statements 1-7 follow each other nicely though they are simplistic....
Where have we gotten our intelligence and from where does rational thought come? Why would life be any more likely to come in 20 billion years than it would in one nano-second? Building upon that, how would life spring from non-life and after it did so, not die immediately in the very soup which birthed it?
Logic in itself cannot give us a solution ot the delimma, nor can rational thought because all arguments 'break down' at some point. It all goes back to 'God can neither be proved nor disproved' by logic, observable evidence and science. One can only speculate from the evidence at hand and the presuppositions that one accepts to guide the person's reasoning.
You are stuck at the point of being an agnostic because you refuse to admit the essential variable of a deity. You are just as intellectually dishonest as the next fellow, even if you are more correct from a logical argument standpoint. That's all you stand on: an argument that is predetermined by your own axioms. That argument tells nothing of the transcendental nature of God, nor of the transcendental nature of reasoning itself.
From the standpoint of truth, which is often relative, my axioms are just as valid as yours are. In fact, mine are more valid since I allow for the probability of supernatural events to influence the origin and events in this timeline. If you are a true naturalist, then you cannot admit that the supernatural can occur, nor has ever occurred. That itself is a fallacy because you cannot know that without being God! You are now in the realm of speculation and you are no better off than any Deist!
Rex -
Shining One
Hi Terry,
You are talking about a suicidal argument here, right?
>That is why the best that can ever be said from such an irrational and inane argument that it purports to say something and in the act of saying it destroys itself utterly.
Doesn't something similar to that happen when you argue that God does not exist? You cannot know that unless you are God to begin with. The Watchtower article in question can at worst lead one to be agnostic, like you are.
>I might here add that the sole purpose of mystics is to disconnect your rational mind from its function of guarding the entrance to your mind so that they can, like burglars, enter at will and do as they so choose with your thinking and ultimately your will to do their bidding.
Terry, that is idle speculation. Again, you cannot know that since you do not know the motive of the 'mystics' in question. You have a statement that is based on paranoia, for example: the Watchtower has abused us grievously and that may cause us to be biased against anyone's motives. Which logical fallacy is that, genetic or cause & effect?
>Religion is mysticism. The FIRST principle of religion is to destroy your ego
No, that is the first principle of cults, not of legitimate religions. I give you that cult-like abuses can and do occur in all religions. That does not give us reason to dismiss all faiths, we need to look at the evidence in oder to make a accurate assesment.
> your self-confidence, your rational mind and your willingness to only accept logical reality into your thoughts.
'Logical reality' is founded upon the axioms that you accept, Terry.
>The mystic persuades you that certain non-existent things just might.....might.....maybe...be somehow possible.....someway you cannot understand.......AND THEN THEIR FOOT IS IN YOUR DOOR and you cannot lock it again.
That is a cult tactic, it is also gnosticism, which Christianity has always fought tooth and nail against!
>When you allow these burglars the run of your house you should not be surprised when they make off with your most valuable possessions which will include your rational mind and your willing servitude to their nonsensical "cause".
Terry, is it 'nonsensical' to ask God (if He exists) to show you some evidence for you to believe, to reveal Himself? Might it be a valuable experiment to do just that? I did just that and I was hanging on the edge of the cliff you have fallen off of. He revealed Himself to me and still does. You cannot accept that as true, you yourself must experience Him before you can know He is even there.
"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." St. Augustine
Rex -
Terry
An amazing number of false premises and assumptions in one post!
Doesn't something similar to that happen when you argue that God does not exist? You cannot know that unless you are God to begin with
This is a bewildering use of the human mind! Your premise requires one to postulate an existing god in order to know whether a non-existing god is possible. Wow! Aristotle is turning over in his grave.
When I pegged mystics with the intention of disabling your rational defenses you respond:
Again, you cannot know that since you do not know the motive of the 'mystics' in question
It isn't necessary to know every mystic personally. What a mystic practices has to do with their source of knowledge and proof.
Mysticism is what it is regardless of who individually practice it. A Mystic (religious or otherwise) allows make-believe to trump reality by insisting all the proofs are hidden and only accessible through ___other___means. Naturally, the Mystic pretends they KNOW something you don't. If you hang around and do the rituals, perform the chores and exercises and do the deeds you'll have the same inside-knowledge too. A fool's franchise.
When I stated that the first principle of religion is to destroy your Ego; you responded by saying:
No, that is the first principle of cults, not of legitimate religions. I give you that cult-like abuses can and do occur in all religions. That does not give us reason to dismiss all faiths, we need to look at the evidence in oder to make a accurate assesment.
I notice you did not name even one so-called "legitimate religion". Religion addresses what is WRONG with man. It begins with the premise that man has something that needs fixing which man himself cannot fix. This is an attack on the ego. The idea of religion is to sell you on that idea first: there is something terribly wrong with you. Christianity tells you it is SIN and you can't fight the effects of sin yourself because it is inherited. This means you are destined to die to pay a price, unless, you accept the substitute medicine of Jesus.
The above is an ego assault. You are said to be dung, dust on the scales, a sinner, a slave, etc. etc. You have to surrender your ego and substitute the will of----surprise! surprise! A mystical leader, priest, rabbi, annointed, guru, adept, master, Lord, etc etc. It is all the same.
'Logical reality' is founded upon the axioms that you accept, Terry.
Spoken like a card-carrying Mystic! You pretend that reality is played deuces wild and anybody can hold a joker! Not so, my friend. Otherwise, going for a Master's Degree in Physics, Math, Science, etc. would not be necessary for anybody because everybody could have an equally true opinion about the real world. Better rethink your position here, it is self-defeating. Reality is only what it is and not subject to the opinions of people to the contrary.
Terry, is it 'nonsensical' to ask God (if He exists) to show you some evidence for you to believe, to reveal Himself? Might it be a valuable experiment to do just that? I did just that and I was hanging on the edge of the cliff you have fallen off of. He revealed Himself to me and still does. You cannot accept that as true, you yourself must experience Him before you can know He is even there
You have only succeeded in reducing God to a subjective emotional and mental construction on your part. Like testimonials for baldness cures and penis enlargement devices the rest of us only need to read your joyous exclamations and shout, "Joy to the world! Me too!" and our hair will grow and our wangdoodle will throb huge and all will be hunky-dory. Not!
You might want to wonder a little more why your epiphany devolves down to patronage and favoritism on the part of your God who seems to ignore the mentally retarded, the abused, the defiled and the misbegotten who don't shout the magic word "Jesus" to qualify for the big lottery jackpot of everlasting life you claim to have won. God and his cronyism smacks of the mob, kickbacks and the protection racket.
T.
-
Shining One
Hi Terry,
Then I assume you are above this problem within you, or can't you admit it exists?
>I notice you did not name even one so-called "legitimate religion". Religion addresses what is WRONG with man. It begins with the premise that man has something that needs fixing which man himself cannot fix.
What does the preponderance of the evidence suggest, Terry? Do you 'see red' and feel murder in your heart? Can you really look at yourself, the darkness that exists within and not acknowledge that its there? Come on Terry, everyone has some deep dark secret lust or desire that needles them from time to time.
>This is an attack on the ego. The idea of religion is to sell you on that idea first: there is something terribly wrong with you.
I can see your pride, Terry. I can see your arrogance. You condemn yourself.
>Christianity tells you it is SIN and you can't fight the effects of sin yourself because it is inherited. This means you are destined to die to pay a price, unless, you accept the substitute medicine of Jesus.
Sin is the name for that 'howling maniac' that seeks to come out of you when someone gets something that you want, when you are wronged. You have it as well as the rest of us. Whining about the solution is not getting the job done, Terry. You do need a solution and you aren't going to find it in 'logic and reason'. A sociopath may be the most logical person alive though his methods show the primevial nature at its most brutal. We are told that those ones have no conscience. How do you explain both the brutal desires in man and the conscience we are born with? Logic and reason can't account for it. Here's to your own illumination.
Why didn't you answer CYP here:
**We have chatted a bit. You know my biases and cravings. What are yours? Maybe I have missed it, and you have discussed them. I hope I am not getting to personal, and I hope I am not coming off in a condescending Christian sort of way. I frankly admit that you are much more knowledgeable on the subject, and probably a brighter bulb (well, who you going to brag to about that?). But I have to think that someone who lost so many precious years to a reliance on faith, would have to be awfully hateful towards the portion of their mind that would allow such a fateful mistep.**
Rex -
seesthesky
dude - you know everything - can we worship you? - man, if i pray to you can you help me? dude - u rock - right - you just know so damn much - dude, u r cool - i like your picture too - dude, i like how smart you are - man, you know you exist - can you prove to me that i do? - that would rock - if you do that, please let me know also how to pray to you - right on dude - yer kewl!
-
Terry
Sin is the name for that 'howling maniac' that seeks to come out of you when someone gets something that you want, when you are wronged. You have it as well as the rest of us. Whining about the solution is not getting the job done, Terry. You do need a solution and you aren't going to find it in 'logic and reason'. A sociopath may be the most logical person alive though his methods show the primevial nature at its most brutal. We are told that those ones have no conscience. How do you explain both the brutal desires in man and the conscience we are born with? Logic and reason can't account for it. Here's to your own illumination.
Before man....before the Adam/Eve saga.......how would you explain the nature of life on Earth in terms of sin? Millions of years passed before man and sin. Yet, the evidence is there that there was only fangs, claws, armour-plating, fighting, killing, dying, chewing and crapping dead dinosaur meat.
What is my point? I'll spell it out for you. The "howling maniac" was here already. By your admission it would have to be from God himself!
You see, NATURE is what it is. NATURE did not construct itself----by your scenario. You can blame MAN for sin. But, before sin you can only blame the origin of NATURE.
Now, let's just look at that.
If blind survival of the fittest produced life it is easy to see why there was struggle and death and clashing chaos of chewing and bleeding. It makes sense in terms of the meaninglessness.
But, by your template of a Creator and a purpose you are left with only a morbid fascination with watching living things struggle to survive by killing and eating or being killed and being eaten. That means your concept of God must be stretched to include the possibility of a "howling maniac" in the sky!!
Your core problem is you have fallen for the rather sordid story that the victim (mankind) is to be blamed for the crime (death). On the contrary! We are simply the result of blind chance and millions of years of struggling to survive to pass life on to the next struggling soul. Life is only what you make it and nothing more.
Many people are kind, benevolent, charitable and constructive without the god concept.
Others are only marginally "good" for fear of displeasing their tribal deity.
Your "sin" explanation is just a default position of the mystics and explains nothing by way of the nature of things.
Go ahead and accept the blame as a human for being human; but, don't expect me to buy into that happy horse plop.
Your testimonial is just so much self-delusion and you can peddle it all you want to---but, it answers no questions about the nature of life. It just transfers blame to the victims.
Terry