Top Ten Arguments for the existence of God easily deflated.

90'sMusicKid · 07-24-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

so like the Corgan said, to be the beginning of the end of the beginning or the end of the beginning of the end? or perhaps to be everything and nothing, the Zero if you will. (i'm hoping you get a chuckle from my lighthearted comments instead of thinking i'm being derisive).

.

How religious IS Billy Corgan?

Inuzuka Skysword · 07-24-2010, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

the atheist has it easy since he's responding to claims made by the theologian. so now we can turn on the atheist and ask: if there is no first cause, how does causality work? as far as i can see, there are three possible responses here. the first is to do away with causality altogether, and say that it implies an absurdity (regression ad infinitum) and hence should be abandoned. this causes some serious problems, since most of our thinking is based on causality. i would suggest that a thinking not based in causality would probably be enlightenment (because there is no past or future) or at least what meditation aims at. the second possibility is that causality is a closed loop, that the big bang is the result of a big crunch or some other such device. however, if we postulate a universe in which the beginning is the end (alpha=omega) which is eternal, and in which everything comes from and returns to a single point, isn't this basically the worldview most religions have sponsored? (specifically the tao te ching, the kaballah, and hinduism). the third possibility is an infinite (linear) sequence of causes and effects, but this raises the question of how a universe with no beginning and no end could generate cycles with beginnings and endings, and what force is counteracting entropy. buckminster fuller and teilhard de chardin have both postulated a force counteracting entropy, which bucky called syntropy. syntropy is the tendency of matter to crystallize (evolve) and form structures, the most "complex" or "evolved" of which is probably the human mind. hence, the human mind should be able to introduce new energy into the universe to counteract the energy lost by friction. and isn't this essentially the function of religion: to introduce a unifying principle (love) which undoes the differences between people that cause friction? and the structure of syntropy (something out of nothing) is essentially the paradox of love: the more you give away the more you have.

I don't think those are the only three answers. The question "What caused the first cause?" is an absurd and unanswerable question. You can't explain causation outside of causation itself, just like you can't contradict the law of contradiction. Causation exists and it is an axiom that you have to accept if you want to ask any question which begins with "Why?"

Quote:

Sam Harris as smart as he is is still an obnoxious bigoted c*nthole who just makes all athiests look like obnoxious bigoted c*ntholes. So many athiests act in such a smug way and choose guys like him and Richard Dawkins as their defacto messiah and then they wonder why more people don't join their cause? Pfft.

The real problem with these guys is that they really don't have a strong base themselves, which makes their arrogance show much more.

Quote:

In a time when we are just beginning to comprehend the possibility that fundamental forces like gravity may not even originate from our dimension and that we're merely shadows on some freakin' cosmic wall, am I the only one who thinks that trying to put anything of divine nature into a human frame of reference is silly?

People are moronic because they try to approach these issues under the impression that they know jack **** about existence. Limited by our paltry senses and merely capable of manipulating existing materials or coming to conclusions based on observable phenomena, we still haven't even started to scrape the surface of the nature of reality, much less what lies beyond it.

Most of you, CA included, are trying way too hard to force a human logical thought process onto something that goes far beyond the scope of mankind. When it comes to fundamental questions that are not provable or disprovable, we are no different from ants trying to digest a textbook on string theory.

My advice? Step back from your personal beliefs, the ever-changing scientific landscape, atheistic dogma, etc. sometimes and realize that too many people in too many places are approaching the subject of God/supernatural anything and such in an arrogant state of mind that brings plenty of self-satisfaction..but very little else.

Don't be like them. Think, ponder, and chuckle at the foolishness of your fellow humans who think their beliefs, or lack thereof, somehow give them an access card to the secrets of the universe.

That is all.

How do you propose people know anything if they are afraid to admit it? You ask people to think, but at the sight of someone trying to reason their way through explaining the universe you tell them that they can never know. Look below your position and you will find nothing there. How do you defend that we can not know anything? We can know what does and does not exist through contradiction. We know that A can not equal non-A. There is the base, and from there we build.

Quote:

I believe that happiness is always temporary no matter what and looking for happiness that will last permanently is just a waste of time.

What in the essence of happiness necessitates its being temporary? I don't disagree with you, but I think that you would have a much stronger and fruitful argument if you were to give the reason for this.

cardboard adolescent · 07-24-2010, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I don't think those are the only three answers. The question "What caused the first cause?" is an absurd and unanswerable question. You can't explain causation outside of causation itself, just like you can't contradict the law of contradiction. Causation exists and it is an axiom that you have to accept if you want to ask any question which begins with "Why?"

The argument that I've made is that accepting causality as an axiom leads you to one of these conclusions. If you see another, please point it out to me.

I'd like to point out that the Big Bang theory is a result of extrapolating backwards from observations of the expansion of the Universe, and that as we get closer to the "singularity" general relativity breaks down, since it has to deal with infinities. I would argue that this poses a serious problem to any scientific explanation, since we can perhaps claim we've "explained" something because we've traced it back a certain distance to a cause, but if we want a "complete" explanation we also have to give the cause for that cause, and the cause for that cause, and so on, until we approach this singularity where our laws break down, and so it seems we can't really explain anything. This suggests that science can never provide the answer to "why?", which would involve tracing an effect back to its origin, and would only be able to provide stratagems for getting from point A to point B. If we wanted something more, we'd need to turn somewhere else (religion and philosophy, anybody?)

Inuzuka Skysword · 07-24-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

The argument that I've made is that accepting causality as an axiom leads you to one of these conclusions. If you see another, please point it out to me.

Alright here we go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conclusion One

the first is to do away with causality altogether, and say that it implies an absurdity (regression ad infinitum) and hence should be abandoned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conclusion Two

the second possibility is that causality is a closed loop, that the big bang is the result of a big crunch or some other such device.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conclusion Three

the third possibility is an infinite (linear) sequence of causes and effects

The next conclusion, which was not mentioned, is that we cannot know what caused the first cause. We cannot know because the question comes down to "Why does causation exist?" This question asks for an answer that does not exist. The conclusion is that we cannot know what caused causation and that we shouldn't desire to know.

cardboard adolescent · 07-24-2010, 07:12 PM

that doesn't make sense. if there is a first cause nothing caused it, that's what makes it the first. and if there is a first cause then there must be something special about it since it isn't subject to causality (again, this seems to imply an absurdity: conclusion one).

you seem to be saying: causality is caused but since this is impossible we don't know what caused it.
i would say: existence is impossible, existence exists, therefore, god

Inuzuka Skysword · 07-24-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

that doesn't make sense. if there is a first cause nothing caused it, that's what makes it the first. and if there is a first cause then there must be something special about it since it isn't subject to causality (again, this seems to imply an absurdity: conclusion one).

You are trying to explain causality outside of the realm where causality exists. No causes can exist before the first cause, so the first cause must be an uncaused cause by virtue of what it is. No causal law existed before it. You call it a miracle, but that is what it has to be. It isn't special in that it is outside the realm of causal law. It seems like it makes no sense, but it makes a lot of sense that the first cause would seem to make no sense since it was the first cause. You call it absurd and throw it away. I accept the fact that it makes no sense since it should not make sense being what it is.

Quote:

you seem to be saying: causality is caused but since this is impossible we don't know what caused it.
i would say: existence is impossible, existence exists, therefore, god

I am saying that causality exists and moving from there, not trying to explain it. When we try to explain it, then it seems impossible until we realize that the question we are asking is "Why why?" We can't give a why, since this would produce a circular argument.

cardboard adolescent · 07-24-2010, 07:33 PM

so it makes sense that it makes no sense... DO YOU REALIZE YOU'RE SPEAKING LIKE A TAOIST?!? we can't give a why because we run into a circle but THIS IS TRUE FOR EVERY QUESTION WE ASK BECAUSE THEY ALL LEAD BACK TO THE CIRCLE. i call it a miracle because it is what it is and it is what it has to be and its incomprehensible and paradoxical and yet it is AND THAT'S WHAT GOD IS! MY GOD MAN, DON'T YOU SEE?!?! i don't call it absurd and throw it away i call it beautiful and worship it!!!

Inuzuka Skysword · 07-24-2010, 07:44 PM

I said it makes sense that it seems like it makes no sense. Therefore, I am not contradicting myself, but I acknowledge that it seems like a paradox. It makes sense that seems like it makes no sense because of what it is. It isn't actually a contradiction. Causal law is an axiom you have to accept if you are to accept thinking itself, since it runs hand in hand with logic. The law of contradiction cannot be defended unless one uses it and the same applies to giving the cause for the causal law. They are axioms that don't need to be explained outside of themselves.

I would agree that they are beautiful and I would say I worship them, though not in the sense that I read out of some sacred book or pray to them. I value them highly, and as axioms, they are the base of all thought.

I still don't see how this line of though fits within any of the conclusions you gave since I do not reject causal law, nor do I call it a closed loop, and I certainly don't know whether it is infinite or not. The answer is that I don't know why, but one can't know why if they realize the question they are asking.

boo boo · 07-27-2010, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90'sMusicKid

How religious IS Billy Corgan?

I think he's a spiritualist or whatever but doesn't have any kind of religion.

Stone Birds · 07-28-2010, 02:51 PM

i'm agnostic so i believe there's something but pretty much all the scriptures from every religion make very little sense and contradict themselves all the time

07-24-2010, 07:12 PM	#65 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	that doesn't make sense. if there is a first cause nothing caused it, that's what makes it the first. and if there is a first cause then there must be something special about it since it isn't subject to causality (again, this seems to imply an absurdity: conclusion one). you seem to be saying: causality is caused but since this is impossible we don't know what caused it. i would say: existence is impossible, existence exists, therefore, god Last edited by cardboard adolescent; 07-24-2010 at 07:20 PM.

07-28-2010, 02:51 PM	#70 (permalink)
Stone Birds myspace.com/stonebirdies Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Conor Oberst Was/is Here Posts: 1,401	i'm agnostic so i believe there's something but pretty much all the scriptures from every religion make very little sense and contradict themselves all the time __________________ Silk & Tree Records //\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V //\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V soundcloud.com/stonebirds [Link removed by mod, no advertising] ... Damn those mods are always gettin ya :)

07-24-2010, 07:33 PM	#67 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	so it makes sense that it makes no sense... DO YOU REALIZE YOU'RE SPEAKING LIKE A TAOIST?!? we can't give a why because we run into a circle but THIS IS TRUE FOR EVERY QUESTION WE ASK BECAUSE THEY ALL LEAD BACK TO THE CIRCLE. i call it a miracle because it is what it is and it is what it has to be and its incomprehensible and paradoxical and yet it is AND THAT'S WHAT GOD IS! MY GOD MAN, DON'T YOU SEE?!?! i don't call it absurd and throw it away i call it beautiful and worship it!!!

07-24-2010, 07:44 PM	#68 (permalink)
Inuzuka Skysword Existential Egoist Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,468	I said it makes sense that it seems like it makes no sense. Therefore, I am not contradicting myself, but I acknowledge that it seems like a paradox. It makes sense that seems like it makes no sense because of what it is. It isn't actually a contradiction. Causal law is an axiom you have to accept if you are to accept thinking itself, since it runs hand in hand with logic. The law of contradiction cannot be defended unless one uses it and the same applies to giving the cause for the causal law. They are axioms that don't need to be explained outside of themselves. I would agree that they are beautiful and I would say I worship them, though not in the sense that I read out of some sacred book or pray to them. I value them highly, and as axioms, they are the base of all thought. I still don't see how this line of though fits within any of the conclusions you gave since I do not reject causal law, nor do I call it a closed loop, and I certainly don't know whether it is infinite or not. The answer is that I don't know why, but one can't know why if they realize the question they are asking.