Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  unsure

  Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it
  

  No one can point to God with concrete evidence can they? If so, what is this evidence? (please do not include evolution being an impossibility as evidence EDIT: or the fact that our universe had a beginning)

  The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.
  

  (Sorry, yes I mixed them up.)

  How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?

  We do not have proof of any parallel universe.
  

  Scientists have as much proof of parallel universes (please google it) as creationists have of the existence of God if we are being fair. Yes some may argue against it, just like many argue against the existence of God.

  In a previous post you described parallel universes as all speculation and metaphysics when others use this same argument against the existence of a God. God is described as being beyond our universe, therefor metaphysical, and belief in him/her is "speculation" (plus even further speculation of which God is the right one)

  I created this account specifically to post in this thread (EDIT: after being a long time lurker) and ask genuine questions because I thought the OP was on to something, but I leave as doubtful as I came in. I was hoping to find the "aha!" moment to base my hope in something greater but if I'm being honest with myself I have not found it, not because I have not tried or because I don't want to find it.

  I remain agnostic.

  I do appreciate your effort in responding to me.

  EDIT:

  As I posted in your other thread, What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God.

  Why does it have to be this complicated?

  I will continue to pray and hope that God reveals himself/herself to me.
• 

  StephenMyers

  Towerwatchman
  

  Has anyone observed the evolution of a species? Charles Darwin did little experimental science

  Do you mean like the silver fox experiment that turned foxes into dogs and wolves?

  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwq3rs_evolution-in-action-the-silver-fox-experiment_shortfilms
  
  
• 

  Brainfloss

  Unsure

  if this discussion has left you unsatisfied here are two other spots where towerwatchman has previously posted the exact same language as the opening op and it has been rebutted. Once as poster TWM and once as RENE.

  http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/05/another-way-to-prove-negative.html?m=1

  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/03/futility-of-debating-religious_10.html?m=1
• 

  towerwatchman

  No one can point to God with concrete evidence can they? If so, what is this evidence? (please do not include evolution being an impossibility as evidence EDIT: or the fact that our universe had a beginning)

  True no one can point directly to God as the first cause. That is the logical conclusion based on the facts. Like it or not, the universe having a beginning is huge in the discussion. For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause. Ignoring that fact is equivalent to placing our heads in the sand.

  How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?

  If the cause was timeless and non-cognitive the effect should be timeless also. But it is not. The only explanation of how a timeless cause brought about a temporal effect was that the timeless cause chose to bring about a temporal effect. Otherwise we [the effect] should be timeless also.

  I have looked into parallel universes. I believe in reading both sides of the issue. Most of it is speculation. Taking a fact and then building on it.

  As to God, my belief in Him did not come by blind faith but reason ad logic. I prefer people having a foundation for their faith vs. blind faith. There is enough evidence for the existence of God. One just has to search. As I wrote before, I read both sides of the issue. May I suggest ‘On Guard’ by William Craig.
• 

  towerwatchman

  Brain loss

  Wow, instead of addressing the topic, you are digging up the past? Really? We call that fear.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To StephenMyers

  At the end of the day all you have is a domesticated wolf. Domesticated by intelligent design not natural selection.

  Now follow Natural Selection to its logical conclusion. What would survive in a hostile environment, a tame wolf or a hostile wolf?

  The video does not support evolution, but intelligent design.

  Thanks. .
• 

  towerwatchman

  All time jeff

  There is no comparison between the Judaeo Christian God and a god from lord of the rings, or the flying spaghetti monster. Now if you want to put your faith in what is unanimously a hoax go ahead. As for me I am watching the final four.
• 

  Brainfloss

  No in much the same way as I read Hawkings to see what he has concluded from his research, I searched your quotes to examine their origin. Unsure stated that he was exhausted and disheartened form this exchange. I thought he might to look at it from a fresh perspective an examination of your claims by others.

  Admittadly fear is what I used to feel. 40 years of trying to worship a god that would not reveal himself. A book of contradictory riddles that allow those who claim to understand them, to minipulate and control others, abandoning completely those who ask questions, they have no answers to. They break up families,they cover up abuse, they deny medical care, they limit education all in the name of a god who IS LOVE. Fear? No not fear. Dredging up the past? Ha! To your god a day is a 1000 years so 2008 is not a very deep dredge and, frankly the argument is the same on your side in those old posts, So what are you afraid of.

  brainfloss
• 

  Brainfloss

  TWM now lets address the topic.--

  You are right I cannot Prove that there is no god. I certainly have not examined the teachings of every god that man has worshipped over time.

  But if there is a god who requires that you believe in him for salvation ( whatever that means to you) , why not give some compelling evidence to mankind, or screw mankind why not give some compelling evidence to me I have certainly given an honest effort searching. He allegedly gave us the Bible but the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Garden of eden, flood. 40 years wandering in the dessert. The list goes on. Even if science has been deceived by the devil why were the people that lived thousands of years ago allowed to see miracles and tangeble evidence of god but we must rely on faith alone. It's backwards there understanding of the world would have been more likely to let faith be their guide. Surely god knew that science would say that man was far older then eden. That the animals we have today couldn't be here from a worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago. He knew that there would be no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people lost in the desert for 40 years. And whether or not science is right or the devil is blinding mans eyes, why do ancient people get to see god and we don't.

  is that perfect justice, wisdom, and power , above all is that perfect love?

  So yes I am an Athiest. I don't have to prove that there is no god to you or anyone. If some philosopher wants to analyze my thought process and say it is flawed so be it but I gave it a fair try I dedicated my life to the search for evidence of god for 40+ years and what I got was cut off from most of my family for questioning something that even the leaders can't supply answers to.

  brainfloss
• 

  unsure

  For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause. Ignoring that fact is equivalent to placing our heads in the sand.
  

  Nobody is disputing that the universe had a beginning. I am not disputing that the universe had a beginning. I only asked that you do not use it as an argument because it is not proof that God created the universe.

  If the cause was timeless and non-cognitive the effect should be timeless also. But it is not. The only explanation of how a timeless cause brought about a temporal effect was that the timeless cause chose to bring about a temporal effect. Otherwise we [the effect] should be timeless also.
  

  You've repeated this a few times in response to me. Each time I ask what what cognition has to do with it but you repeat the same thing that caused the confusion in the first place.

  I'll ask you again; How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)? PLEASE do not copy and paste the same response, please rephrase.

  I have looked into parallel universes. I believe in reading both sides of the issue. Most of it is speculation. Taking a fact and then building on it.
  

  Since we are re-pasting: Scientists have as much proof of parallel universes (please google it) as creationists have of the existence of God if we are being fair. Yes some may argue against it, just like many argue against the existence of God.

  In a previous post you described parallel universes as all speculation and metaphysics when others use this same argument against the existence of a God. God is described as being beyond our universe, therefor metaphysical, and belief in him/her is "speculation" (plus even further speculation of which God is the right one). Faith is speculation.

  Do you not see the irony in YOU arguing against parallel universes describing them as "speculation" and "metaphysics" when belief in God is described in the EXACT same way?

  There is enough evidence for the existence of God.
  

  Respectfully, there is not (and this is coming from person with agnostic, not atheist viewpoints.)

  If I were to agree with all your arguments and agree that there is an intelligent designer, what evidence is there to say that this is God? What evidence is there to say that it is God that created the universe and not a group of advanced, cognitive inter-dimensional beings who reside in another universe who had the power to create our universe? Who's to say our universe is not a simulation created by some other advanced alien being? Please google simulation theory and please do not respond saying it is all "speculation" and "metaphysics" without agreeing that belief in God is all "speculation" and "metaphysics".

  You are not clearly explaining what cognition has to do with it. Please do not repeat the same response as last time as it is not helping me.

  I'll ask again: How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?

  What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God.

  If a new electronic device was released and users from around the world interpreted the manual differently and had to debate others to get their personal opinions on how to operate this device, would the manual be very effective? Why would the manufacturers release a product and manual that could be interpreted differently?

  Why are there so many religions? Why are there so many denominations within each?
  

  Why does it have to be this complicated?

  Please address all my points above.

  EDIT:

  True no one can point directly to God as the first cause. That is the logical conclusion based on the facts. Like it or not, the universe having a beginning is huge in the discussion. For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause.
  

  Please note that much of the wording in your responses is very confusing. Take the first two sentences above.

  In the first you agree that no one can point directly to God as the first cause but in the next sentence it seems you are arguing for being able to point directly to God as the first cause because of a logical conclusion based on the facts. Sorry, which is it?

  I think many that respond to you are genuinely seeking answers but your responses are lacking.