then the King will say to those on his left,go away from me.you will be punished.go into the FIRE THAT BURNS FOREVER that was pre pared for the devil and his angels. matt 25:41-42 but coward those who refuse to believe,who kill,who sin sexually, who does evil things,who worship idols,who tell lies, who does evil magic, all these will have a place in the lake of burning sulfur, this is the second death rev 21:8 let God be true and every man a liar romans 3:4
There is a God God's anger is shown from heaven against all the evil and wrong things people do,by their own evil lives they hide the truth,God shows his anger because some knowledge of him has been made clear to them,yes God has shown himself to them. romans 1:18-19 if you use your mouth to say Jesus is Lord, and if you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved romans 10:9 repent.repent.........
Yes you can rule out the concept of the Christian god that cares for his creation. The best bet, if there is such an entity, is the god of the deist. An uncaring, uninvolved, indifferent force. The god of the bible is so obviously the creation of ancient tribesmen with all the same limitations of that era, i.e. jealousy, anger, vengefulness, etc.
@auggiedoggy The problem with the deist idea of god is that it's just a superfluous layer tacked on overtop of reality. If it's uncaring, uninvolved, and indifferent, why should it even be a consideration, whether it exists or not? That's just a load of nonsense to me. I find that "god" to be no less silly than any other. It's still a faith based position, with no more evidence than any other god-model I've encountered.
@monkeytube138 : Yes its just another faith-based position but at least to me it rules out the so-called "caring" god that Christians speak of. How that belief still persists in this day and age is beyond me. Any more credible? Not much.
True freedom is also the freedom to choose evil (from a theological prospective), that is free will. This "sky-daddy" is your only source for the concept of freedom, since you don't believe there is a such thing as evil, i.e. the opposite of freedom which is control. But you say there is no such thing as free will then control is all that exists. If control is evil then only evil exits. Progress, being only a concept, is itself controlled.
Historically, Christianity and Judaism have been oppressed by atheistic empires who hated them for the very same reason you do. They didn't like that it condemned their tyrannical behavior. You're arguing religion is intended to control with fear, i.e. the fear of condemnation for evil. You're actually calling good evil and evil good.. That's a scary thought. I'm sorry you were swayed by these liberal lunatics. They reinterpret history based their distortion of present reality.
First of all, there is no such thing as rights without a creator. Religious freedom is a religious idea. Atheists tend to disagree with that freedom for the very fact that they don't believe in free will. They think teaching your children religion is child abuse. How is that religious freedom?
They are relative. If we don't have freedom of will (or the freedom to choose from an assortment of wills) then freedom is meaningless and our will must be controlled for the sake of progress.
@ProjectDecade Amazing. You are aware of this cause and effect aren't you? The fact that you are able to recognize it defeats your case. You have the freedom to not be hindered by external causes. In fact, isn't that what you're fighting for?
Though i agree in a sense that free will is limited to the ideas we've inherited from past generations. But that doesn't diminish our will but our ability to be free. So we're willing to be free but we're unable. Which is the Christian view, by the way.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science. Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation. ...
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@ProjectDecade Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter? ...
I love when people complain about the state of the world and blame God for it while they themselves live comfortably... fascinating. Not the mention you'll probably also deny the existence of free will. Isn't free will the cause of the problems in the world? You contradict yourself so easily.
@AliceCure Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@AliceCure Yeah, Atheism! The cause why one of my friends died! Yeah Atheism! The cause why AIDS widespread across Asia! Yeah! Atheism! The cause why most european students suicide after being abuse at school or after they failed at relationships. Yeah, Atheism! I cause why Abortion and same sex marriage is even possible! Yeah!!!! Yeah!!!! HA!
god does love you thats why he sent jesus to save us and the reason there is bad in the world is the devil is running the world now god is a spirit he cares more about your soul than your body,,, he is watching over you for sure,,,very pretty lady and sincere lets pray for her saints
@elphiegreen: You are, of course, on the right track to self-responsibility and intellectual integrity.
I urge you to continue your research and become even more skilled at articulating your position. There is such liberation that comes as a result of both.
People, if she wants to be an atheist, let her be. I'm Christian myself but I don't go around bashing every single human who's an atheist claiming they got flawed logic or whatever. It's their freaking choice what they believe or don't believe in.
My best friend kept telling me before we were confirmed that a lot of people say they can feel the holy spirit when they're confirmed. I didn't feel anything special. It was disappointing. That's what started me searching for another religion that fit me better, and eventually I became an atheist. I never really believed the bible anyway. It always felt like the stories of santa claus - everybody talked about him as if he was real, but everybody really knew he wasn't.
I was raised catholic too, and I was *definitely* forced into confirmation, even though the whole time, they said it was our choice. I was confirmed in grade 8, and they told us that if we weren't confirmed, we couldn't graduate. That would have meant that I wouldn't have been able to go to high school.
Thanks for bringing this to light. Someday religious delusion may end and it will be because of people like you standing up and out. May your life be as amazing as you create it to be. :)
That stupid Catholic religion is not Christian ... it's a pagan superstitious, moronic, evil, fraud. Those homo priests of Baal will have to answer for all the atheists they produced.
God isn't in that religion. Jesus Christ didn't establish the cult of Catholicism.
Get a King James Bible and read the Gospel of St John and re-introduce yourself to Jesus, this time without all the religious garbage getting in the way.
@MackQuigleyVids What do you think endgendered Christianity? Catholocism is what gave birth to Christianity. And don't try to distinguish one from the other. They are the same in one crucial respect. They both rely on biblical dogma. Take away the funny hats, communion, the rituals and what are you left with? That's right, Christianity. Christianity, judaism, and Islam have to be the worst contrivances ever to come from the human mind. Nuclear wepons aren't even as dangerous as religion
No one can even agree what the hell "God" is. Don't try to argue the existence of something of which you have NO CLUE about, you silly theists. But... OF COURSE your "god" is the right one. Nothing fills my nostrils with the nauseating, putrid stench of tragic melancholy misology more so than the triad of the desert faiths.
So there is a valid rebuttal to aethiesm, which is that there's something you can attach to that is NOT OF THIS WORLD makes dealing with reality much more tolerable. If you look at Haiti and how religious the people are, it has served as a spiritual medicine in their ways of coping with what we may perceive as a living misery
The argument in defense of Theism and also Buddhist principles for that matter is that there is "what you see going on in the world.....and then there's the human conditon. The human condition is such that the impact of the horrors on the people themselves is tailored to how they cope with reality. If they believe, they are supposedly able to find happiness and beauty in even the worst of situations. And that God opts to control the human coping of events, not the actual what you see.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh - I am not atheist because of science. Science does not disprove god. It explains things we can't otherwise understand, just as religion does, except science uses physical evidence and religion uses feelings. You can't prove a nonexistent thing. Atheists are atheists because they see no reliable evidence to support the existence of any gods.
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion. ...
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis,...
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of *all* faiths and religious tendencies to "religion uses feelings" or material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science.* ...
Western intellectuals are aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they have no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment is based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it can not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
How is that for YOUR "and religion uses feelings"?
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh The burden of proof lies with the people who make a claim until said claim is proven. Therefore, theists must bring sufficient evidence of their supernatural Sky Daddy to the table, and since they cannot atheists can disregard the claim without having is disprove it.
If I claim that a "Flying Purple People Eater" exists is it up to you to prove me wrong?
@jkane1977 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@monkey..We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh Fair point. The difference is that unlike you, I'm not claiming I HAVE an answer to that question, I'm just rejecting an arbitrary, illogical answer. Please, don't assume my stance. There isn't an official atheist position upon the subject, because there isn't an official atheist position upon anything, barring the god concept itself. I take issue to your question of "who created primary matter?" There is no reason it has to be a "who," is there?
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@1tabligh You've tried to sidestep my question. Let's look at your previous statement and replace "created" with "originated" and "without any need for a creator" with "without any need for an origin." It does change the context somewhat, allowing for options other than eternal existance or design. I don't have to know what those additional options are, since I'm not a scientist, and since dealing in absolutes is just silly. There's no harm in admitting that you don't know.
@mon...In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
@1tabligh I think you type just read your own words. You don't answer even the simplest of questions. You had one very, VERY simple question to answer, which was "Do all theists believe that all atheists are science nuts? Or is it just the ones on youtube?" and you dodged it. You have no idea what atheists believe, and I'm done with you.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
@soMeRandoM670 How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Just wanted to know that i wasn't defending someone that i latter find out he trolling then get hurt, thnx for reply that you not troll. i had to ask. if people really want to think in evolution thing didn't make them self ecter. then be Mormon, because there infinite recursion of already pre existing matter. Im christian btw. Im very sure im not wrong 1:2Billion - 1:567Billion (1 part chance)
@soMeRandoM670 From the Qur'anic point of view the miraculous birth of Adam, the first living being gifted with Divine spirit, should not be construed to mean that the Qur'an is opposed to the theory of the emergence of the existing things of the world or the birth of living organisms on the basis of evolution. All that it means is that the emergence of man in an extraordinary way was a special favor of Allah.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@elphiegreen You can expect that level of commentary from Theists. They believe in silly stupid things like sky gods & magic, and say stupid things all the time, so pay them no attention at all.
I looked at your art, and I enjoyed it, so thanks for the link.
well i think she stated good points, and this is her opnion. very nice. when i wuz brought up, i wuz kinda "born" into the religion of christianity. it wuz basicly pressed on me, then i started to rebel. thats probably y i started looking into atheism so ya
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
the point is nobody knows what matter even is. Famous Einstein equation states that matter is energy. Whatever universe is made out of it is one thing. Nobody knows what is the source of first existence it is beyond scientific knowledge all we have is myths about it. greek myths, hindu myths christian myths.We know that universe came from singularity and even if it wasnt matter or anything like it It doesnt mean it was god and it doesnt mean it exists anymore or effects this universe in any way
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
if it was otherwise how would this first mind come about? If you assume god existed forever you might as well assume universe existed forever. Universe is less complex then god. Evolution does not bring us step closer to perfection what it does is makes us best at reproducing. We must survive to reproduce so it also makes us adapted to the environment. If environment changes so does direction evolution takes us. If it takes us in many directions how can there be a perfection?
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
not necessarily matter What created our universe was not necessarily matter , however it could not be more complex then the universe itself. If it was the case where would that complexity come from in the first place. It just brings more questions that are harder to answer. Whenever people cant explain something they just use god but noone can explain god. when we finally know how something happens like lightning then its no longer god doing it.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns conceming this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Simply because you dont know everything does not mean you dont know nothing. Scientists know more then any theologian about this universe. Your argument can be used to defend theory that earth is flat as well. Scientists dont know everything about earth i believe earth is flat therefore i am right. We know quite a bit about how universes past. Primitive violent man that wrote the bible had no clue where universe came from on the other hand. No clue that it was expending,that we arent the center
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
no scientists do not claim to know what created the universe. Nobody knows. The only problem is that people will claim they know. They say allah did it or titans did it or hindu gods did it. We know however there was a big bang because there is evidence for it... what caused big bang? noone knows at least not yet. just like we didnt know what caused sickness before we descovered viruses and bacteria. People use to say its demons. LOL. same thing w/ creation of universe
Some brainless scientists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
ok first of all... its not only matter or god. Universe could have been created by something that cannot be described within our universe. So it could be something we have no name of. Its hard to call something matter if laws of this universe dont even exist yet. matter can only exist within our universe before our universe there was no matter . It could be infinite number of things we have no idea. Scientists i repeat do not claim matter created universe where the hell did u get that from?
on the other hand they know that atoms did "produce themselves" they observed it. energy creates matter in big amounts. Its Einsteins famous equation. E=mc^2. The other atoms were produced by fusion in stars. Stars fused hydrogen atoms (produced from energy) to produce all the other atoms. Where did the first energy come from? nobody knows but it doesnt mean its 50:50 god or something else. first of all there are many gods. second of all there are infinite number of other things that could do it
and like i said god is LEAST probable because god is infinitely complex. universe is less complex so its more probable that universe would exist forever. In fact existence of god is infinitely more improbable (why would you use more complex thing to explain less complex thing it just brings more complicated questions). And energy and singularity is even less complex then the universe so its even more probable for that to just exist maybe there was something even simpler that caused singularity.
i do not know what properties it had no one does. All i know that it was simpler then the universe . You do not know if it was god you just claim it was. Claiming something does not make it true. That something could be another universe with different laws and only one dimension (possibly). I call it the pre-universe.
Atheists wish to delude themselves that the universe is eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons: First, if the material universe is eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. Second, if the elements comprising the universe are eternal by virtue of their essence, ...
i do not claim that the universe is eternal, but it is possible. Elements that make up this universe are eternal in essence. They cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter cannot be destroyed and energy cannot be destroyed. Hence they exist forever. Now its possible that there is big bang fallowed by big crunch and universe does exist forever. Its not what we observe however. Eternal does not mean free from change, universe can change and still be eternal. I can demonstrate this if u wish
Matter cannot be destroyed and energy cannot be destroyed.
________
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do atheists, who believe that matter/energy is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy ?
how do theists justify the existence of god? it might be that energy is eternal and always was there in some form or that before the universe energy came into existence by simple laws. You do not justify god but say we have to justify such a simple thing as energy. Or do you have some justification for god.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter/energy and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter/energy. ...
actually there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that energy/matter isnt eternal. Energy so far has never been destroyed. You just supposing that it cant exist in order to impose that your god must exist. Even if energy/matter couldnt exist forever this does not mean that god existsLike i said universe did come from somewhere just because we arent exactly sure how it happens doesnt mean god did it. When people didnt know what causes lightning they said god did it(zeus and yahweh)now we know its not god
The very nature of matter/energy refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
actually no. Nobody ever demonstrated that energy/matter could not exist forever. Nobody ever even stated such a thing. If you prove it im sure you going to win bunch of prizes and be widely recognized in physics. What you now doing is just saying things without any actual understanding of the subject. You just saying you know how matter/energy works better then the scientists know. How did you get that knowledge pulled it out of your as*.....
Matter/energy is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter/energy and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
yea you just stating this... also there does not need to be motion for there to be matter matter at absolute zero has no vibration. theoretical physics says that black holes dont have motion.. and even if it did... Why cant something eternal move? i know it cant change... but it could well move... it only changes location. Plus lastly it could be something else then matter/energy but this doesnt mean its god.
most often people that call other people fools are fools themselves. I am just asking where you got what you are saying from? did you read it in scientific journal? did you somehow proved it using physics and mathematics or are you just stating something cant be because you dont like it.
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, the atheists can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. ...
how many times do i have to repeat myself? Not only matter. The first cause yes it has to be eternal but no atheist i know claims it has to be matter/energy. And energy cannot be created in this universe it doesnt mean that it cannot be created outside of this universe if this was the case then we wouldnt exist even if god existed because he couldnt create energy if it was impossible to create. The first cause is most probably not matter/energy but something like a simpler pre-universe.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
no. This means that atheists (not all atheists are materialists) think that the first cause was not god but something else. the first cause could simply exist forever because it was really simple. God on the other hand existing forever is improbable because God is complex. I dont know where the first cause came from it existed forever do you know where god came from? No you dont. Same thing with first cause its just not god. Its something much simpler to explain something complex our universe
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
precisely so god always existed and didnt come from anywhere, but that is highly unprobable because god is complex. If god can exist forever other complex things could as well they wouldnt need an explanation. The first cause had to exist forever... but why should it be God? it just makes no sense. God is complex and unprobable more then the universe just existing. Why use god to explain the universe when it doesnt answer anything. First cause had to be simple.
In just the same way that the atheists regard matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, ..
precisely! but god is much more complex then the universe so it doesnt explain anything at all! while first cause in order to explain the universe has to be simpler. Answering a question with an even more complex question cannot be the final answer... thats why first cause could not have all those attributes they make it extremely complex. Also they are contradicting this universe we dont see all lovingness we see random natural disaster and diseases and starvation and suffering.
whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
removing the attributes of the first cause like intelligence benevolence omnipowerfulness and omnipresence makes the first cause simpler. Which is what final answer must be. It is highly improbable that this universe exists simply by chance but it is infinitely improbable that infinite god exists by chance. there is a name of infinitely improbable its called impossible
Matter/energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties. ...
so can be the first cause without it being god. I never said that matter/energy had to be the first cause (btw if it would be it would be energy and energy has no dimensions) First cause which i called pre-universe probably lacked most properties we find in this universe. Most likely it lacks dimensions since we came from singularity
It should be added that material existence cannot in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
you are claiming that it did acquire the attributes necessary. You just claiming that god gave it to matter... through some mysterious magical way. I am claiming it happened through natural process.
All the phenomena that once did not exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a cause that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an external factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
actually that is total bullshit. Before something existed it did not both exist and not exist it just didnt exist. Something else must have caused them. This is in fact a law of logic. Imagine how you would feel if someone arguing with you would deny laws of logic? (there are 3 of them and if you deny any you can prove whatever you want even that doing good is doing evil) google laws of logic its what all arguments are based on without them everything else is just as valid as everything else
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. ...
Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical mould. Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident not arising from a cause. ...
Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
yea. I dont think the creation of the universe was an accident. I doubt any physicist thinks so. But simply because we do not understand the cause does not mean that the cause was God. Simple laws can create vastly complex structures and interactions. God itself is so complex that it would require more explanation then the universe. Universe must have been caused by something simpler.
Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It cannot pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing until the powerful hand of causality sets to work. ...
The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship cannot be destroyed or replaced by another.
the relationship of cause and effect is a relation of one thing causing another. One of them has to exist previously but not the other. More complex things can cause a simpler thing. Yet we find out that a simple thing can cause a more complex thing. And simple laws can cause really complex system. And complex things always need more explanation then the simpler things. Therefore they shouldnt be used as the default explanation.
Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is nothing within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is impossible. ...
I dont! I dont think there are things that are and arent. That is simply impossible. What i consider is something existing that has different properties then this universe. A simpler properties. You on the other hand think it was something more complex. But complex things cannot be a final answer
Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause never loses its essential neediness; it will always remain a being characterized by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will never be severed for an instant. ...
Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to non-existence, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator stops working, all the bright lamps connected to it fall dark. It is for this reason that cause and effect, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed nothing would remain but darkness and non-being.
No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world until a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is free from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being. But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of neediness continues under all circumstances. ...
you just said nothing can be without a cause. And then you say god can be without a cause. I know a funny similar joke to this "it is ultimate proof of gods greatness that he needs not to exist in order to save us"
We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation. ...
The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
the problem is that you are stating that God would be excluded from need of causation but you arent really giving any reasons why. And you arent really giving any reasons why anything else cant be excluded.
You are just stating things you dont have any evidence for.
When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; ..
yea asserting something doesnt prove it. I can assert that first cause wasnt god. I can assert that first cause didnt need cause either. Asserting something doesnt prove anything. Just like defining something to exist doesnt prove it exists. I could define Jabaluka as a great spirit that brings me luck and by definition it exists. It doesnt show anything. If you assume god exists then of course it exists. This is called circular logic.
The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in...
The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause. The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence. ...
I dont see how the first part demonstrates that it needs to be god. And with the second part emergence from non existence into existence i dont think i even agree. The first cause couldnt emerge from nothing it had to always exist forever. And can still exist or could be destroyed with the creation of universe or other cause that came prior to our universe
oceantalk1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are things about him that people can not see-his
eternal power and all the things that make him God,but since
the beginning of the world those things have been easy to
understand by what God has made,so people have no excuse for
the bad things they do romans 1:20-21
oceantalk1 2 months ago
oceantalk1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
surely you know that people who do wrong will not inherit God kingdom
,do not be fooled,those who sin sexually,who worship idols,
who take part in adultery,those who are male prostitutes,
or men who have sexual relations with other men,those who steal,
those who are greedy,those who get drunk,those who lie about others,
or rob,these people will not inherit God kingdom 1 cor 6:9-10
oceantalk1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people who believe in God son are not judged guilty,
those who do not believe have already been judged guilty,
because they have not believed in God one and only son,
they are judged by this fact,the light has come into the world,
but they did not want light,
they wanted darkness,
because they were doing evil things john 3:18-20
oceantalk1 2 months ago
@1tabligh its been 2 years and you are still commenting on my video!! wow
elphiegreen 3 months ago
Try reading some Near Death Experiences (NDE's), tis very interesting. And many questions you raise are answered in them.
looknlistener 7 months ago
@looknlistener
NDE science trys to explain however doesn't explain anything longer than 4 minutes death's.
soMeRandoM670 6 months ago
"deal with it and kindly fuck off"............now there's an open mind indeed!
helpmetony 1 year ago
This is honest and thats why i like this its refreshing
oblivion1822 1 year ago
@oblivion1822 thank you =]
elphiegreen 1 year ago
Yes you can rule out the concept of the Christian god that cares for his creation. The best bet, if there is such an entity, is the god of the deist. An uncaring, uninvolved, indifferent force. The god of the bible is so obviously the creation of ancient tribesmen with all the same limitations of that era, i.e. jealousy, anger, vengefulness, etc.
auggiedoggy 1 year ago
@auggiedoggy The problem with the deist idea of god is that it's just a superfluous layer tacked on overtop of reality. If it's uncaring, uninvolved, and indifferent, why should it even be a consideration, whether it exists or not? That's just a load of nonsense to me. I find that "god" to be no less silly than any other. It's still a faith based position, with no more evidence than any other god-model I've encountered.
monkeytube138 9 months ago
@monkeytube138 : Yes its just another faith-based position but at least to me it rules out the so-called "caring" god that Christians speak of. How that belief still persists in this day and age is beyond me. Any more credible? Not much.
auggiedoggy 9 months ago
True freedom is also the freedom to choose evil (from a theological prospective), that is free will. This "sky-daddy" is your only source for the concept of freedom, since you don't believe there is a such thing as evil, i.e. the opposite of freedom which is control. But you say there is no such thing as free will then control is all that exists. If control is evil then only evil exits. Progress, being only a concept, is itself controlled.
I digress. Lets get to the heart of the matter...
knowwaie 1 year ago
Historically, Christianity and Judaism have been oppressed by atheistic empires who hated them for the very same reason you do. They didn't like that it condemned their tyrannical behavior. You're arguing religion is intended to control with fear, i.e. the fear of condemnation for evil. You're actually calling good evil and evil good.. That's a scary thought. I'm sorry you were swayed by these liberal lunatics. They reinterpret history based their distortion of present reality.
knowwaie 1 year ago
First of all, there is no such thing as rights without a creator. Religious freedom is a religious idea. Atheists tend to disagree with that freedom for the very fact that they don't believe in free will. They think teaching your children religion is child abuse. How is that religious freedom?
They are relative. If we don't have freedom of will (or the freedom to choose from an assortment of wills) then freedom is meaningless and our will must be controlled for the sake of progress.
knowwaie 1 year ago
@ProjectDecade Amazing. You are aware of this cause and effect aren't you? The fact that you are able to recognize it defeats your case. You have the freedom to not be hindered by external causes. In fact, isn't that what you're fighting for?
Though i agree in a sense that free will is limited to the ideas we've inherited from past generations. But that doesn't diminish our will but our ability to be free. So we're willing to be free but we're unable. Which is the Christian view, by the way.
knowwaie 1 year ago
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science. Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProjectDecade Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Your art. Oh Jesus does it suck.
Rafflefull 1 year ago
I love when people complain about the state of the world and blame God for it while they themselves live comfortably... fascinating. Not the mention you'll probably also deny the existence of free will. Isn't free will the cause of the problems in the world? You contradict yourself so easily.
knowwaie 1 year ago
I love the atheist community on youtube. They say it like it is. There's nothing wrong with being atheist. :)
AliceCure 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AliceCure Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@AliceCure Yeah, Atheism! The cause why one of my friends died! Yeah Atheism! The cause why AIDS widespread across Asia! Yeah! Atheism! The cause why most european students suicide after being abuse at school or after they failed at relationships. Yeah, Atheism! I cause why Abortion and same sex marriage is even possible! Yeah!!!! Yeah!!!! HA!
DWorshipFellowship 1 year ago
god does love you thats why he sent jesus to save us and the reason there is bad in the world is the devil is running the world now god is a spirit he cares more about your soul than your body,,, he is watching over you for sure,,,very pretty lady and sincere lets pray for her saints
ncbookz 1 year ago
@elphiegreen: You are, of course, on the right track to self-responsibility and intellectual integrity.
I urge you to continue your research and become even more skilled at articulating your position. There is such liberation that comes as a result of both.
Well done, young lady.
nlperpave 1 year ago
this is my belief so F off. hahaha. you don't care but you wanted the whole world to know?
cofeerush 1 year ago
People, if she wants to be an atheist, let her be. I'm Christian myself but I don't go around bashing every single human who's an atheist claiming they got flawed logic or whatever. It's their freaking choice what they believe or don't believe in.
Kainmaster 1 year ago
no love = robot.enjoy the borg you 2 of 5.
mickwillie1 1 year ago
My best friend kept telling me before we were confirmed that a lot of people say they can feel the holy spirit when they're confirmed. I didn't feel anything special. It was disappointing. That's what started me searching for another religion that fit me better, and eventually I became an atheist. I never really believed the bible anyway. It always felt like the stories of santa claus - everybody talked about him as if he was real, but everybody really knew he wasn't.
autumnsylver 1 year ago
I was raised catholic too, and I was *definitely* forced into confirmation, even though the whole time, they said it was our choice. I was confirmed in grade 8, and they told us that if we weren't confirmed, we couldn't graduate. That would have meant that I wouldn't have been able to go to high school.
autumnsylver 1 year ago
Thanks for bringing this to light. Someday religious delusion may end and it will be because of people like you standing up and out. May your life be as amazing as you create it to be. :)
BenjaminSmythe 1 year ago
That stupid Catholic religion is not Christian ... it's a pagan superstitious, moronic, evil, fraud. Those homo priests of Baal will have to answer for all the atheists they produced.
God isn't in that religion. Jesus Christ didn't establish the cult of Catholicism.
Get a King James Bible and read the Gospel of St John and re-introduce yourself to Jesus, this time without all the religious garbage getting in the way.
MackQuigleyVids 2 years ago
And the same ignorant fool is lurking in this channel! Who are you to say a religion is stupid! You belong to a moronic religion yourself!
TheMightySwe 1 year ago
@TheMightySwe
Stop stalking me. Get a life.
MackQuigleyVids 1 year ago
@MackQuigleyVids What do you think endgendered Christianity? Catholocism is what gave birth to Christianity. And don't try to distinguish one from the other. They are the same in one crucial respect. They both rely on biblical dogma. Take away the funny hats, communion, the rituals and what are you left with? That's right, Christianity. Christianity, judaism, and Islam have to be the worst contrivances ever to come from the human mind. Nuclear wepons aren't even as dangerous as religion
nosajj12345 1 year ago
No one can even agree what the hell "God" is. Don't try to argue the existence of something of which you have NO CLUE about, you silly theists. But... OF COURSE your "god" is the right one. Nothing fills my nostrils with the nauseating, putrid stench of tragic melancholy misology more so than the triad of the desert faiths.
VanKlaunch 2 years ago
So there is a valid rebuttal to aethiesm, which is that there's something you can attach to that is NOT OF THIS WORLD makes dealing with reality much more tolerable. If you look at Haiti and how religious the people are, it has served as a spiritual medicine in their ways of coping with what we may perceive as a living misery
ESponge2000 2 years ago
The argument in defense of Theism and also Buddhist principles for that matter is that there is "what you see going on in the world.....and then there's the human conditon. The human condition is such that the impact of the horrors on the people themselves is tailored to how they cope with reality. If they believe, they are supposedly able to find happiness and beauty in even the worst of situations. And that God opts to control the human coping of events, not the actual what you see.
ESponge2000 2 years ago
I don't even have a story. I was raised secular. :)
Brianswers 2 years ago
The atheist Delusion.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 years ago
yea but you cant prove there is a god either....gosh you guys are such hypocrites!!
elphiegreen 2 years ago
Of course we can!
Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
1tabligh 2 years ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 years ago
@elphiegreen buaahahahah wtf are you??big foot.........
giska1000 1 year ago
@elphiegreen
1:2Billion - 1:567Billion your wrong. Odds are against you. GASP!
soMeRandoM670 6 months ago
@elphiegreen "1:"
That your part, your 1 part chance how do you feel.. "that's you that's how dumb you sound"
soMeRandoM670 6 months ago
@1tabligh - I am not atheist because of science. Science does not disprove god. It explains things we can't otherwise understand, just as religion does, except science uses physical evidence and religion uses feelings. You can't prove a nonexistent thing. Atheists are atheists because they see no reliable evidence to support the existence of any gods.
KaelaCarver 1 year ago
@KaelaCarver
Just ignore him. He's a copypasting machine, and he's had the luck that the videoposter responded to his pro-quran propaganda. :-)
He's not actually giving his own comments any thought, let alone yours.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@KaelaCarver and religion uses feelings
_______
And where did you pull that from?
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The Development of Beliefs Through the Ages!
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis,...
1tabligh 1 year ago
defective and illogical.
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of *all* faiths and religious tendencies to "religion uses feelings" or material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science.* ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Western intellectuals are aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they have no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment is based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it can not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
How is that for YOUR "and religion uses feelings"?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh nor could thousands of experiments demonstrate that the tooth fairy doesn't exist! I think you suffer from the God Delusion.
xalspaero 1 year ago
@xalspaero
The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh The burden of proof lies with the people who make a claim until said claim is proven. Therefore, theists must bring sufficient evidence of their supernatural Sky Daddy to the table, and since they cannot atheists can disregard the claim without having is disprove it.
If I claim that a "Flying Purple People Eater" exists is it up to you to prove me wrong?
jkane1977 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkane1977 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Do all theists believe that all atheists are science nuts? Or is it just the ones on youtube?
monkeytube138 9 months ago
@monkey..We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Fair point. The difference is that unlike you, I'm not claiming I HAVE an answer to that question, I'm just rejecting an arbitrary, illogical answer. Please, don't assume my stance. There isn't an official atheist position upon the subject, because there isn't an official atheist position upon anything, barring the god concept itself. I take issue to your question of "who created primary matter?" There is no reason it has to be a "who," is there?
monkeytube138 9 months ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh You've tried to sidestep my question. Let's look at your previous statement and replace "created" with "originated" and "without any need for a creator" with "without any need for an origin." It does change the context somewhat, allowing for options other than eternal existance or design. I don't have to know what those additional options are, since I'm not a scientist, and since dealing in absolutes is just silly. There's no harm in admitting that you don't know.
monkeytube138 9 months ago
@mon...In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
1tabligh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh I think you type just read your own words. You don't answer even the simplest of questions. You had one very, VERY simple question to answer, which was "Do all theists believe that all atheists are science nuts? Or is it just the ones on youtube?" and you dodged it. You have no idea what atheists believe, and I'm done with you.
monkeytube138 8 months ago
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 9 months ago
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh
You weren't trolling right??
soMeRandoM670 6 months ago
@soMeRandoM670 How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh
Just wanted to know that i wasn't defending someone that i latter find out he trolling then get hurt, thnx for reply that you not troll. i had to ask. if people really want to think in evolution thing didn't make them self ecter. then be Mormon, because there infinite recursion of already pre existing matter. Im christian btw. Im very sure im not wrong 1:2Billion - 1:567Billion (1 part chance)
soMeRandoM670 6 months ago
@soMeRandoM670 From the Qur'anic point of view the miraculous birth of Adam, the first living being gifted with Divine spirit, should not be construed to mean that the Qur'an is opposed to the theory of the emergence of the existing things of the world or the birth of living organisms on the basis of evolution. All that it means is that the emergence of man in an extraordinary way was a special favor of Allah.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Science does not say hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, produce themselves. Unlike theism saying gods created themselves.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Science does NOT say hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, produce themselves. Unlike theism saying gods created themselves.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Was this person born a man? She/he looks like a gay guy.
mikeschatname 2 years ago
clever
elphiegreen 2 years ago
@elphiegreen, I honestly was just trying to get you to reply pretty girl. It worked. Thanks cutie. :-)
mikeschatname 2 years ago
@elphiegreen You can expect that level of commentary from Theists. They believe in silly stupid things like sky gods & magic, and say stupid things all the time, so pay them no attention at all.
I looked at your art, and I enjoyed it, so thanks for the link.
unserviam 1 year ago
@mikeschatname : Sorry YEC but you fail! Apparently your religious beliefs permit you to insult others? How Christian of you.
auggiedoggy 1 year ago
well i think she stated good points, and this is her opnion. very nice. when i wuz brought up, i wuz kinda "born" into the religion of christianity. it wuz basicly pressed on me, then i started to rebel. thats probably y i started looking into atheism so ya
HesMyObsession666 2 years ago
if there is a god how come there is an octomom! That is actually a good question :P
Not to mention viruses and natural disasters starving kids... its not like they are caused by humans.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
the point is nobody knows what matter even is. Famous Einstein equation states that matter is energy. Whatever universe is made out of it is one thing. Nobody knows what is the source of first existence it is beyond scientific knowledge all we have is myths about it. greek myths, hindu myths christian myths.We know that universe came from singularity and even if it wasnt matter or anything like it It doesnt mean it was god and it doesnt mean it exists anymore or effects this universe in any way
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
if it was otherwise how would this first mind come about? If you assume god existed forever you might as well assume universe existed forever. Universe is less complex then god. Evolution does not bring us step closer to perfection what it does is makes us best at reproducing. We must survive to reproduce so it also makes us adapted to the environment. If environment changes so does direction evolution takes us. If it takes us in many directions how can there be a perfection?
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 2 years ago
not necessarily matter What created our universe was not necessarily matter , however it could not be more complex then the universe itself. If it was the case where would that complexity come from in the first place. It just brings more questions that are harder to answer. Whenever people cant explain something they just use god but noone can explain god. when we finally know how something happens like lightning then its no longer god doing it.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns conceming this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Simply because you dont know everything does not mean you dont know nothing. Scientists know more then any theologian about this universe. Your argument can be used to defend theory that earth is flat as well. Scientists dont know everything about earth i believe earth is flat therefore i am right. We know quite a bit about how universes past. Primitive violent man that wrote the bible had no clue where universe came from on the other hand. No clue that it was expending,that we arent the center
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 2 years ago
no scientists do not claim to know what created the universe. Nobody knows. The only problem is that people will claim they know. They say allah did it or titans did it or hindu gods did it. We know however there was a big bang because there is evidence for it... what caused big bang? noone knows at least not yet. just like we didnt know what caused sickness before we descovered viruses and bacteria. People use to say its demons. LOL. same thing w/ creation of universe
princeofexcess 2 years ago
just because you dont know what did it does not mean God did it.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless scientists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
NO Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 2 years ago
ok first of all... its not only matter or god. Universe could have been created by something that cannot be described within our universe. So it could be something we have no name of. Its hard to call something matter if laws of this universe dont even exist yet. matter can only exist within our universe before our universe there was no matter . It could be infinite number of things we have no idea. Scientists i repeat do not claim matter created universe where the hell did u get that from?
princeofexcess 2 years ago
on the other hand they know that atoms did "produce themselves" they observed it. energy creates matter in big amounts. Its Einsteins famous equation. E=mc^2. The other atoms were produced by fusion in stars. Stars fused hydrogen atoms (produced from energy) to produce all the other atoms. Where did the first energy come from? nobody knows but it doesnt mean its 50:50 god or something else. first of all there are many gods. second of all there are infinite number of other things that could do it
princeofexcess 2 years ago
and like i said god is LEAST probable because god is infinitely complex. universe is less complex so its more probable that universe would exist forever. In fact existence of god is infinitely more improbable (why would you use more complex thing to explain less complex thing it just brings more complicated questions). And energy and singularity is even less complex then the universe so its even more probable for that to just exist maybe there was something even simpler that caused singularity.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
could have been created by something
_________
And what is that "something" ?
1tabligh 2 years ago
i do not know what properties it had no one does. All i know that it was simpler then the universe . You do not know if it was god you just claim it was. Claiming something does not make it true. That something could be another universe with different laws and only one dimension (possibly). I call it the pre-universe.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
more probable that universe would exist forever
________
Atheists wish to delude themselves that the universe is eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons: First, if the material universe is eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. Second, if the elements comprising the universe are eternal by virtue of their essence, ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
i do not claim that the universe is eternal, but it is possible. Elements that make up this universe are eternal in essence. They cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter cannot be destroyed and energy cannot be destroyed. Hence they exist forever. Now its possible that there is big bang fallowed by big crunch and universe does exist forever. Its not what we observe however. Eternal does not mean free from change, universe can change and still be eternal. I can demonstrate this if u wish
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Matter cannot be destroyed and energy cannot be destroyed.
________
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do atheists, who believe that matter/energy is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy ?
1tabligh 2 years ago
how do theists justify the existence of god? it might be that energy is eternal and always was there in some form or that before the universe energy came into existence by simple laws. You do not justify god but say we have to justify such a simple thing as energy. Or do you have some justification for god.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter/energy and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter/energy. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
actually there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that energy/matter isnt eternal. Energy so far has never been destroyed. You just supposing that it cant exist in order to impose that your god must exist. Even if energy/matter couldnt exist forever this does not mean that god existsLike i said universe did come from somewhere just because we arent exactly sure how it happens doesnt mean god did it. When people didnt know what causes lightning they said god did it(zeus and yahweh)now we know its not god
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The very nature of matter/energy refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
1tabligh 2 years ago
actually no. Nobody ever demonstrated that energy/matter could not exist forever. Nobody ever even stated such a thing. If you prove it im sure you going to win bunch of prizes and be widely recognized in physics. What you now doing is just saying things without any actual understanding of the subject. You just saying you know how matter/energy works better then the scientists know. How did you get that knowledge pulled it out of your as*.....
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Matter/energy is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter/energy and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
1tabligh 2 years ago
yea you just stating this... also there does not need to be motion for there to be matter matter at absolute zero has no vibration. theoretical physics says that black holes dont have motion.. and even if it did... Why cant something eternal move? i know it cant change... but it could well move... it only changes location. Plus lastly it could be something else then matter/energy but this doesnt mean its god.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
pulled it out of your as
_________
This is the argument of an IGNORANT!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
1tabligh 2 years ago
most often people that call other people fools are fools themselves. I am just asking where you got what you are saying from? did you read it in scientific journal? did you somehow proved it using physics and mathematics or are you just stating something cant be because you dont like it.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, the atheists can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
how many times do i have to repeat myself? Not only matter. The first cause yes it has to be eternal but no atheist i know claims it has to be matter/energy. And energy cannot be created in this universe it doesnt mean that it cannot be created outside of this universe if this was the case then we wouldnt exist even if god existed because he couldnt create energy if it was impossible to create. The first cause is most probably not matter/energy but something like a simpler pre-universe.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 2 years ago
no. This means that atheists (not all atheists are materialists) think that the first cause was not god but something else. the first cause could simply exist forever because it was really simple. God on the other hand existing forever is improbable because God is complex. I dont know where the first cause came from it existed forever do you know where god came from? No you dont. Same thing with first cause its just not god. Its something much simpler to explain something complex our universe
princeofexcess 2 years ago
where god came from?
________
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 2 years ago
precisely so god always existed and didnt come from anywhere, but that is highly unprobable because god is complex. If god can exist forever other complex things could as well they wouldnt need an explanation. The first cause had to exist forever... but why should it be God? it just makes no sense. God is complex and unprobable more then the universe just existing. Why use god to explain the universe when it doesnt answer anything. First cause had to be simple.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
In just the same way that the atheists regard matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, ..
1tabligh 2 years ago
precisely! but god is much more complex then the universe so it doesnt explain anything at all! while first cause in order to explain the universe has to be simpler. Answering a question with an even more complex question cannot be the final answer... thats why first cause could not have all those attributes they make it extremely complex. Also they are contradicting this universe we dont see all lovingness we see random natural disaster and diseases and starvation and suffering.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
1tabligh 2 years ago
removing the attributes of the first cause like intelligence benevolence omnipowerfulness and omnipresence makes the first cause simpler. Which is what final answer must be. It is highly improbable that this universe exists simply by chance but it is infinitely improbable that infinite god exists by chance. there is a name of infinitely improbable its called impossible
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Matter/energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
so can be the first cause without it being god. I never said that matter/energy had to be the first cause (btw if it would be it would be energy and energy has no dimensions) First cause which i called pre-universe probably lacked most properties we find in this universe. Most likely it lacks dimensions since we came from singularity
princeofexcess 2 years ago
It should be added that material existence cannot in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 2 years ago
you are claiming that it did acquire the attributes necessary. You just claiming that god gave it to matter... through some mysterious magical way. I am claiming it happened through natural process.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
All the phenomena that once did not exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a cause that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an external factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
1tabligh 2 years ago
actually that is total bullshit. Before something existed it did not both exist and not exist it just didnt exist. Something else must have caused them. This is in fact a law of logic. Imagine how you would feel if someone arguing with you would deny laws of logic? (there are 3 of them and if you deny any you can prove whatever you want even that doing good is doing evil) google laws of logic its what all arguments are based on without them everything else is just as valid as everything else
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The Need of the World for One Without Need
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Precisely nothing comes out of itself
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
yea like i said i am convinced that principle of causality is valid.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical mould. Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident not arising from a cause. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 2 years ago
yea. I dont think the creation of the universe was an accident. I doubt any physicist thinks so. But simply because we do not understand the cause does not mean that the cause was God. Simple laws can create vastly complex structures and interactions. God itself is so complex that it would require more explanation then the universe. Universe must have been caused by something simpler.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It cannot pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing until the powerful hand of causality sets to work. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship cannot be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 2 years ago
the relationship of cause and effect is a relation of one thing causing another. One of them has to exist previously but not the other. More complex things can cause a simpler thing. Yet we find out that a simple thing can cause a more complex thing. And simple laws can cause really complex system. And complex things always need more explanation then the simpler things. Therefore they shouldnt be used as the default explanation.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is nothing within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is impossible. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
I dont! I dont think there are things that are and arent. That is simply impossible. What i consider is something existing that has different properties then this universe. A simpler properties. You on the other hand think it was something more complex. But complex things cannot be a final answer
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause never loses its essential neediness; it will always remain a being characterized by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will never be severed for an instant. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to non-existence, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator stops working, all the bright lamps connected to it fall dark. It is for this reason that cause and effect, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed nothing would remain but darkness and non-being.
1tabligh 2 years ago
you just proved that god cannot exist you know that right?
princeofexcess 2 years ago
No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world until a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is free from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being. But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of neediness continues under all circumstances. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
you just said nothing can be without a cause. And then you say god can be without a cause. I know a funny similar joke to this "it is ultimate proof of gods greatness that he needs not to exist in order to save us"
princeofexcess 2 years ago
We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
1tabligh 2 years ago
the problem is that you are stating that God would be excluded from need of causation but you arent really giving any reasons why. And you arent really giving any reasons why anything else cant be excluded.
You are just stating things you dont have any evidence for.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; ..
1tabligh 2 years ago
yea asserting something doesnt prove it. I can assert that first cause wasnt god. I can assert that first cause didnt need cause either. Asserting something doesnt prove anything. Just like defining something to exist doesnt prove it exists. I could define Jabaluka as a great spirit that brings me luck and by definition it exists. It doesnt show anything. If you assume god exists then of course it exists. This is called circular logic.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in...
1tabligh 2 years ago
A) you dont demonstrate why god must have this property
B) you dont demonstrate why something else cant have that property.
In other words you just saying things. I might just as well claim earth is flat because it has to be flat..
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause. The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
1tabligh 2 years ago
the question is why must first cause be God.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
I dont see how the first part demonstrates that it needs to be god. And with the second part emergence from non existence into existence i dont think i even agree. The first cause couldnt emerge from nothing it had to always exist forever. And can still exist or could be destroyed with the creation of universe or other cause that came prior to our universe
princeofexcess 2 years ago