"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2icvqqFl88v3U1@uni-berlin.de...

ToolPackinMama wrote:

yawn::

Humbleness and humility makes you tired?
--

Well you have to admit that they don't make for a very exciting
lifestyle.

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2icvqqFl88v3U1@uni-berlin.de...

ToolPackinMama wrote:

yawn::

Humbleness and humility makes you tired?
--

Well you have to admit that they don't make for a very exciting lifestyle.

In article <2id8euFl9gj2U1@uni-berlin.de>, "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <2icuekFlgb42U1@uni-berlin.de>, "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com>
wrote:

James Q. Morrissey wrote:

this is a little off-topic here but i'd be intereseted to know -
why is it that people who believe in god also believe that
neccesary to believing in him is worshipping him? why does
anyone need to worship him at all? if God is perfect you'd
think he'd have some humility and humbleness in there too. just
wondered.

We don't worship God for HIS benefit, but for our own.

ok . . . what benefit is there?

Humbleness and humility.

What is the difference between them?

Get your own fuckin dictionary.

The irony is delicious.

On 7 Jun 2004 12:47:06 -0700,

Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<63q6c09sqkidotpcb4e0imk4l5npr18hna@4ax.com>...

On 5 Jun 2004 10:35:17 -0700,

Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<46n1c0ph4uhfgquokqq38vfebbqatovs16@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:40:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:c9plcs$f3j$1@titan.btinternet.com:

How minimalistic of you. The bible is written by men but it is the
word of god pass to those men.
I slap you now and resume my initial ranting.

this is a little off-topic here but i'd be intereseted to know - why
is it that people who believe in god also believe that neccesary to
believing in him is worshipping him? why does anyone need to worship
him at all? if God is perfect you'd think he'd have some humility and
humbleness in there too. just wondered.

We don't worship God for HIS benefit, but for our own.

Would you be willing to admit that the gods that were invented
thousands of years before and after the god of monotheism are
as valid as yours? If not, why not?

In order to answer your question, the implicit assumptions and biases
must first be discussed. First, you say that "gods...were invented".
Implicit in this statement is the suggestion that gods do not exist,
but are inventions of man. This is ~your~ personal bias. I have no
problem with you taking this position and holding this bias...but you
seem to be unaware of it. You have made many statements about being a
freethinker, being a skeptic, etc. Yet when we discussed evidence for
the existence of a god (not "proof" mind you, but "evidence" in the
form of logical, syllogistic arguments in the philosophical,
teleological and cosmological vein), you seemed unwilling to accept
the mere ~possibility~ that a god exists. This is not the hallmark of
one who is thinking freely.

What is stated to be "evidence", I see as unsubstantiated theory.
As I understand it, 'The first cause argument' is the most popular of
the cosmological proofs (evidence).

Ok, it seems that you have zeroed in on the Kalam argument....one
among many, and not necessarily "the most popular". That's fine,
let's discuss.

Every existing thing has a cause, and every cause must be caused
by a prior cause, which in turn must be caused by a still prior cause,
and so on, until we reach one of two conclusions:

(a) either we have an endless chain of causes.... an infinite regress,
or
(b) there exists a first cause, a being that does not require a causal
explanation.

According to this argument, it seems that an infinite regress of
causes is impossible. Without a first cause, there could be no second
cause; and without a second cause, there could be no third cause, etc.
We would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently
exists. But since things do exist, we must reject an infinite regress
and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which they call "god."
It is assumed by theists that God is the "first cause".

You (and the authors of the geocities sites from which much of your
research seems to be gleaned) omit some very pertinent premises of the
argument. As you are aware the argument has three main components.
They are:
1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b)
uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not
personal.
Your rebuttal doesn't mention third premise, the logical method used
to deduce why this "first cause" is deemed personal agent, rather than
an impersonal physical cause. The following is taken from Bill
Ramey's discussion of Kalam:

".....This leads us to the final dilemma: if the universe had a cause,
the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal. Even if one
should accept the (a) option of the first two dilemmas, why should one
believe that the cause of the universe is a personal being? Some
argue, for example, that even if the universe had a cause, its cause
could have been a natural one. Presumably this means that the universe
could be the product of an impersonal physical cause. The problem with
this is twofold. First, what does it mean to say that the cause of the
universe is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe,
not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by
definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came
into existence after whatever preceded the universe.

Second, if the cause of the universe is a sufficient cause, meaning
that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the
universe, the universe would always have existed. To make this clear
consider the sufficient cause of lighting a match. When a match is
struck against the proper surface, it ignites, and thus striking the
match is the sufficient cause of an ignited match. Note that as soon
as a sufficient cause exists, the effect follows immediately; there is
no gap between the cause and the effect. This raises a question: if
the sufficient cause of the universe has always existed, then why has
the universe not always existed?

The answer to this question is that the cause of the universe is a
personal agent who willed the creation of a finite universe."

Mr. Ramey claims that this is "the answer to the question".
However, his answer is based on conjecture. Neither he or
anyone else can support the "personal agent" scenario with
verifiable evidence. The "Big Bang" theory is a good example.
It was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies
are traveling away from us at great speeds. It provides a reason;
"evidence" that supports the theory. (Doppler effect).
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the "Big Bang' theory is
correct, only that the theory is based on solid evidence.

If everything
must have a cause, then the "first cause" must have a cause.
The question still remains: 'Who made God'? To say that God
is the "first cause" and has always existed, is to deny the basic
assumption of this theory (The first cause argument).

This is a common protest against Kalam. Without getting too
long-winded (again), the reason for this is due to the
misunderstanding of the terms "infinite", "potential infinite" and
"actual infinite". You can research these if you like, but I don't
think that will have an impact on the course of this discussion.
Let's cut through all the rhetoric. Since an infinite regress is
impossible, then there must be a first cause. We'll call this "the
Uncaused Cause". Theists maintain that this Uncaused Cause is
personal an call it "God". The theist would then ask for your theory
on the origens of the universe. As a good atheist, you would reply "I
don't know, it is an unknowable conundrum". The theist then says
that, for lack of a better theory, that you should be, at the very
least, open to the mere possibilty that his theory is correct. Are
you?

When I was growing up, I was taught that anything is possible.
Through my experiences in life, I've found this to be incorrect.
There are many things that aren't possible. Above you ask if I'd
be open to the "mere possibility that his theory is correct" yet I
find his theory (and other "god" theories) that claim "god" is
the "first cause" empty, and void of any verifiable "evidence"
to support their claims. That said, I'll answer your question
this way. Until evidence is supplied that supports his theory,
I will reserve my opinion and lean heavily towards a natural
cause. If such evidence materializes, I will certainly rethink
my position.

Now once again, when you frame a
question the way you did, you are not openly and freely discussing an
issue or trying to get another's pov. What you are doing is trying to
set a trap in order to "win" a point. You are asking for the writer's
view of the validity of one god versus another, all the while implying
that gods are man-made inventions. Obviously your question is a
logical fallacy. For if a god does not exist then they are ~all~
equally INvalid. Before going further, allow me to ask a question of
my own. Do you think that it is ~possible~ that those who believe in
a god (call him what you will, Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Creator,
Supreme Being, etc.) are correct, and that this being actually exists?
If so, then why? If not, why not?

Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any
dialogue, so you must first explain what you mean by the word "god."
What are you attempting to establish the existence of?
What is the nature of god? How are we to identify him (or it)?
At least some of the attributes of this supposed "god" must be known
before anything can be considered relevant to establishing his (it's)
existence.

It is quite telling that you have skirted my question as to the
possibility that theists could be correct in their assertions.
However in response to your questions above I'll point out that in our
various conversations concerning evidence for the existence of god, I
have only responded to your denial that there is evidence for said
existence. That being the case, I put it to you; what do you mean by
the concept of "god" for which there is no evidence? For what are you
denying the existence of evidence? Exactly what is it that you
continually rail against? What type of evidence would you accept?

I didn't skirt your question, I asked you for more information about
this "god" you want me to except the "possibility" of.

If I told you
that a theory exists stating aliens seeded the Earth with life forms
tens of millions of years ago, wouldn't you (reasonably) demand
evidence to support such a claim? Where you see evidence, I
see a theory suspended in mid air with no foundation to support it.
To quote Carl Sagan:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Obviously, to answer your question as to the validity of the gods of
monotheism vs. those of prior ages, one must start with the premise
that a god (or gods) exists. Otherwise the question makes no sense.
Now, this being the case, then I would say that it one is as valid as
the other. Man's understanding of any idea progresses over time.
Assuming god exists (which we MUST do in order to answer the question)
it is certainly no stretch of the imagination to opine that the
understanding of "the gods (of) thousands of years before" has
progressed and developed into the understanding of the god of
monotheism.

It is my opinion that all gods are man-made.

The above is a statement that gods are inventions of man, and hence do
not exist in reality. It is tantamount to saying "There is no god".
This is a positive assertion that will require evidence. Please
provide proof. Remember, the lack of proof that gods exist is not
proof that gods do not exist.

I can't prove that the countless gods don't exist, anymore than you
can prove that they do. The real question should be what is more
likely...... did things happen naturally, or is it necessary to
invoke a supernatural deity.

It means nothing to be open to a
proposition we don't understand. You have said in the past,
that gods from many thousands of years ago, have evolved into
the gods of the present (or something to that effect).
Everyone is born an atheist. At birth, we know only three things
(instinctively) how to breath, cry, and suck. Everything else is
learned, and the concept of a god is taught to us by our parents
with few exceptions. Personally, I too was taught to believe in God.
I was also taught that Santa was real, as was the tooth fairy (put
your tooth under the pillow, and the tooth fairy will leave you a
quarter). I guess I'm dating myself.. I here they get five bucks
today! : -) I became a questioner of God and religion in my early
teens to the dismay of my parents.
I didn't say "There is no god", as I have many family members and
friends who believe without question that there IS a god. To them,
god is as real as the Earth. I've seen nothing to convince me that
their god exists anywhere but in their minds, but god DOE'S exist
for them.

I've seen no meaningful
evidence to the contrary, and I'm sure that the person
to whom I asked the question, would have been more than
happy to supply evidence if he had any to offer.
I have no reason to believe that Zeus threw lightening bolts,
Poseidon ruled the sea, or Jesus walked on water. I also have
no reason to believe that any of the above gods existed anywhere
but in the minds of men.

The problem, as I see it, is the intolerance held by theists &
atheists alike against those who do not share their views. Many
theists of one religion tend to have a condescending attitude against
theists of other religions in the form of "my god is the true god,
yours is not". (Why they can't accept the possibility that they could
~both~ be the true god, yet understood by different peoples in
different ways, is beyond me).

Many atheists have the equally
condescending attitude that theists are somehow less intelligent than
atheists because they don't hold the atheistic view. Yet, in most
cases, the atheist holds his position (i.e. that evidence for a god
doesn't exist) as stridently as the theist even when presented with
evidence which he is unable to refute.

The atheists are still waiting (patiently) for credible evidence to
emerge.

All you have to do is look. I haven't seen solid refutations of the
many arguments which have been provided as evidence. (The geocities
sites are weak. They only try to refute portions of arguments such as
Kalam, the one you cite above.)

All of the arguments I've read, presuppose the existence of a god,
with no supporting evidence. ~Faith~ is all that's required.

These are ~people~ problems,
and do not speak to the validity of one god versus another versus no
god at all.
I'll try to respond to whatever comments you make when time permits.
I'll be rather busy for the next few weeks.

I'm in the same position. With the nice weather, I'll be flying or
sailing. Today was a rainy day. ;-)

Hope you have fun up in the sky or on the water!

I've been flying the past few days, as the winds were calm.
You are right, LOTS of fun! (a powered parachute)