6399 replies to this topic

[Huang Fei Hong]

You all should realize now that everything just now was simply a ploy of my power of manipulation (which is proof that I'm extremely deliberate) to pique Zennalathas' interest again through extreme measures. Usually these regurgitated posts aren't even worth responding to, except they served their purpose this time.Zen is the only one who even stands a chance of standing up to either amateursuperhero or myself on this topic.To be fair however, we'll have to split the turns more fairly this time around to allow you more time to breathe. It would seem amateursuperhero was your original opponent in this duel and thus far his points haven't detracted any from my own and he has held his own against you. He may continue to be the flagship debater in support of God's existence. I'll just deal with the cosmological argument specifics and the theoretical physics end and whatever slack I need to pick up for him.As to my definition of what a God is, you pretty much have the basic gist of it. I'm not here to exclude any religion by limiting the definition of God to any particular religious perception. I'm simply defining him as simplistically and scientifically as possible as a being who operates beyond the boundaries of the laws which bind our universe and as such provides himself as the exception to causality which begins it altogether. Other than that, those who are religious can tack on what they will to this being.Even the concept that God is conscious on any level is of my opinion and the reasoning behind said opinion was already provided above.A side note to all this discussion about the nature of God and the laws of the universe: you Christians equate God to "the word" and "the way, the truth, and the light." One of my previous theoretical depictions of him suggests that the laws of the universe themselves might merely be a part of him, which would fit very well into your beliefs. So in reality, I'm neither alienating the religious, nor supporting any specific group of them. I'm simply dissecting the nature of the being who is at the center of their beliefs and using the most universally accepted truths about him to provide a blanket argument in support of the existence of a character that can be deemed as a Creator God.The reason for my widely adaptable definition of God is this: in many cultures there are multiple Gods. In others, Gods are nearly as mortal as men. For all we know the real God may be more like Brahma than Yahweh. A scary thought is that he may even be more like Azathoth (H.P. Lovecraft's disturbing creation...*shudder*). Now back to the actual argument. Zen, you have yet to break my cosmological argument and I'd also like to add that I declined to mention before that neither proving nor disproving the validity of Superstrings can bode well for you Zan as the proving Superstring theory to be valid would return a previously debunked argument in the topic to the fray and disproving it would solidify my argument even more. Pick your poison carefully there and make sure you have your research.The ball is back in your court, Zen.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 05 April 2007 - 05:34 AM.

[granolabar]

he's real if you believe so, he's not if you don't

[Huang Fei Hong]

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." - Georgia HarknessThere is no God. Only a good story with people who believe it to be true. A good story that has been polluted and mutilated into the pile of bile and crap that is nothing but prejudice, hate, and immorality... under the guise of holiness. Half of the issues surrounding religious issues have nothing to do with the actual religion themselves, but with what the leaders of said religion think are wrong. And last time i checked we didn't pray to religious leaders (hence the Georgia Harkness quote).and in case it wasnt obvious... I am Apathetic Agnostic.

Why does everyone of your cynical nature just nonchalantly ignore the paragraphs upon paragraphs of NON RELIGIOUS proofs that are laid out on this topic? Evidently you only consider one angle of proof that is presented in the case of God rather than the entire body of such. There are means to prove the existence of God OUTSIDE of religious texts and so called archaeological evidence. Let's see you take a crack at the Cosmological Argument, before you spout quotes like they make your case solid.We're not just talking about God in respect to religions here, just God as a being by itself. Don't use religious fallacies to attack the scientific and philosophical arguments presented in the case for God's existence, thank you.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 05 April 2007 - 12:12 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

Ignore it? because i dont have time to read a 342 page thread. I posted my opinion and although it may have been cynical and concise nevertheless it explains how i feel in relation to the direct question that the thread title asks. You want proof that God does not exist id ask you to prove that he does (which id rather you not since thats just a generalistic rhetorical statement) Its impossible for me to entertain the possibility of god existing without religion because the two are invariably intertwined. Without religion the concept of God would be non existent and his existence as a being would be pointless. If God is used to justify unexplained scientific problems then i say you need a better scientist. If god is used to explain philosophical arguments then i say you need a better philosopher. Because to be a man/woman of such intelligence to explain a problem as "a large omnipotent force that cannot be seen, felt, heard, touched, tasted, or proven into existence... is the reason why this happens" is completely unacceptable to me. Although im 101% sure in ancient times thats how the concept of God and religion came into existence (god is the driving force behind anything we cant immediately comprehend), time always proves hardier and more reliable. No matter how unexplainable something may seem whether its the rising of the sun or the plants that grow out of dead bodies, anything can be explained with sufficient time. Not only that, since no one has ever proved God existed no one has ever proved anything he has "said". Thus the G.H. quote above. Probably more than half of the things that we believe are divine commands were just people talking and changing with the times. And honestly what kind of god would allow his message to be polluted in such terrible ways? Therefore the concept of a god seems pointless archaic and unnecessary to me no matter what the context is.did that explain my position well enough for you?and furthermore. Pay attention. I may be cynical but I am open minded. I may be a complete atheist on the religious frontier but as hypocritial as it may sound I still define the time before the Big Bang as the one thing that could convince me there is a God. Whether he is the benevolent leader of religion, the source of power for the universe, or the righteous entity in the minds of men... I dont particularly care. Hence the Apathetic Agnostic words stamped at the bottom of my post.but im gonna stop now... before i start ranting.

And here is where you continue to show how you've failed to read even the most recent of posts.Thus far we've already posed the Cosmological Argument against the Bing Bang theory and through it and the concept of causality we find that the Big Bang by itself cannot serve as something which needs no cause and thus cannot be the Prime Cause. What we are discussing IS the time before the Big Bang. We've also reduced the definition of God by a great degree and have CLEARLY separated the concept of God himself from that of religions for the sake of debating ONLY his existence and not his nature. Both of these combined have already addressed all your issues, so stop whining about religion. We're not arguing anything about his "word" you dolt.We're also not talking about the rising and setting of the sun or plants growing out of dead bodies, we're talking about the very origins of this universe. It is something we cannot bear witness to or dissect and observe. Even Einstein, one of the greatest minds (if not THE greatest), of all time believed in a God. You can't get a much better scientist than him. Plato and Aristotle were the very foundations for the cosmological argument and you can't get many philosophers greater than them. Stop trying to paint the picture that anyone who believes in a God is a moron, because you certainly aren't well informed enough to make those against the case for God seem very intelligent.Please, continue with your baseless ranting. Your case was paper thin at best in the first place and I just wiped myself with it and flushed it down the crapper. I'll be amused to see what else you can pull out of your sphincter.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 06 April 2007 - 12:07 AM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

I did tell you i wasnt here to discuss what was already mentioned in a +5000 post thread i post my opinion and that's it.I do love how you ignored the entire context of my post an instead chose to randomly pick things out to poke at. Do i care that youve altered your definition of "God" to serve your needs? nope. All youre post does is prove my entire point that the entire concept of God is pointless because it - "He" is the creation of Man. Not some ethereal force or however you choose to explain it. You change your definition based on things that you learn, and before you learn them you explain them with god. You talk about cosmological arguments. as soon as we find out what started the big bang or the cosmos or whatever you want. the science will move in and the explanation of "God did it" will move onto the next thing you dont understand. Of course Einstein believed in God... because he was smart enough to know that he couldnt explain everything he wanted and God was his scapegoat... and i know the next scientist who continues Einstein's work will surpass him and HE will explain what he cant understand with "God did it". So for your massive miscomprehension of my post and petty attempts at flaming all youre doing is proving my point time and time again.

You're unbelievably dense. Do you even understand what the cosmological argument implies? It is a PURE logic affirmation that the natural world does not serve to have generated its own origin. The only reason I've altered my definition of God in the argument is to be accepting of whichever God that people may worship without excluding those that are fictional or the one(s) that is real, NOT to simply win an argument.Here is the cosmological argument yet again for you blithering buffoons who refuse to read previous poses before making ignorant posts:

• Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
• Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
• A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
• Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

Another version:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Yet another version:

• The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
• The cosmos as a whole exists.
• The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
• If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.

Go here to study it in depth: http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argumentThe Cosmological Argument is clearly a case in point that the belief in God isn't necessarily one of convenience or blind faith, but may also be one drawn to as a logical conclusion. The concept of the Big Bang and the expanding universe in itself points to the likelihood that the universe is indeed a finite and contingent being and I can argue all day with you about the science of such, because I doubt with your fallacies in mastering the English language that you are capable of holding a legitimate discussion on subjects in theoretical physics such as brane cosmology.I don't give a hoot as to whether or not you were just here posting your opinion. I'm just poking holes on the very basis on which you form that opinion regardless.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 06 April 2007 - 10:49 PM.