reasons to believe, there is no God

[tavarish]

Nothing but a word, tavarish, nothing. And that word is love. If you're going to go on and spout nonsense about your IPU's commandments, then we've got problems, ut that has nothing to do with what God or your 'IPU' is all about. That's what you're all about, I'm afriad.

Nothing. Exactly. I fabricated the attributes of the IPU in a way so they can't be disproven. The key word here is fabricated.

I already said the Invisible Pink Unicorn is love, and that your God wasn't. Try and disprove that one.

Do you see my point now?

[Watson]

No, what you fabricated was the IPU's commandments and desires. The attribute of love is something which is simplistic in nature, but vast in scope and meaning. When I look around and see that the world is here, that I understand it, that i have the power to do what I will within it, I can think of no other reason for it's existence than that of love.

Attributing love to one word does not work, and just because your word for love is Invisible Pink Unicorn and mine is God, does not make the love any different.

[fr0d0]

I just have a more real explanation than yours.

So what separates my Unicorn from your God?

His is a more real explanation of reality

[tavarish]

No, what you fabricated was the IPU's commandments and desires. The attribute of love is something which is simplistic in nature, but vast in scope and meaning. When I look around and see that the world is here, that I understand it, that i have the power to do what I will within it, I can think of no other reason for it's existence than that of love.

Attributing love to one word does not work, and just because your word for love is Invisible Pink Unicorn and mine is God, does not make the love any different.

You're so close and you fail to see the folly in your reasoning. I fabricated the attributes, commandments, desires, and properties of the IPU. I made them this way so they cannot be disproven. You admit to the concepts being the same other than the commandments. I'm telling you that I made up the entire thing.

Do you understand what true believer syndrome is?

---

I just have a more real explanation than yours.

So what separates my Unicorn from your God?

His is a more real explanation of reality

Clearly.

[Watson]

tavarish, it's funny that you say I'm so close. I fee lthe exact same about you, but of course, on the flip-side. You see now that our way of thinking is not so different afterall, it is merely that you deny one facet of yourself while I whole-heartedly embrace it. That part is faith.

I don't really care what true believer syndrome is.

You did not fabricate the attributes, tavarish, because you did not fabricate love. I'm sure you don't believe that you are the sole person in posession of love and an understanding of love. What petty words you attribute to lvoe do not matter, it is what it is no matter how you look at it.

[tavarish]

tavarish, it's funny that you say I'm so close. I fee lthe exact same about you, but of course, on the flip-side. You see now that our way of thinking is not so different afterall, it is merely that you deny one facet of yourself while I whole-heartedly embrace it. That part is faith.

I don't really care what true believer syndrome is.

You did not fabricate the attributes, tavarish, because you did not fabricate love. I'm sure you don't believe that you are the sole person in posession of love and an understanding of love. What petty words you attribute to lvoe do not matter, it is what it is no matter how you look at it.

Good luck with all of that. Our way of thinking is radically different, as I reject grandiose unfounded claims. I don't need faith to improve my life, nor do I need to rely on supernatural explanations to give meaning to things I don't yet understand.

Your saying "God is love" doesn't tell me anything about either.

[Watson]

Darn. Here I thought we were getting somewhere, and now you've stumbled over the saying "our way of thinking is not so different afterall." Truly sad that you are that indifferent to accosiating with me.

Faith does not improve my life, it is a component part of my life, and whether you choose to accept it or not, it is part of your life as well. And I do not go to supernatural explanations to give meaning to things I do not understand. I understand the world around me quite well, and am always willing to learn more.

You, however, are stagnating as an individual because you choose only to beleive in what can be handed to you and proven. Please don't take this as an insult, it is merely the truth as I am observing from you.

Oh, and saying "God is love" gives quite a long way in understanding and defining God. You just have to first understand love.

[tavarish]

The argument that the universe was created by a designer is made with absolutely zero data to support the conclusion...

Quite the oposit is the case. We have very strong data and evidence on hand, that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause.

Research cosmology please.

Your cosmological argument still does not account for why the universe was "created". It also does not give an account for why God's nature is his nature, since you're trying to describe the "whys" of the universe. It also does not give an account of why the laws of nature exist, rather than any other laws.

In addition, you make the assumption that the universe is contingent on our understanding of cause and effect. This is not necessarily the case. Why should there be a primary cause? Can the universe be eternal? The prime mover argument is in itself contradictory, as the prime mover somehow doesn't need a cause, but the universe does.

Check out notable objections to this argument.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmol...rgument/#2

We don't have strong evidence of the existence of God. Ask fr0d0. If we did, then his faith would have no imaginary legs to stand on.

---

Darn. Here I thought we were getting somewhere, and now you've stumbled over the saying "our way of thinking is not so different afterall." Truly sad that you are that indifferent to accosiating with me.

Faith does not improve my life, it is a component part of my life, and whether you choose to accept it or not, it is part of your life as well. And I do not go to supernatural explanations to give meaning to things I do not understand. I understand the world around me quite well, and am always willing to learn more.

You, however, are stagnating as an individual because you choose only to beleive in what can be handed to you and proven. Please don't take this as an insult, it is merely the truth as I am observing from you.

Oh, and saying "God is love" gives quite a long way in understanding and defining God. You just have to first understand love.

Faith is part of my life, I blindly believe what is handed to me, and I need to understand love. Atheists don't exist either.

No, you're not self-righteous. Not at all.

[Watson]

Faith is part of your life(whether you accept it or not), you do blindly believe what is handed to you(you wont believe in anything you can't have 'proven' to you), and you do need to understand love. Who doesn't? It's a beautiful emotion that drives only the most pure of intentions within us as human beings. How about instead of evading what I said by throwing an accusation at me, try to address my points? Or can you find no way of moving around them with mental-muscle flexing?

You, with your pseudo-intellectual memorization techniques, your idealogical views on life and bullshit labels, however? You sound quite self-righteous to me, and that's not even an accusation. It's an observation.

[Tiberius]

the cosmological argument does not elucidate WHICH GOD might be the designer of the universe, but that a designer, a intelligent creator, is the best and most rational answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos.

No it doesn't. The cosmological argument establishes the existence of a first cause. Only by extension can this be used to somehow demonstrate a God existing, but it fails miserably to do this. The cosmological argument is this:

1) Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2) Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4) Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

See? No mention of God. The argument may be logically sound, but when you put this in the context of reality, it doesn't pan out in the same way. In quantum mechanics, you get uncaused events all the time, and if the Big Bang theory is true, the question "what caused the Universe" is a nonsensical question, because the Big Bang was the start of time, and causal chains only exist when there is time. Thus asking "what caused the Big Bang" is a non question.

The existence of God to be the first cause also forms several problems with the argument, especially the "causal chain cannot be of infinite length" part. Let me demonstrate:

If we can agree that a causal chain is a chain of cause and effect, cause and effect, then we must also agree that an infinitely long chain of cause and effect is either a chain that has an infinite number of causes and effects, or a chain that has an initial infinitely long cause, followed by a finite event, finite cause, etc, etc.

In other words, even with a first cause, you can get an infinitely long chain of causal events, if and only if the first cause is infinitely long (since by the time the first "event" takes place, an infinite amount of time has already taken place). God is said to be such a being, existing eternally, with no beginning, thus if God is the first cause, he is the start of an infinitely long causal chain (and thus contradicts 3).

If we take God as the first cause, yet say that he is not eternal, or not infinite, then this begs the question "what caused God?". If there is nothing to cause God, then it is perfectly possible that this God does not exist, and that nothing caused the universe to be. To argue otherwise would be to put special privileges on God in order to make the argument fit around him, rather than seeing that there is an alternative explanation that does not involve infinitely complex beings to exist.