When a theist can explain the idea of a god that cannot be proven to exist whom supposely came from nothing is more than an ideal of man's imagination, without resorting to special pleading because he's god, then we can properly discuss things further.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:29 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 2:24 am)stonedape Wrote: I'm not even an atheist

Since atheism is false you would be correct.

How could that be? Do you mean that those who claim not to believe in gods really do? Or do you mean that the minority of atheists who actually claim no gods exist are mistaken? Most of us either don't care or confess not to find comprehensible this 'god' thingy which theists believe in.

---

(August 19, 2014 at 1:07 am)revivin Wrote: The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.

http://youtu.be/MsABo6C9Xug

(August 19, 2014 at 1:07 am)revivin Wrote: This little exercise, ..

(August 19, 2014 at 2:29 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 2:24 am)stonedape Wrote: I'm not even an atheist

Since atheism is false you would be correct.

Well, after deciding to give god some thought, I came to the conclusion that you should check out my signature.

You said you were not an atheist.

(August 19, 2014 at 1:07 am)revivin Wrote: An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

Why do you think simply gainsaying something by fiat assertion makes you correct? All this entire paragraph really says is "an atheist once said x to me, but nuh uh!"

Quote:Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything.

How do you know you need a "rule" to cause something? How have you demonstrated this, especially beyond spacetime, where normal causality doesn't necessarily apply? You're making declarative statements about something you literally know nothing about, right now.

Quote:It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.

If something can't come from nothing, then god is right out.

Quote:We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.

Look up "quantum foam," before you get too proud of yourself.

Quote:This little exercise, if nothing else, shows the desperation of atheists by their twists and turns, but still remain delusional. Let me reiterate we have trillions of cause and effects and no hard evidence of something from nothing.

So what caused god? I know you're just going to make some excuse for why he doesn't need a cause. So what you're- inevitably going to- say is that you already believe in something that exists without a cause, so where exactly do you get off tutting at atheists about evidence for causes and effects like you've got some rational high ground here?

What evidence do you have for the existence of god, if you prize evidence so highly? What evidence do you have for his uncaused nature? Where's the evidence for your positive claim, before you start talking down to the folks that aren't even making one?

Quote: The atheist is hostile to God so it tries to circumvent this evidence.

That's a good way to start off a conversation, by telling the other side of it what they think for them. How would you like it if I just told you the only reason you believe in god is because you're hostile to facts?

Simmer down and have a debate, but don't you dare dictate to me what my position is before we've even started talking. Do you have any idea how profoundly dishonest and arrogant that is?

(August 19, 2014 at 2:53 am)Esquilax Wrote: If something can't come from nothing, then god is right out.

If God always existed then God didn't come from nothing.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:56 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 2:53 am)Esquilax Wrote: If something can't come from nothing, then god is right out.

If God always existed then God didn't come from nothing.

So you already believe in something that can exist without a cause. Meaning that all your crowing here about how all the evidence we have shows that things need causes was just blatant hypocrisy on your part.

Thanks for playing.

And if anything can always have existed, it might just as well be the universe itself .. and its prior conditions. No god necessary.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:58 am)whateverist Wrote: And if anything can always have existed, it might just as well be the universe itself

The reason why the universe could not always have existed because if it did you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

(August 19, 2014 at 3:01 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 2:58 am)whateverist Wrote: And if anything can always have existed, it might just as well be the universe itself

The reason why the universe could not always have existed because if it did you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

You don't understand how time works, do you?

An eternity is enough time for everything to have happened, yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen along a linear timeline, nor does it tell you how much of that eternity has elapsed. Your comment makes no sense.