I find that theists generally see the god they believe in as an extension of themselves or maybe their fathers. They find ways to justify everything they think and do with what their god wants. Then when they judge others, their condemnation is magnified by how important they think their opinion is. It's like a narcissistic mental disease, really.
Your pseudo-psychological analysis of religious individuals is truly sad. Firstly, most religious individuals' perception of God is one of utter transcendence; making God merely an extension of themselves or their fathers (cough Freud cough) is a vile heresy for them. Secondly, when a religious individual speaks about "God's will," they base it on their religious text. Thus, their idea of what God's will is not so subjective as you seem to think it to be.
@AgApE010 Struck a nerve, did I? It's because you know I'm right. The "doing x is a vile heresy, therefore I'm not doing x" defense doesn't work because a christian can be doing x without being aware of it or rationalizing it so that it's not a vile heresy. As for your second part, no christian goes by everything that is in the bible. If they did, they'd be in prison for murdering witches, homosexuals, and sabbath workers. People pick and choose based on what they decide is right.
Even arguing that a religious individual is ignorantly making God an extension of themselves is invalid insomuch as their idea of God is still "wholly other" from themselves. Thus it is clearly not an extension of themselves. If the Christian conception of God was like that of Zeus, namely, a sexually charged, muscular man of a god, you may have had more of a case...
@AgApE010 But I did say that I think your god is simply an extension of your ego. That's a fact, and to prove it, read the post again. What you want is for me to prove is that the god you believe in, whose name is Yahweh, doesn't exist. I can't do that any more than you can prove that it does exist. But it is my disbelief in his existence that leads me to believe that it is more likely that what you call his opinion is actually your own.
No, I didn't ask you to prove that my God doesn't exist. I told you to give your justification or reasoning for concluding that God is merely an extension of my ego. I know your pride is wounded here, but stop dancing around the subject.
@AgApE010 My pride? Ummm ok. Smiling and nodding about that one.
If you want me to answer your questions, you have to ask them clearly. I have answered them as you asked them. If I haven't given you the answer you want, the fault is entirely your own. I hit upon what you're asking at the end of my previous response. Do you think that Yahweh is always right? Do you ever disagree with Yahweh?
It's not for you to ask questions. Your place is to prove your assertion. An assertion without any reasoning or evidence is a meaningless opinion. Your assertion has no reasoning or evidence. Therefore, your assertion that God is just an extension of my ego is a meaningless opinion.
I expect you to understand basic logic if we're going to have this dialog.
@AgApE010 It is not for you to decide what my place is. If the answer to my questions is that you never disagree with Yahweh, then that gives me good reason to believe that his opinion is simply yours in a limited liability way. I've never met a christian who openly admitted to disagreeing with his or her god, even if they admitted to disagreeing with some of what's in the bible.
Since you continually refuse to engage in proper debate, there's no purpose in continuing further with you. Incidentally, your silence speaks loudly. At least you can see that your assertion that God is merely an extension of my ego is without evidence or merit.
Finally, as we've seen from this short dialog, you have not even come close to properly sifting the questions regarding God's existence. You should think about that.
"but you are biased in that you have an irrational attachment"
And you smell funny and have a dorky haircut. Isn't slinging mud fun? Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good debate. You've succumbed to ad hominem argumentation here. In layman's terms, LOGIC FAIL.
@AgApE010, what is wrong with him having a "meaningless opinion". Is it not his right to have a "meanlingless opinion"? I can see how some people may make a god an extension of themselves. If Chrisitans think "A" is wrong, they would probably think that GOD thinks "A" is wrong as well. I talked about masturbation with someone. I see nothing wrong with it. But not the person I spoke to. This person thinks is the worst thing you can do to youself. Why? She thinks GOD thinks it is wrong.
@AgApE010 No, it made you upset. I can tell. My invisible friend told me so. It's not my opinion, it's hers, so take it up with her if you have a problem with it. You see what I'm doing here? I'm taking my own opinion and ascribing it to a being that doesn't really exist, just like christians, jews, muslims, and all other theists who do that kind of thing.
@PluralOfEverything, yeah people do pick and choose what they like. I see it all the time with preachers. They LOVE to preach on sexual sin, but I don't see too much preaching about overeating/gluttony. I'm wondering how many other people (not Christians) pick and choose what they obey on thier holy texts. I think it's human behavior to pick and choose what they like.
@sandbar3000 Yep, it goes back, I think, to what they are personally uncomfortable with. Sex is a biggie, but I bet preachers with food issues rail against gluttony and preachers with anger issues preach about wrath. It all goes back to whatever their personal issues are, and those become their god's biggest concerns.
@PluralOfEverything, yes you got it. It is called projection in psychology. We as humans tend to project our own issues with ourselves on to others. it is one of the many Defense mechanisms
Whatever you call the uncaused cause, it's just merely a name. Call it a snickerdoodle for all I care. The point is that the concept of an uncaused cause and its implications is equivalent to the concept of God. To further clarify, "God" is not merely a name we're attaching to the uncaused cause. Thus your reply of calling it instead a smeeble or whatever is a red herring. We're speaking of the concept of God, not proper names to attach to it.
Because we know that the universe has not always existed. Plus the universe cannot cause itself. For in order to cause itself it presupposes its own existence. See the breach in logic?
@AgApE010 How do we know the universe has not always existed in some form? I happen to know that beings cannot have always existed, so there goes your god hypothesis.
We know the universe has not always existed because it came into existence at the Big Bang. Furthermore, since the universe is an effect, for instance, since it is in motion, we must ultimately go all the way back to a cause that brought about the effect. However, this cause itself must be uncaused or else we fall into an infinite regress (this cause was caused by the cause; that cause was caused by this cause, etc etc etc...) with which it's impossible to cause anything.
@AgApE010 We don't know that the universe did not exist before the big bang or even if "before" is a good word to use in that situation. Something had to exist, so why can't it have been the universe in a different form? It makes more sense than saying that an uncaused cause made it from nothing.
"Why can't it have been a universe in a different form"
Because another universe would also have a cause for its existence. As a matter of fact, as we delve into String Theory, we begin to see that there may very well be other universes and that ours is just a bubble amidst a sea of foam. But go back all the way to the first bubble, and there would have to be a cause for the matter/energy, space, and motion in that proto-universe.
Any universe essentially consists of space and energy/matter. There has to be a cause for their existence. Furthermore, there has to be a reason and cause for the motion of energy/matter. Even in a universe with an exceedingly dense singularity, subatomic articles such as quarks need an explanation for their existence/motion. This would be an "Unmoved Mover," as Aristotle called it.
@AgApE010 I don't see why there has to be a cause for their existence. The existence of energy is eternal. After all, it can't be created or destroyed.
Because something that is set in motion must have a reason for its movement. This principle is known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason and it was posited by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz centuries ago.
The Law of Conservation of Energy which you quote ("energy cannot be created or destroyed") is only applicable after energy already exists. It is a scientific law explaining energy after it exists, not a philosophical deduction arguing that it always existed.
Again, God isn't set in motion. Thus to equate him with the universe is invalid. We already discussed this at length. Maybe you should spend time reading books on philosophy since you don't seem to understand basic ideas in theism and atheism.
@AgApE010 Again, why can't the universe have not been set in motion for the same reason you are saying that Yahweh isn't set in motion? If an infinite regress is impossible, then why stop at the god you just happen to have been raised to believe in and not go one less step and say the contents of the universe are eternal? We don't agree that Yahweh even exists, so we are far from having established that he was not set in motion.
-God is not a physical being; there is therefore nothing to move or put in motion in God.
-In this regress, as far back as you go you must ultimately come to the uncaused cause or else you fall into an infinite regress which is both absurd and impossible. Whatever this uncaused cause is, this is what we call God. Notice I didn't say YHVH. We're just speaking of theism in general contra atheism.
A nonphysical entity is deduced by way of deducing the attributes the probable cause of all physical entities, which require a cause. This is sufficient reasoning to posit a nonphysical entity. If you still assert that such a being is impossible or nonexistent, the ball is in your court to argue why. Unless what you mean to say is that you personally don't believe in a nonphysical entity, which is must different from saying one does not exist.
@AgApE010 In order for a being to exist, it has to be anchored to reality by being made of materials. Every material we know of has physical properties. There are no materials we know of that do not. We wouldn't be able to detect them if there were any. There is no good reason to suspect that anything nonphysical exists, other than abstract concepts like time and dignity.
"it has to be anchored to reality by being made of materials"
Do you see how you sneak in your own view of Materialism into your argument? You are basically saying "Nothing immaterial exists therefore nothing immaterial exists." This is a logical fallacy known as Question Begging.
-It has already been established why the universe cannot be eternal. At this point, you are repeating points that were already addressed instead of addressing my responses. This is a big indicator that you have failed in debate. So I must ask, what keeps you coming back here and repeating the same refuted arguments?
I didn't "simply assert" that. I argued that the universe cannot be self-caused (a logical fallacy) and, similarly, that motion implies an "unmoved mover," as Aristotle called it. If you still argue that the universe is or can be eternal, you must tear down this argument and establish your own argument in its place showing that the universe can be eternal.
Words reduce reality to something that the human mind can grasp, which isn't very much. Language consists of five basic sounds produced by the vocal chords. They are the vowels a, e, i, o, u. The other sounds are consonants produced by air pressure: s, f, g and so forth. Do you believe some combination of such basic sounds could ever explain who you are, or the ultimate purpose of the universe, or even what a tree or stone is in depth?
Follow your own path, because we're all connected anyway.
I think all gods are human's attempt to explain the unexplainable and cope with the natural fear of death. When a person realizes that we are natural creatures on this planet and destined to die and be recycled, the fear goes away. God is unnecessary.
You might want to watch a vid I uploaded recently that has some of my thoughts on this question
watch?v=ItfOqi0zYQA
If you need anyone to chat with as you come out from under the rock, feel free to look me up.
pfarabee 1 month ago
@pfarabee , thanks, Will do!
sandbar3000 1 month ago
@sandbar3000
Since you have questions about the existence of God, you may be interested to view this exchange.
AgApE010 3 months ago
I find that theists generally see the god they believe in as an extension of themselves or maybe their fathers. They find ways to justify everything they think and do with what their god wants. Then when they judge others, their condemnation is magnified by how important they think their opinion is. It's like a narcissistic mental disease, really.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Your pseudo-psychological analysis of religious individuals is truly sad. Firstly, most religious individuals' perception of God is one of utter transcendence; making God merely an extension of themselves or their fathers (cough Freud cough) is a vile heresy for them. Secondly, when a religious individual speaks about "God's will," they base it on their religious text. Thus, their idea of what God's will is not so subjective as you seem to think it to be.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Struck a nerve, did I? It's because you know I'm right. The "doing x is a vile heresy, therefore I'm not doing x" defense doesn't work because a christian can be doing x without being aware of it or rationalizing it so that it's not a vile heresy. As for your second part, no christian goes by everything that is in the bible. If they did, they'd be in prison for murdering witches, homosexuals, and sabbath workers. People pick and choose based on what they decide is right.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"doing x without being aware of it"
Even arguing that a religious individual is ignorantly making God an extension of themselves is invalid insomuch as their idea of God is still "wholly other" from themselves. Thus it is clearly not an extension of themselves. If the Christian conception of God was like that of Zeus, namely, a sexually charged, muscular man of a god, you may have had more of a case...
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Well, on that point we have to disagree because I don't think the god you believe in is real. I think it is an extension of your ego.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"I think it is an extension of your ego"
Evidence for your assertion?
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 The assertion that I think it's an extension of your ego? The fact that I said it.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
You saying something doesn't make it a fact. If you assert that God is merely an extension of my ego, you need to support that claim with evidence.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 But I did say that I think your god is simply an extension of your ego. That's a fact, and to prove it, read the post again. What you want is for me to prove is that the god you believe in, whose name is Yahweh, doesn't exist. I can't do that any more than you can prove that it does exist. But it is my disbelief in his existence that leads me to believe that it is more likely that what you call his opinion is actually your own.
Do you ever disagree with Yahweh?
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
No, I didn't ask you to prove that my God doesn't exist. I told you to give your justification or reasoning for concluding that God is merely an extension of my ego. I know your pride is wounded here, but stop dancing around the subject.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 My pride? Ummm ok. Smiling and nodding about that one.
If you want me to answer your questions, you have to ask them clearly. I have answered them as you asked them. If I haven't given you the answer you want, the fault is entirely your own. I hit upon what you're asking at the end of my previous response. Do you think that Yahweh is always right? Do you ever disagree with Yahweh?
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
It's not for you to ask questions. Your place is to prove your assertion. An assertion without any reasoning or evidence is a meaningless opinion. Your assertion has no reasoning or evidence. Therefore, your assertion that God is just an extension of my ego is a meaningless opinion.
I expect you to understand basic logic if we're going to have this dialog.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 It is not for you to decide what my place is. If the answer to my questions is that you never disagree with Yahweh, then that gives me good reason to believe that his opinion is simply yours in a limited liability way. I've never met a christian who openly admitted to disagreeing with his or her god, even if they admitted to disagreeing with some of what's in the bible.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Since you continually refuse to engage in proper debate, there's no purpose in continuing further with you. Incidentally, your silence speaks loudly. At least you can see that your assertion that God is merely an extension of my ego is without evidence or merit.
Finally, as we've seen from this short dialog, you have not even come close to properly sifting the questions regarding God's existence. You should think about that.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Says you, but you are biased in that you have an irrational attachment to your beliefs.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"but you are biased in that you have an irrational attachment"
And you smell funny and have a dorky haircut. Isn't slinging mud fun? Unfortunately, it doesn't make for good debate. You've succumbed to ad hominem argumentation here. In layman's terms, LOGIC FAIL.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 I didn't insult you. Irrational is not an insult.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@AgApE010, what is wrong with him having a "meaningless opinion". Is it not his right to have a "meanlingless opinion"? I can see how some people may make a god an extension of themselves. If Chrisitans think "A" is wrong, they would probably think that GOD thinks "A" is wrong as well. I talked about masturbation with someone. I see nothing wrong with it. But not the person I spoke to. This person thinks is the worst thing you can do to youself. Why? She thinks GOD thinks it is wrong.
sandbar3000 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
No, you didn't strike a nerve. I just mentally facepalmed at your attempt to be psychological.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 No, it made you upset. I can tell. My invisible friend told me so. It's not my opinion, it's hers, so take it up with her if you have a problem with it. You see what I'm doing here? I'm taking my own opinion and ascribing it to a being that doesn't really exist, just like christians, jews, muslims, and all other theists who do that kind of thing.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything, yeah people do pick and choose what they like. I see it all the time with preachers. They LOVE to preach on sexual sin, but I don't see too much preaching about overeating/gluttony. I'm wondering how many other people (not Christians) pick and choose what they obey on thier holy texts. I think it's human behavior to pick and choose what they like.
sandbar3000 3 months ago
@sandbar3000 Yep, it goes back, I think, to what they are personally uncomfortable with. Sex is a biggie, but I bet preachers with food issues rail against gluttony and preachers with anger issues preach about wrath. It all goes back to whatever their personal issues are, and those become their god's biggest concerns.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything, yes you got it. It is called projection in psychology. We as humans tend to project our own issues with ourselves on to others. it is one of the many Defense mechanisms
sandbar3000 3 months ago
@CrazyJvlog If there can be uncaused causes, then why does it have to be a god?
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
What else would the uncaused cause be? A self-existent, eternal cause of the existence of all time, space, and matter is God.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 It could be a smeeble or a cranzoot.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"a smeeble or a cranzoot"
Whatever you call the uncaused cause, it's just merely a name. Call it a snickerdoodle for all I care. The point is that the concept of an uncaused cause and its implications is equivalent to the concept of God. To further clarify, "God" is not merely a name we're attaching to the uncaused cause. Thus your reply of calling it instead a smeeble or whatever is a red herring. We're speaking of the concept of God, not proper names to attach to it.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 So if a smeeble can be an uncaused cause, why can't the universe? Why the extra step?
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Because we know that the universe has not always existed. Plus the universe cannot cause itself. For in order to cause itself it presupposes its own existence. See the breach in logic?
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 How do we know the universe has not always existed in some form? I happen to know that beings cannot have always existed, so there goes your god hypothesis.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
We know the universe has not always existed because it came into existence at the Big Bang. Furthermore, since the universe is an effect, for instance, since it is in motion, we must ultimately go all the way back to a cause that brought about the effect. However, this cause itself must be uncaused or else we fall into an infinite regress (this cause was caused by the cause; that cause was caused by this cause, etc etc etc...) with which it's impossible to cause anything.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 We don't know that the universe did not exist before the big bang or even if "before" is a good word to use in that situation. Something had to exist, so why can't it have been the universe in a different form? It makes more sense than saying that an uncaused cause made it from nothing.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"Why can't it have been a universe in a different form"
Because another universe would also have a cause for its existence. As a matter of fact, as we delve into String Theory, we begin to see that there may very well be other universes and that ours is just a bubble amidst a sea of foam. But go back all the way to the first bubble, and there would have to be a cause for the matter/energy, space, and motion in that proto-universe.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Why would another universe have to be the cause of its existence? Universes can't be in any form other than the one ours is in now?
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Any universe essentially consists of space and energy/matter. There has to be a cause for their existence. Furthermore, there has to be a reason and cause for the motion of energy/matter. Even in a universe with an exceedingly dense singularity, subatomic articles such as quarks need an explanation for their existence/motion. This would be an "Unmoved Mover," as Aristotle called it.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 I don't see why there has to be a cause for their existence. The existence of energy is eternal. After all, it can't be created or destroyed.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Because something that is set in motion must have a reason for its movement. This principle is known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason and it was posited by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz centuries ago.
The Law of Conservation of Energy which you quote ("energy cannot be created or destroyed") is only applicable after energy already exists. It is a scientific law explaining energy after it exists, not a philosophical deduction arguing that it always existed.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 It means that energy can't be made to exist. That's what "cannot be created" means.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@AgApE010
"Because something that is set in motion must have a reason for its movement."
And of course that doesn't apply to Yahweh for some reason.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
God isn't set in motion. Remember the impossibility of an infinite regress mentioned earlier?
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Why can't the universe not have been set in motion for the same reason?
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
Again, God isn't set in motion. Thus to equate him with the universe is invalid. We already discussed this at length. Maybe you should spend time reading books on philosophy since you don't seem to understand basic ideas in theism and atheism.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Again, why can't the universe have not been set in motion for the same reason you are saying that Yahweh isn't set in motion? If an infinite regress is impossible, then why stop at the god you just happen to have been raised to believe in and not go one less step and say the contents of the universe are eternal? We don't agree that Yahweh even exists, so we are far from having established that he was not set in motion.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
-Because the universe IS in motion
-God is not a physical being; there is therefore nothing to move or put in motion in God.
-In this regress, as far back as you go you must ultimately come to the uncaused cause or else you fall into an infinite regress which is both absurd and impossible. Whatever this uncaused cause is, this is what we call God. Notice I didn't say YHVH. We're just speaking of theism in general contra atheism.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010
-There is no such thing as a nonphysical being. The concept makes no sense at all.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
A nonphysical entity is deduced by way of deducing the attributes the probable cause of all physical entities, which require a cause. This is sufficient reasoning to posit a nonphysical entity. If you still assert that such a being is impossible or nonexistent, the ball is in your court to argue why. Unless what you mean to say is that you personally don't believe in a nonphysical entity, which is must different from saying one does not exist.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 In order for a being to exist, it has to be anchored to reality by being made of materials. Every material we know of has physical properties. There are no materials we know of that do not. We wouldn't be able to detect them if there were any. There is no good reason to suspect that anything nonphysical exists, other than abstract concepts like time and dignity.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
"it has to be anchored to reality by being made of materials"
Do you see how you sneak in your own view of Materialism into your argument? You are basically saying "Nothing immaterial exists therefore nothing immaterial exists." This is a logical fallacy known as Question Begging.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
-It has already been established why the universe cannot be eternal. At this point, you are repeating points that were already addressed instead of addressing my responses. This is a big indicator that you have failed in debate. So I must ask, what keeps you coming back here and repeating the same refuted arguments?
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 No it has not. You have simply asserted it.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
I have "simply asserted" what?
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 that the universe cannot be eternal
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
@PluralOfEverything
I didn't "simply assert" that. I argued that the universe cannot be self-caused (a logical fallacy) and, similarly, that motion implies an "unmoved mover," as Aristotle called it. If you still argue that the universe is or can be eternal, you must tear down this argument and establish your own argument in its place showing that the universe can be eternal.
AgApE010 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Words reduce reality to something that the human mind can grasp, which isn't very much. Language consists of five basic sounds produced by the vocal chords. They are the vowels a, e, i, o, u. The other sounds are consonants produced by air pressure: s, f, g and so forth. Do you believe some combination of such basic sounds could ever explain who you are, or the ultimate purpose of the universe, or even what a tree or stone is in depth?
Follow your own path, because we're all connected anyway.
Cobbbbbb 5 months ago
I think all gods are human's attempt to explain the unexplainable and cope with the natural fear of death. When a person realizes that we are natural creatures on this planet and destined to die and be recycled, the fear goes away. God is unnecessary.
Christheatheist1 5 months ago