(May 9, 2013 at 2:09 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Experimental result falls under observation. The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals only empirical evidence while philosophy only deals with logic and reason. What I'm telling you is common knowledge in the philosophy and scientific community.

And they are not all that fall under observation, are they?

Is that so? Then I'm telling you that the common knowledge of the philosophic and scientific community is... wrong Luckily for me, I don't base much of what I know off of what others know... wouldn't that be quite a boon if the world formed just last thursday and logic applying to the material world is a total fluke?

Maybe I'll grow strawberries!

(May 9, 2013 at 3:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: *presents Min with the problem of nothing to something*

You mean like when your fucking god poofed the whole universe into existence, Frods?

Tell me, did he just snap his fingers or was their a cosmic fart involved?

(May 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Those not scientific evidence which is the kind of evidence I believe most people here are asking for. I gave logical evidence in my OP for a Deist G-d which no one has refuted yet. Scientific evidence is experimental results.

Your "proof" hinges on a non-eternal universe. You've asserted that the universe is not eternal (and therefore requires a first cause), but have presented no evidence or argument to support that assertion.

Until you do, please feel free to consider your argument refuted.

(May 9, 2013 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 3:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: *presents Min with the problem of nothing to something*

You mean like when your fucking god poofed the whole universe into existence, Frods?

Tell me, did he just snap his fingers or was their a cosmic fart involved?

Min ....your one of the reasons I visit here everday.

Lawrence Krauss anyone?

(May 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: A first cause is not a designer. It could of been a designer but we would have no prove that. But we can prove there must be some immaterial cause which is not composed of space time or matter and we call this immaterial cause G-d.

So god is a blank? The empty space where nothing exist? The absence of light and matter? Huh? So now we know the mind of the god people.

(May 10, 2013 at 8:32 am)Napoléon Wrote: Lawrence Krauss anyone?

He has nothing to say.

So sayeth the jesus freak that even other jesus freaks consider an oddball!

I have no issue with deism or deists, personally. However, I see no practical difference in how I would personally live my live with or without knowledge or belief in a deistic god. With our current understanding of reality, god-as-first-cause seems to me to be unprovable and unfalsifiable, and it's not clear that such a being is necessarily necessary.

If a first cause turns out to be necessary (and this is not clearly the case, IMO), if someone wishes to call it "god", it's of no concern to me. How one could claim to know anything about such a being is beyond our capabilities (IMO) at present.

I'm content to say "I don't know" for now. Perhaps that will change.

(May 10, 2013 at 4:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 10, 2013 at 8:32 am)Napoléon Wrote: Lawrence Krauss anyone?

He has nothing to say.

He has plenty to say backed by advanced study, research, coherent math, etc.

You probably meant that what he does have to say disagrees with you.