| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Greg Flynn" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2005 10:23:16 PM |
| Object: |
Athiesm is Impossible |
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
Greg
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 02:40:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:05:09 -0800, (Jason) wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
So where did the creator come from?
Les,
Yu answered a question with a question. I would like to see your answer to
the question:
Where did the universe come from?
He doesn't know - he's stumped. But he'll claim anything, including it created
itself, rather than admit that God did it.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 02:39:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:47:10 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
So where did the creator come from?
Again, I don't know. Where did the universe come from if not God?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 04:41:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:39:18 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:47:10 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
So where did the creator come from?
Again, I don't know. Where did the universe come from if not God?
Where does your notion of a god come from if not from man?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 06:19:47 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in
news:h1gfn19as939kprccchd87v91qv0ueur2f@4ax.com:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:39:18 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
^^^^
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:47:10 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
So where did the creator come from?
Again, I don't know. Where did the universe come from if not God?
Where does your notion of a god come from if not from man?
ducks?
--
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:13:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:29:30 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<mbcen19fp1spr75epts0cne6p18t5sd4cp@4ax.com>:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:31:04 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.
So where did the universe come from?
The physics answer is:
We don't know anything about the universe before Planck time which
happened immediately after the Big Bang. It is not clear if it will ever
be possible to know what the physics of the universe was like before
Planck time.
Now there's some compelling evidence I want to see.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 02:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:13:51 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
The physics answer is:
We don't know anything about the universe before Planck time which
happened immediately after the Big Bang. It is not clear if it will ever
be possible to know what the physics of the universe was like before
Planck time.
Who created Planck time other than God?
God created Planck time, unless you have a better idea.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 02:52:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:38:28 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<jv8fn1l3tvevrtn1lt67m9nbc3lhebji88@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:13:51 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
So where did the universe come from?
The physics answer is:
We don't know anything about the universe before Planck time which
happened immediately after the Big Bang. It is not clear if it will ever
be possible to know what the physics of the universe was like before
Planck time.
Who created Planck time other than God?
God created Planck time, unless you have a better idea.
I don't feel the need to invent answers to questions that haven't been
answered yet. "We don't know yet," is a very good answer. Yours has no
evidence to support it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cobra Cuddlers for Jesus" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 08:53:16 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> suddenly spluttered:
So where did the universe come from?
The tooth fairy left it under the Great Celestial Pillow. Everybody
knows that.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 07:15:47 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:31:04 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.
So where did the universe come from?
Why did the universe come from somewhere?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 09:32:30 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7zRdf.571$3o6.191968@twister.southeast.rr.com...
duke wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:31:04 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.
So where did the universe come from?
Why did the universe come from somewhere?
Interesting statement but a little vague. The universe changes everyday.
Todays configuration came from yesterdays. Change is the key to your
question. But what if the universe didn't change????? What if it sat as an
unchanging whole? This is the substance of the argument that I have
prepared. Let me repost it here and please give it a try.
***********************************************************
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
*******************************************************
Greg
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
14 Nov 2005 01:28:29 AM |
|
|
Greg Flynn wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7zRdf.571$3o6.191968@twister.southeast.rr.com...
duke wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:31:04 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all, it's
that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods exist.
So where did the universe come from?
Why did the universe come from somewhere?
Interesting statement but a little vague. The universe changes everyday.
Can't you distinguish between a question and a statement? Or were you
referring to your previous post?
Todays configuration came from yesterdays. Change is the key to your
question. But what if the universe didn't change????? What if it sat as an
unchanging whole? This is the substance of the argument that I have
prepared. Let me repost it here and please give it a try.
The Universe as a whole does not change, as the Universe is not
in time. The part of the Universe that we occupy changes over time,
but that is a property of us, not the Universe as a whole.
***********************************************************
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
*******************************************************
Why do you restrict it to material objects? Also, some material objects,
such
as force fields, may be infinitely dividible, but others, such as
protons, might
not be. We can analyze protons as being composed of quarks, but it's not
clear that we can physically reduce protons to their component quarks.
Also, do you consider spacetime itself to be material?
Colin Day aa #1500
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Athiesm is Impossible |
14 Nov 2005 12:19:30 AM |
|
|
In <izTdf.11894$w85.10755@trnddc02>, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7zRdf.571$3o6.191968@twister.southeast.rr.com...
duke wrote:
On 13 Nov 2005 04:31:04 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06:
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing 2. The universe
has always existed.
Atheism posits nothing of the kind. If it posits anything at all,
it's that there has been no complelling evidence that any god or gods
exist.
So where did the universe come from?
Why did the universe come from somewhere?
Interesting statement but a little vague. The universe changes everyday.
Todays configuration came from yesterdays. Change is the key to your
question. But what if the universe didn't change????? What if it sat as
an unchanging whole?
What if it is?
You're thinking is very simplistic. What if space-time is finite but
unbounded? Then the universe would have no "beginning" and no "end" but
would simply *be.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 07:18:11 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Etc. etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 09:51:28 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is uncreated.
Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is an uncreated being
that is the source of our universe. What other choice is there?
In this case I am defining God as an uncreated being. So you may say that
he doesn't exist but then you are leaft with an utimately uncreated
universe.
This is the beginning of the arguement. If you agree then would you like to
proceed? Here is the argument reposted:
****************************************************************
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I don't
want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow for focus on
the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times? What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my opinion but
I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping that I can jump start
this argument and by-pass what isn't truely necessary.
***********************************************************
Greg
Etc. etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:15:00 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated.
Define what you mean by created/uncreated.
Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is an
uncreated being that is the source of our universe.
False dichotomy.
What other choice
is there?
Why a being? There could also be many non created non being thingies as well
as multiple non created beings (just for example).
In this case I am defining God as an uncreated being.
The class uncreated beings includes non existant beings, so this would seem a
reasonable definition for some types of gods. It may well be a one to one
correllation. Occam's razor tells you not to bring in additional unnecessary
complications. Without verifiable evidence for the existance of your
particular gods, you are wasting your time.
So you may say
that he doesn't exist but then you are leaft with an utimately uncreated
universe.
He? Where did you get that your god thingy was a male. You have yet to
establish its' existance but you are now claiming it to be a male?
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is an
uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What other choice
is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:16:19 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is an
uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What other choice
is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:29:51 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is
an uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What other
choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:40:31 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEF2E6B831fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is
an uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What other
choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
Fred,
Your are here with me late at night posting to a newsgroup. I sympithize
completely. Frankly I need an intelectual outlet that is not prone to
moderators. I figure you see it the same way as well. So if you don't care
then why are you here?
Greg
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:02:54 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3zUdf.11918$w85.1640@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEF2E6B831fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore,
it assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there
is an uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What
other choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
Fred,
Your are here with me late at night posting to a newsgroup. I
sympithize completely. Frankly I need an intelectual outlet that is
not prone to moderators. I figure you see it the same way as well.
So if you don't care then why are you here?
Let's just say that the metaphysical arguments for God get to be *very*
old after a few years on USENET. First cause, uncreated creators, things
that come to exist, they're all just plain *OLD* after the thousandth
repetition. It's not like I haven't answered them all before.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:07:21 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970EA526E16fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3zUdf.11918$w85.1640@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEF2E6B831fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore,
it assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there
is an uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What
other choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
Fred,
Your are here with me late at night posting to a newsgroup. I
sympithize completely. Frankly I need an intelectual outlet that is
not prone to moderators. I figure you see it the same way as well.
So if you don't care then why are you here?
Let's just say that the metaphysical arguments for God get to be *very*
old after a few years on USENET. First cause, uncreated creators, things
that come to exist, they're all just plain *OLD* after the thousandth
repetition. It's not like I haven't answered them all before.
And me as well : - )
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:11:26 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:dYUdf.11922$w85.7162@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970EA526E16fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3zUdf.11918$w85.1640@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEF2E6B831fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created,
therefore, it assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes
one of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that
is uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or
there is an uncreated being that is the source of our
universe. What other choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
Fred,
Your are here with me late at night posting to a newsgroup. I
sympithize completely. Frankly I need an intelectual outlet that
is not prone to moderators. I figure you see it the same way as
well. So if you don't care then why are you here?
Let's just say that the metaphysical arguments for God get to be
*very* old after a few years on USENET. First cause, uncreated
creators, things that come to exist, they're all just plain *OLD*
after the thousandth repetition. It's not like I haven't answered
them all before.
And me as well : - )
So, how about those riots in France? :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
14 Nov 2005 12:15:46 AM |
|
|
In <3zUdf.11918$w85.1640@trnddc02>, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEF2E6B831fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ncUdf.11907$w85.5395@trnddc02:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970DEAA4C10CFfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:4RTdf.11899$w85.3917@trnddc02:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing 2. The
universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing 2. God has always
existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated. Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is
an uncreated being that is the source of our universe. What other
choice is there?
That your assumptions are just plain wrong.
Ok, how so?
You're assuming that we care.
Fred,
Your are here with me late at night posting to a newsgroup. I sympithize
completely. Frankly I need an intelectual outlet that is not prone to
moderators. I figure you see it the same way as well. So if you don't
care then why are you here?
Oh yeah. We were all here, just sitting around with nothing to do before
*you showed up.
(Sheesh)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:06:11 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" wrote
: The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated.
Why?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 10:34:22 PM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:Wsidndk6C_z-kOXeRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"Greg Flynn" wrote
: The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated.
Why?
You have to consider my definition of creation. It is for an uncreated
being to create the universe from nothing. If you don't believe this thats
fine but then you are left with a universe that has always existed. This BY
DEFINITION is uncreated. It may change and reconfigure but it still exists
uncreated as a whole.
So what other options could there be?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns
out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind
to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:itUdf.11915$w85.6191@trnddc02:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:Wsidndk6C_z-kOXeRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"Greg Flynn" wrote
: The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated.
Why?
You have to consider my definition of creation. It is for an
uncreated being to create the universe from nothing. If you don't
believe this thats fine but then you are left with a universe that has
always existed. This BY DEFINITION is uncreated. It may change and
reconfigure but it still exists uncreated as a whole.
So what other options could there be?
It could have come into existence from nothing *without* being
"created" by some "being".
It could be that Time started when the universe came into existence so
that it has always existed even though it has a beginning.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:09:58 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: > "Greg Flynn" wrote
: > : The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
: > uncreated.
: >
: > Why?
:
: You have to consider my definition of creation.
No I don't.
: It is for an uncreated
: being to create the universe from nothing. If you don't believe this
thats
: fine but then you are left with a universe that has always existed.
Why?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
14 Nov 2005 11:07:37 AM |
|
|
"You have to consider my definition of creation. It is for an
uncreated
being to create the universe from nothing. If you don't believe this
thats
fine but then you are left with a universe that has always existed.
This BY
DEFINITION is uncreated. It may change and reconfigure but it still
exists
uncreated as a whole.
So what other options could there be?"
You think the universe was created. I think it evolved. From my
readings of quantum physics, I think it is entirely possible that this
universe evolved from a previous state in which the laws of physics as
we know them were not applicable. The evolution went something like
this:
Before the Big Bang there was nothingness. Nothingness = vacuum. A
vacuum (like space) turns out to be filled with virtual particles (as
shown by scientific research). Virtual particles fluctuate between
existence and non-existence due to their lack of energy. Nature abhors
a vacuum, so this vacuum state of the pre-universe was unstable.
According to quantum physics, if something can happen, it will. It did.
It blew up. Then it cooled down, of course. As it cooled, the laws of
physics applicable to this universe emerged, because the particles and
matter that comprise this universe formed, and matter evolved. In other
words, I define this universe as the system in which the laws of
physics are obeyed, nothing more, nothing less.
The idea of a creator/god came WAY before the discovery of the laws of
physics. That makes sense, because the obvious answer for a primitive
mind to the eternal questions (who are we? how did we get here? what is
this anyway?) is that a suprahuman created it. Those people who
invented religion were projecting themselves onto the world around
them. The more complex answers had to come as inquiring minds examined
the world around them more carefully, since the original ideas weren't
holding up to scrutiny. Evolution is a complex idea. Evolution is not
obvious at first but it is proven, not just with life, but with matter
as well. You have parents. You are physically different from them.
Would you say they are your creators? Because they are, in a sense, but
that's a weird way of putting it. On the grand scale of time, you are
an immediate example of a life form (human) EVOLVING from earlier life
forms. A creator is not required. The idea of a universal creator is
just the obsolete vestige of our early minds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
13 Nov 2005 11:25:23 PM |
|
|
Greg Flynn wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl8oke$21u$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uczdf.6031$5R4.182@trnddc06...
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes
one
of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Thiesm posits that god wasn't created, therefore, it assumes one
of two other possiblities.
1. God was created from nothing by nothing
2. God has always existed.
Best argument yet!
The answer, however, is simple. There must be something that is
uncreated.
Wrong. It can very well be that therte are near infinite
numbers of thing that were created from preceeding thing
who in turn were formed from earlier things on ad infintum.
This is in fact how the Universe we see works in actuality
Either the universe is utimately uncreated or there is an
uncreated being
that is the source of our universe. What other choice is there?
That there was an uncreated Easter Bunny that made the Universe?
Don't be silly.
No, its physics all the way down.
The Universe truely is a fractal Universe.
At smallest scale, quantum foam, at largest scale,
an infinite foam of bubble universes each created from
earlier bubble universes.
This is where physics leads us.
In this case I am defining God as an uncreated being. So you may
say that he doesn't exist but then you are leaft with an utimately
uncreated universe.
Why not a million uncreated leprechauns?
Argument by definition does not work.
This is the beginning of the arguement. If you agree then would you
like to
proceed? Here is the argument reposted:
Your argument just failed.
Tilt!
Game over.
****************************************************************
Athiesm posits that the universe wasn't created, therefore, it
assumes one of two other possiblities.
1. The universe was created from nothing by nothing
2. The universe has always existed.
Since the first case is strictly contradictory then only the second
case is
worthy of consideration. I say that the second case is impossible
and I
believe I can show this in five steps. Rather then revealing all
five steps
I will reveal them one at a time. If the first step is conceded
then I will
move on to the second. I assume that the first will never be
conceded,
therefore, there is no reason to reveal any of the other steps. I
don't want to reveal the other parts because I think it would allow
for focus on the current part to be lost.
Step One.
Can any material object be divided an infinite number of times?
What is
your opinion? Please state reasons. Of course I will reveal my
opinion but I want to see how folks answer this question, hoping
that I can jump start this argument and by-pass what isn't truely
necessary.
***********************************************************
Greg
Etc. etc.
--
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the
gods are concerned mostly with trees."
- Lao Tse
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Thiesm is Impossible |
14 Nov 2005 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
Greg Flynn wrote:
In this case I am defining God as an uncreated being. So you may say
that he doesn't exist but then you are leaft with an utimately
uncreated universe.
No, you first have to show why something that is not a being can't exist
"uncreated"
But if you insist on it being a "being" you are faced with doing a better
job than Aquinas did several hundred years ago.
There is an advantage to such a start however. You can treat it as a form of
algebra and prove it true.
All matamaticians will worship you from afar because you will have developed
a new math that will *never* have any use in the real world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
