Posts by unsure

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

Respectfully, you are copying and pasting again and not addressing all my points.

Either you have over extended yourself by starting and replying to multiple topics and therefore only have time to copy and paste or you are trolling me.

Have you ever thought that by doing the above you are doing more to push people away from the notion of God rather than help bring them towards God. You prophess belief in Jesus but instead of emulating his way of teaching, drawing the downtrodden to a greater hope, you are doing the opposite and pushing them away with your lack of humility and genuine effort. You have done this with me.

I will no longer be replying to this post, not because you have genuinely answered my question but because you have pushed me away by ignoring many of my earnest questions and copying and pasting the same explanations which I've stated were confusing me.

Jesus was the epitome of humbleness, humility and care but it has become apparent that you do not extend those same qualities to me or others on these forums.

I remain agnostic but will continue seeking God and pray for you so you may draw others with honey instead of vivegar, so that if God is real, you will work along with his will instead of against it.

All the best.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

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.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

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.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

If the cause is timeless and non-cognitive then the effect should be timeless also.
Why must it be personal?
It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.

I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this?

The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

I do not believe you have answered this.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

unsure

Again for the record, I'm agnostic.

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?

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there [parallel universe], since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe [our] permanently there as well, why did the universe [our] come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause [parallel universe]?
In other words if the cause is there [us] why is the effect not there also [parallel universe]? If the effect is eternal [parallel universe] why is the cause not eternal [us]?

You can substitute [God] in place of [parallel universe] in most cases in your quote above.

I will make that substitution and ask you; if the cause is there [us] why is the effect not there also [God]? If the effect is eternal [God] why is the cause not eternal [us]?

The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is congnition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

I'm genuinely interested in understanding this because I want to believe but as long as there are other plausible answers, I will remain unsure.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

If I understand correctly in the scope of your post, you define a "timeless cause" as God and a "temporal effect" our universe, correct?

It is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe.
Here is the problem. If the cause was non cognitive and sufficient to produce the effect then if the cause is there the affect must be there also.
Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being only billions years ago, why isn't it as permanent as its cause?

Sorry but you lost me there. Could you rephrase?

I'm proposing (based on current scientific theory) that our universe could have spawned from another universe. This "other universe" could have laws of physics unlike our own (a.k.a metaphysics), and this universe could have always existed, two qualities that you used to describe God. Just because our universe had a beginning, why does a parallel universe with different laws have to follow the same rules of having a beginning?

If you agree that God never had a beginning and that God is metaphysical, how is that any different than what I am proposing?

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

You are arguing against a multiverse by saying it is all speculation and more metaphysics than physics.

Can't the exact same thing be said about God/Gods?

By your own definition God is metaphysical and since belief in God/God's requires faith, wouldn't that be considered your own personal "speculation" by some since your faith is not provable?

(Trust me, I want to believe in a Creator as mentioned in my previous post, I pray for him/her to make themselves known to me.)

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

@towerwatchman

Thank you for your response.

"There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse — an infinite number of other universes besides our own." http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

Many would argue there is no evidence of God/Gods.

Laws of physics as we know them pertain to our universe. If a parallel universe has different laws of physics (which is also theorized), by your definition, wouldn't it also be "nonphysical" since the laws of physics as we know it would have broken down? What if the parallel universe that spawned ours was always there and did not have a beginning? Just because our universe had a beginning does not mean a parallel universe had to.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

unsure

Hello all,

First time posting here but I'm a long time lurker. As a born-in, I have been "out" for around seven years. My entire immediate family is out too even my former "elder" father. We've been fortunate to learn the truth about the truth.

These discussions fascinate me. I would consider myself agnostic. Everything in me wants to believe in some greater purpose. I sometimes pray asking God to show himself/herself to me if he/she is real. In all my years as a Jehovah's Witness and in my years out, (but still wanting to believe in something) I have never personally come across proof of God's existence. I remain undecided.

Back on topic:

The universe had a beginning and some would argue that this fact alone points to a creator as discussed in this thread. However, parallel universes is an accepted scientific theory and the idea that our universe was possibly created by another parallel universe is too (see below.)

I'm curious to know believers opinions on this.

www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html

"This graphic shows a timeline of the universe based on the Big Bang theory and inflation models. Our universemight have originated from a black hole that lies withinanother universe. The idea centers on how matter and energy falling into a black hole could in theory come out a "white hole" in another universe.Apr 27, 2010"