Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 12, 2024, 3:22 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism
#49
RE: Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism
(May 9, 2013 at 2:09 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: The material world and its phenomena- Nature. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature

This is everyone definition of nature it's bound to the material world. I shown that the material world alone is not sufficient to explain why it exists. The cause of the existence of the material world must be non material because non material stuff does not need a cause for existence. Only material stuff needs a cause for existence and once material stuff exists it cannot create no new material stuff because of the laws of physics. We have a lot to learn about the natural world still. However we can only learn about the natural world because we are natural beings or material beings. The difference between worshiping the sun and believe in a Deist G-d is that believing the sun to be something that is not natural has no logical necessity. As I've shown it is logically necessary to believe in a non material thing to explain the existence of material matter because science has shown that material cannot be created out of other material. AKA conservation of mass and energy, momentum ect.

I have pointed out that you are making the assumption, which has been discredited so many times over the last few centuries, that we have an understanding of the natural world so complete that we can make the certain determination that we can safely say we know that things exist outside of it. Our laws of physics are strong but they are not complete. Our observational tools are powerful, but by no means as good as they can get. So, when you say 'the natural world and its phenomena', you mean 'as we currently understand them'. I am not so arrogant to think that 'as we currently understand them' = 'as perfect an understanding as we will ever have', but this is precisely what you are doing.

If we really did have total understanding of nature and its processes, then it would be logically necessary to invoke a supernatural phenomena. As we do not have total understanding, to invoke a supernatural phenomena is just burying our heads in the sand.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism - by Ryantology - May 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I need a new passport, which country is officially atheist? BananaFlambe 44 2872 December 20, 2023 at 5:11 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  The Possibly Proper Death Litany, aka ... Gawdzilla Sama 11 973 December 18, 2023 at 1:15 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  If you had to pick between people who pimp prostitutes vs religious people Woah0 22 2095 August 28, 2022 at 5:51 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"? Osopatata 29 2897 December 21, 2020 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: HappySkeptic
  Why not deism? Inqwizitor 200 15502 July 17, 2020 at 5:31 am
Last Post: Porcupine
  Which religion would be easiest for you if you had to be in one? Fake Messiah 31 3455 July 17, 2019 at 2:26 am
Last Post: Losty
Exclamation new "Cult of 'Non-Beliefism' " aka (the state of being "unlocked") ProgrammingGodJordan 142 15650 January 2, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  The "God" World. [aka Weaveworld] JBrentonK 54 8935 December 31, 2015 at 8:20 am
Last Post: Joods
  Which atheists do you find the most annoying? Whateverist 126 19559 November 18, 2015 at 9:15 am
Last Post: houseofcantor
  How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard Dystopia 206 46086 September 21, 2015 at 11:25 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)