| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2003 11:52:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
Do you think material existence never began to exist? If so, what is the
basis for that belief?
There is no need for an eternal god if the
universe is not eternal.
We don't know. No point in guessing.
Well, the one reason to guess is to help develop testable hypotheses
about the earliest times of the universe. What there is no point in
doing is jumping to conclusions without evidence to support it, as gabby
did.
But according to
modern physics, the Universe had a beginning some 12 bilion years ago.
They are only making educated guesses.
So that leaves only God as the eternal cause.
What caused God? See, you haven't solved the problem.
Besides, there is no God that we know of, unless you call the universe God.
We don't know how or if things began. Stop showing your ignorance.
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 11:37:59 AM |
|
|
"david ford" wrote
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
The quote above listed one in that the universe may be uncaused.
The universe might also have a natural cause. God might have a
natural cause. The universe and God might be different aspects
of the same thing. An eternal cyclical universe would be it's own
cause.
Do you think material existence never began to exist? If so, what is the
basis for that belief?
Judging from QM, the existence/nothingness dichotomy might be
false. There could always have been a chance something might exist.
It just happens to be realized in the case of our universe.
The problem with existential nothingness is it's hard to imagine what
sort of context it would (not) exist in. If nothingness did in fact exist,
it would have to be as a current state of nothingness with the possibility
of something at some point; otherwise the concept makes no sense.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 12:03:40 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
There are no gods of any sort. The universe has a beginning and may have
an end.
There is a god, but it had a beginning. The universe had a beginning as
well.
The concept of beginning is meaningless for the universe.
Do you think material existence never began to exist? If so, what is the
basis for that belief?
The best evidence tells us that the universe was unrecognizably
different before Planck time.
....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gen2rev" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:02:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:52:05 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
Time travelers from the future go back to the beginning of time and
start the universe.
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nantko Schanssema" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:31:11 PM |
|
|
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net>:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:52:05 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
Time travelers from the future go back to the beginning of time and
start the universe.
Which provides a nice purpose to the universe: to develop time
travellers. :-)
[snip the rest]
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 11:02:46 PM |
|
|
Nantko Schanssema <nantko@xs4all.nl> wrote:
gen2rev <gen2rev@crosswinds.net>:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:52:05 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance without being caused?
Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without a beginning
can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
Time travelers from the future go back to the beginning of time and
start the universe.
Which provides a nice purpose to the universe: to develop time
travellers. :-)
In order to kill their grandfathers, which as every SF fan knows is the
purpose of time travellers.
As Arthur Dent said, I always knew there was soemthing fundamentally
wrong with the universe.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 08:40:43 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 11:54:32 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy of
equivocation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
17 Nov 2003 08:52:59 PM |
|
|
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
You have no idea at all how funny that is.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 12:18:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 12:27:34 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 02:58:46 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal, uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it. "God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 06:18:32 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal." There
is no God in evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 06:56:48 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal." There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:01:14 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:21:15 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis (being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't. Read the whole discussion if you don't want to make a further
fool of yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:36:32 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 10:57:46 PM |
|
|
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see
it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
Typo. The original question-begging statement was, "Either God is eternal or
the universe is eternal." That takes it for granted that the hypothetical
"God" thingy exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 11:20:51 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<GzYtb.219177$Tr4.652798@attbi_s03>:
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see
it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
Typo. The original question-begging statement was, "Either God is eternal or
the universe is eternal." That takes it for granted that the hypothetical
"God" thingy exists.
My original answer to the silly challenge was in Message-ID:
<2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
....
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think of.
There are no gods of any sort. The universe has a beginning and may have
an end.
There is a god, but it had a beginning. The universe had a beginning as
well.
The concept of beginning is meaningless for the universe.
Do you think material existence never began to exist? If so, what is the
basis for that belief?
The best evidence tells us that the universe was unrecognizably
different before Planck time.
If you weren't so full of yourself, you would notice that I don't defend
the concept of gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
17 Nov 2003 06:07:49 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahmgrv4ve4jkmdh4rfki9cvfndcn6d2fl3@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<GzYtb.219177$Tr4.652798@attbi_s03>:
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>..
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is
eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I
see
it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe
is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is
simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God
is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS*
the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement
begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a
conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the
existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
Typo. The original question-begging statement was, "Either God is eternal
or
the universe is eternal." That takes it for granted that the hypothetical
"God" thingy exists.
My original answer to the silly challenge was in Message-ID:
<2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
That's an email address, not a message ID. Clicking on it opens a mail
message composition window. Try it yourself.
Now how about just agreeing with what was pointed out:
The statement "God is the universe" isn't an alternative to anything,
it is simply more begging the question as to the existence of
the hypothetical "God," just as the original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
17 Nov 2003 11:09:55 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<Tpdub.226153$HS4.1965877@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahmgrv4ve4jkmdh4rfki9cvfndcn6d2fl3@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<GzYtb.219177$Tr4.652798@attbi_s03>:
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>..
..
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is
eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I
see
it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe
is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is
simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God
is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS*
the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement
begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a
conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the
existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
Typo. The original question-begging statement was, "Either God is eternal
or
the universe is eternal." That takes it for granted that the hypothetical
"God" thingy exists.
My original answer to the silly challenge was in Message-ID:
<2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
That's an email address, not a message ID. Clicking on it opens a mail
message composition window. Try it yourself.
I never mind being corrected when I am wrong. The fact that it opened a
message composition window for you is a result of the configuration of
your newsreader.
Since it is too difficult for you to comprehend usenet (though putting
that message ID into the _advanced_ search of http://groups.google.com
will find that message), I have done the heavy lifting and provided you
with the right answer:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
Funny how it has exactly the same message ID information in it.
Now how about just agreeing with what was pointed out:
The statement "God is the universe" isn't an alternative to anything,
it is simply more begging the question as to the existence of
the hypothetical "God," just as the original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
I don't care if there is a god or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
18 Nov 2003 01:28:46 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:53ajrvkbm8nk7ni1f1vi2pba7h2psn9mok@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<Tpdub.226153$HS4.1965877@attbi_s01>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ahmgrv4ve4jkmdh4rfki9cvfndcn6d2fl3@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<GzYtb.219177$Tr4.652798@attbi_s03>:
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>.
...
..
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net>
wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is
eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I
see
it
there
is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the
universe
is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you
can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional
psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is
simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was
answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either
God
is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God
*IS*
the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other
alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that
statement
begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a
conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the
existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the
universe."
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
Typo. The original question-begging statement was, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal." That takes it for granted that the
hypothetical
"God" thingy exists.
My original answer to the silly challenge was in Message-ID:
<2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
That's an email address, not a message ID. Clicking on it opens a mail
message composition window. Try it yourself.
I never mind being corrected when I am wrong. The fact that it opened a
message composition window for you is a result of the configuration of
your newsreader.
Since it is too difficult for you to comprehend usenet (though putting
that message ID into the _advanced_ search of http://groups.google.com
will find that message), I have done the heavy lifting and provided you
with the right answer:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd
2@4ax.com>
Funny how it has exactly the same message ID information in it.
Now how about just agreeing with what was pointed out:
The statement "God is the universe" isn't an alternative to anything,
it is simply more begging the question as to the existence of
the hypothetical "God," just as the original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
I don't care if there is a god or not.
You don't care if there is a what? That g - o - d letter string is
essentially undefined, wouldn't you agree? There is nothing specified to
look for, and nothing presented by theists for consideration? Why lend the
proposition any credence at all, such as by saying, " I don't care if there
is a god or not." Sounds like you are saying you believe that it is true
that there might actually be an invisible god, you just don't care.
...
You say, " I don't care if there is a god or not." But it's not about you,
old boy, it is about these two statements.
Now how about just agreeing with what was pointed out:
The statement "God is the universe" isn't an alternative to anything,
it is simply more begging the question as to the existence of
the hypothetical "God," just as was the original
statement: "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
18 Nov 2003 07:51:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in
<pTjub.233242$Fm2.235932@attbi_s04>:
{followup set to alt.atheism where I won't have to see any more stupid
responses}
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:53ajrvkbm8nk7ni1f1vi2pba7h2psn9mok@4ax.com...
....
I don't care if there is a god or not.
You don't care if there is a what? That g - o - d letter string is
essentially undefined, wouldn't you agree? There is nothing specified to
look for, and nothing presented by theists for consideration? Why lend the
proposition any credence at all, such as by saying, " I don't care if there
is a god or not." Sounds like you are saying you believe that it is true
that there might actually be an invisible god, you just don't care.
Mindless zealotry looks silly enough when practiced by theists. Why do
you act like them?
You say, " I don't care if there is a god or not." But it's not about you,
old boy, it is about these two statements.
Now how about just agreeing with what was pointed out:
The statement "God is the universe" isn't an alternative to anything,
it is simply more begging the question as to the existence of
the hypothetical "God," just as was the original
statement: "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sven Silow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
17 Nov 2003 08:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:07:49 +0000 (UTC), "Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
wrote:
My original answer to the silly challenge was in Message-ID:
<2l4ervsmce2vmr1cffvobqmj7uhae2mnd2@4ax.com>
That's an email address, not a message ID. Clicking on it opens a mail
message composition window. Try it yourself.
Slim, Bob White, Pat Hand, Muddy Boggs, Septic or whatever you wan't
to be called,
You wouldn't recognise a Message-ID if it was written on your nose,
would you?
Now, ***** off Troll!
*PLONK*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 11:17:00 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see it
there is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS* the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr. Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
No. I said the claim was a false dichotomy. One of the many possible
alternatives to the false dichotomy was "God is the universe". Even if
that is false, it is a valid alternative to the original false
dichotomy.
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
You are quite confused.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
17 Nov 2003 11:00:14 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3amgrv4qtri3fr6pvho9k18j2q70m61k9l@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<SfYtb.21555$Dw6.115567@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:d5jgrvcvbpnrpuh8r5catjolttbpuoliu7@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<rKXtb.21407$Dw6.113261@attbi_s02>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:jsifrvohaht2lmmi9a98bj7u8ujiut7pm5@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QkPtb.216614$Fm2.209925@attbi_s04>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:qsffrv8k414p1f3b1fgh7kkagjvol76ebn@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<QROtb.215216$Tr4.622794@attbi_s03>:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311160641.4210d2eb@posting.google.com...
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160046100.24664-100000@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>..
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, David Jensen:
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, "gabby" <gab@icm.world.net> wrote:
How could the Universe come in to existance
without being caused? Only if the Universe is
eternal,
uncaused
and
without
a beginning can we eliminate it's cause. So as I see
it
there is
no
other
alternative: either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal.
That is a false dichotomy.
Please list as many additional alternatives as you can
think
of.
God *IS* the universe.
God is nothing other than part of your delusional psychosis
(being
convinced
that one's imaginings are real), Mr. Flunk.
Trying to change the name of the universe to "God" is simply
fallacy
of
equivocation.
You really have to read the question that he was answering.
I read it, knucklehead. See where both arguments, "Either God is
eternal
or
the universe is eternal" and Mr. Flunks's argument, "God *IS*
the
universe"
both take "God" for granted, begging the question?
You didn't read it.
Yes I did, knucklehead. Stop lying.
"God is the universe" is an alternative to the
earlier false dichotomy. Others have posted other alternatives.
What you say does not in any way alter what I pointed out. Mr.
Flunk's
statement is, "God is the universe." The fact is that statement
begs
the
question, as does "Either God is eternal or the universe is
eternal."
There
is no God in evidence.
Never mind. I wasn't aware that you couldn't follow a conversation.
Argument _ad hominem_ won't help you get away with taking the
existence
of
your hypothetical god for granted (begging the question).
I didn't.
You are championing a statement which takes the existence of a
hypothetical
"God" thingy for granted (begging the question): "God is the universe."
No. I said the claim was a false dichotomy. One of the many possible
alternatives to the false dichotomy was "God is the universe". Even if
that is false, it is a valid alternative to the original false
dichotomy.
Will you please explain how you can legitimately use the term, 'valid' in
connection with the statement you are championing when it is no less a
logical fallacy than the other one, taking the existence of the hypothetical
thing for granted, begging the question? How can logical fallacy ever be
referred to as 'valid'? Show your work.
That isn't an alternative to anything, it is simply more begging the
question as to the existence of the hypothetical "God," just as the
original
statement was: "Either God is eternal or God is eternal."
You are quite confused.
Go look in a mirror if you want to see someone who is confused.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Must God be Caused? |
16 Nov 2003 08:04:55 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m67grvcmcor3orestshqv64pur59i6trmf@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Sven" <svh@nospam.com> wrote in
<StUtb.218919$Fm2.215076@attbi_s04>:
| | | | | | | | |
