You accuse me of not proving anything, and yet you have not proved anything.
That is just ridiculous, i don’t have to prove god does’nt, that is VERY hard to prove somethin that does’nt exist really does’nt exist. Try to proove the tooth fairy does’nt exist.
Me: Everything in the Universe has a cause, thus there must be a chain of cause(s) leading to the universe. The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
You: Everything has always existed, it simply changes form.
You are making me says somethine i never said. i said, i will repeat it even if it’s not the first time; i said the TWO OPTIONS ARE POSSIBLE.
The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
Completly ridiculous…. That is the kind of argument that have been refute several time but people don’t want to listen…
Even if there’s a start (highly probable LIKE I ALREADY SAID), theres no need for god… You are trying to counter several logical concept. I will refute it very briefly… more explicitly if it is needed…
The only thing god add to the chain is the “Uncaused”, while this argument seem valid at first (Aquinas, Descartes…), it is completly illogical and a good exemple of how people want to believe.
Why god does’nt need a cause but others things (like Law themself) does ? Laws are outside time & space, they don’t have position, they just exist, so they seem not to need anyone to create them. They don’t act nor react, they do not influence the universe, they form it. They seem to have everything to be the uncaused cause, the permanent stability.
Then you will say; god create law.
The fact is; god cannot be more fit for “Uncaused cause” than law themself… Then it is just adding an useless concept to something already “explained”. (occam’s razor; basic logic). You cannot say god create the universe because it can be explained without god.
The PRIME FACTOR argument is even more illogical than the ORDER NEED ORDERER argument.
You are using pretty old argument, while this does’nt make it false it have been often refute. For this reason, theist mathematician always use the “Faith” argument, not the “logical one”.
Me: Odds are unlikely of such a complex life form like man forming accidentally.
You: People are arrogant to assume a personal creator. And the odds are so good that an ultra-complex life form would form up that hundreds of planents have them.
Never said that !!!
I will make an analogy;
Roll 1 * 10^6 die,
If you get 1 * 10^6 time the number 6, you’ll have a baby.
If not; you’ll have no baby.
If the baby never came to existence, will he ask question about his existance ?
Also we don’t know how improbable life is, this is many a far more natural phenomena, maybe not, but anyway, we exist. So saying life is improbable so i god must have guide it is a little prematured.
You are right that i think religion is taint with misplaced arrogance.
Me: Fatima, Turin, Janarius, Guadaloupe, Bodies of Saints, Crying Mary, for some of the more modern ones which come to me off the top of my head.
You: The gregorian calendar was changed, and carbon 14 tests are 100% infalible. Plus miracles are empiric. (What does that mean? How does it in your mind rule out miracles as proof?)
That is not me; it is F_alk. Only the Empirical was mine. As i said i don’t want to speak empirical problem in this topic; too neboulus and too easy to proove anything.
Me: Evolution does not disprove anything. God exists outside of time; he created it. Thus how the way he created the Earth appears to us is in material.
You: Creationism is illogical and unscientific. Thus religion is also.
I NEVER SAID THAT !!!
Sure creationism is unscientific, but you are adding the “thus religion is also”. That is not logical… Relgion is a bunch of lies and it breed lies, but to say “creationism is false; so do religion” would be an easy, but illogical argument.
You: People create myths like religion to make them feel better.
Me: There is a lot more to Christianity than myth.
wow ! you actually quote me right… Again, we can discuss this for eternity so i won’t continue on the subject…
Now I can understand why you believe you come out on top. However, I don’t see why you call me ignorant, and my arguments garbage. Whats up? Is it because I disagree with you?
No, you are just using a big bunch of logical fallacies…
When i’m speaking of Argumentum ad ignorantis; that is in a very large way… I mean; is something we understand need the concept of god anymore ? …and before ? When there’s some darkness in any subject, the concept of god pop up from nowhere until we really understand the real cause. That is historical… but you could always try to refute that, anyway this is the kind of discussion i don’t want to have… I was just explaining why i accuse religion of “ignorance”.