Why there must be a God

[Minimalist]

So when given a formal refutation of the cosmological argument you don't address a single point in the rejoinder at all.

OOh....I know. It must be the will of fucking allah or some such nonsense!

[ThinkingMan]

"The reality of the creator is beutifully described in the
"No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension...""

But to believe that you have to take the Koran as truth...with NO EVEIDENCE! Can't you understand this?

Eh last time I checked I didnt mention the quran at all when I was discussig the logic about why we limited independent humans and science cannot test or imagine an unlimited independent creator. So to belive that I do not need the quran at. Can't you understand this????!!!!!

Therefore I do not and have not used the quran to make this logical point and you have just been too devoid of sense to see something thats been repeated over and over again. I only quoted the quranic verse as it fitted quite nicely with what I was saying. Moreover the main point i was made was how you want God to show himself in order for you to accept him as true when this expectation goes against the logical state of God that must be. Hence the point was the stupidity of your arguments to determine God as truth.

[LastPoet]

Oh noes! He is now reciting from his holy book! That will convince us... not! You know ThinkingMan, such passages are so common, they only serve to reassure you of your delusion.

[ThinkingMan]

"So when given a formal refutation of the cosmological argument you don't address a single point in the rejoinder at all. Priceless."

Where have I been given a formal refutation of the cosmological argument? Im more interested in a refutation of a single point of my argument regardless of similatities. You make the point here and if it challenges anything i have said i will refute it.

Yes I have quoted from my book. but that was because I was about to end this thread and left you with a warning. I already discussed the logic behind your baseless expectations to see accept God when you have seen him, the verse was merely to let you know that there is a consequence for your stupidity and you have limited time to give it up. Fair enough you dont believe the quran is from the creator, next thread ill intellectually prove it is.

[Skipper]

Quran:
"Do they then wait for anything other than that the angels should come to them, or that your Lord should come, or that some of the Signs of your Lord should come (i.e. signs running up to judgement day)! The day that some of the Signs of your Lord do come, no good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good (by performing deeds of righteousness) through his Faith.."

Your minds are being tested by God. Your meant to contemplate creation and arrive to him before you die and before the end of the world starts. If logic and sense kick in at that point, i'm afraid it will be too late.

So how can something that has " charachteristics of unlimited and independent are outside of your realm" be testing me? Surely if he's outside of my realm of understanding he can't suddenly come into my realm to test and judge me!? Seems a bit unfair to have something I can't comprehend telling me that im doing wrong. Like getting put on the naughty step by a fucking fairy.

Also, I doubt that you will listen, but why when countless other gods exist and countless other versions of your owns methods and morals, do you believe the Koran is the correct account of how he wants us to live and how we will be rewarded/punished in an after life? Is this due to what you been told from an early age? Because I doubt many sane minded people would willingly join that evil religion coming into it at a mature age with an open mind and logic.

[Captain Scarlet]

"So when given a formal refutation of the cosmological argument you don't address a single point in the rejoinder at all. Priceless."

Where have I been given a formal refutation of the cosmological argument? Im more interested in a refutation of a single point of my argument regardless of similatities. You make the point here and if it challenges anything i have said i will refute it.

Yes I have quoted from my book. but that was because I was about to end this thread and left you with a warning. I already discussed the logic behind your baseless expectations to see accept God when you have seen him, the verse was merely to let you know that there is a consequence for your stupidity and you have limited time to give it up. Fair enough you dont believe the quran is from the creator, next thread ill intellectually prove it is.

So you either want to debate in which case you need to counter claims already offered to you in posts: of question begging, special pleading and compositional errors in the cosmological argument or you don't. Every time anyone demonstrates a logical fallacy in your arguments, your retort is you haven't demonstrated anything my logic is sound yah-de-yah-de-yah ad infinitum.

Can't help thinking that you can't get your head around the fact that other people don't see it as you do and therefore we are all wrong and should convert on the spot. The cosmological arguments you parade are as old as the hills and have been debated by better minds than us. If the answer was clear cut as you suggest then there would be no debate. The fact is these are VERY weak arguments for a god/s and you need to do a lot more work to engage anyone in a debate on here than just assert the universe is limited, therefore there is an unlimited god.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The reason why I mentioned your fellow athiest agreeing with me is to show that someone else did understand what was being said regarding science in the first two posts. YOU obviosuly didnt understand which is why all your posts show you have not understood what was said in my first two posts.

I understand that someone else agreed with you. I'm telling you that it's irrelevant.
I'm also telling you that not agreeing with you is not the same thing as being not correct.

This has already been dealt with, I think you know it or just cant think logically enough in order to see it. It doesnt baselessly try to smuggle in a creator. Clearly I said we derive the neccessity of a unlimited, independent creator based on the fact that what you have mentioned of the finite universe exists since the aforementioned creator can be the only solution to how everything eixts. The basis is the material and finite universe and as you mentioned its undeniable charachteristics. Do note that I am not saying God is material or has colour or anything like this since these things themselves AS WE KNOW within our realm and hence limited and dependent i.e. not attributable to God. Therefore if you dont like using the word God dont use it just use the word creator since that would fit the equation. However I think God is fine too since as previosuly mentioned most people use the word to identifiy the unlimited, independent, self sufficient creator we are talking about. I have already said if we want further information about him we could only get them from the creator e.g. revelation.

I'm fully aware of what you said. I'm telling you it's wrong.
When I tell you that you're attempting to 'smuggle in an infinate creator' I mean that your conclusion (god) doesn't logically follow the premise (a finite universe.)

It cannot be demonstrated to be the case because the request for such a demonstration is illogical and basless. Since God is unlimited and independent and our realm is the opposite how can we test him, this we have already discussed. Likewise for the millionth time the creator is logically derived from our existence which we consider to be factual and true and that is the basis for deriving God. Therefore it doesnt assume God to be true, rather the truth is arrived at through logically understanding the truth of our existence and understanding their is only one possible solution is the same way x+3=5 where x must be 2.

And this is another thing - you've not only erroneously assumed that a creator of the universe exists, you've also unnecessarily assumed a number of characteristics of god - that it is omnipotent, unlimited, and independant and yet you have nothing in which to base this assumption upon.
Further, if god does exist in the manner in which you mentioned, even if anything you said was true, this god would have left his "footprint", such that it would be, somewhere. There would be artifacts, witnesses, and people would account for the same deity in similar ways - not to mention that even within the same religion no one has the same idea of what god is - and that's not even treading upon the hundreds of thousands of different religions - of which the modern concept of god that you're using has only existed briefly over the course of human history.
Yet, there are no signs that a god ever existed or affected humanity, life, or the universe in any manner whatsoever and the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of ways that the universe could have come into being without your imaginary friend.

[ThinkingMan]

"So you either want to debate in which case you need to counter claims already offered to you in posts: of question begging, special pleading and compositional errors in the cosmological argument or you don't. Every time anyone demonstrates a logical fallacy in your arguments"

For the second time can you show me where this 'questions begging, special pleading...' etc are. Something to the effect of well if God is such then how can God be such and so on or how is such a thing explained and so on. I'm still waiting for somebody to pick a hole in my logic from my original post.

[Minimalist]

Maybe you will explain about the moon splitting in two?


Eh. Probably not.

[Captain Scarlet]

"So you either want to debate in which case you need to counter claims already offered to you in posts: of question begging, special pleading and compositional errors in the cosmological argument or you don't. Every time anyone demonstrates a logical fallacy in your arguments"

For the second time can you show me where this 'questions begging, special pleading...' etc are.

See my first post on this thread I am not going to re-post.

Something to the effect of well if God is such then how can God be such and so on or how is such a thing explained and so on. I'm still waiting for somebody to pick a hole in my logic from my original post.

You really are confused here. This has nothing to do with the informal fallacies of special pleading and question begging nor even compositional errors. This is much more about the logical incosistencies in the god concept. Totally different subject but no less fascinating. Which do you want to debate?