The Million Dollar Question

[Ryantology]

Well obviously I won't consider everything to be eternal or even two things. Then it wouldn't make sense since why are two things eternal, there must be a first. Only a single thing can be eternal.

Why can only one thing be eternal? Why can't the whole of existence, and all of the stuff within, be eternal? That seems far likelier, to me, then all of it being magicked out of nothing, because if there was just God, he's a special exception that can't be justified.

The universe as in the one we are in does have a beginning, or no? This is why I called it created, because its existence is as a result of an action of the eternal entity. Thus its created

The universe as we know it has a beginning. We have absolutely zero idea what sort of state it was all in 'before' that. The stuff that makes up our universe was already there, as far as we can tell. It didn't just blink into existence out of nothing one day.

Furthermore, tossing an 'eternal entity' into the mix lacks explanatory power, and merely adds an unnecessary roadblock to understanding. It is a sign reading "don't bother trying to figure this out".

Since nobody has any actual knowledge on the subject, guessing that it was all the work of some invisible monster who exists alone, outside of space and time is, to put it very mildly, going out on one thin fucker of a limb.

[lordofgemini]

[Esquilax]

Fine I want you to give me any literally any other possible justification of the existence of the eternal universe.

Again, this is the argument from ignorance fallacy, since even if I could provide no answer, it doesn't make yours correct.

That said, who says this is an eternal universe?

Like i said there must be a first, that first must be eternal. And the next thing is the because of the first. I.e. created.

So, this is just another set of assertions, since you've not demonstrated any of your musts. Do that, and maybe we'll talk. But simply strenuously telling me something must be a certain way doesn't make it so.

I must be a billionaire.

Oh look, I didn't suddenly become flooded with money. Crazy how that works.

[lordofgemini]

[Confused Ape]

Yes Brahman fit the description of God. But the point it that yes many religion describe God in different ways. But in actuallity there is just One God. That is the reason for the existence of eeverything. And that One God is the true God.

A subjective experience which is interpreted as God doesn't prove that God actually exists, though. Some people have scary subjective experiences which they interpret as being abducted by aliens. Is this proof that alien abductions really happen?

[lordofgemini]

A subjective experience which is interpreted as God doesn't prove that God actually exists, though. Some people have scary subjective experiences which they interpret as being abducted by aliens. Is this proof that alien abductions really happen?

I didn't even mention subjective experience ever. You don't understand what is God. Forget about all religions for a moment. Then think with a free mind.

[Ryantology]

Do you agree eternity is a must?

I don't agree it is a 'must'. I think it is likely to be true.

You said everything to be eternal is more likelier to be possible. Now that is totally absurd and fallacious. You want everything to be eternal. That is like you saying everything thing just was there forever without reason. Or a cause. Logically there must be a first.

You can't go and say "logically, there must be a first" when the underlying logic of that statement is "every effect has a cause". It is self-contradictory. The idea of a conscious, thinking creator being an 'uncaused cause' does nothing but justify the idea that conscious, thinking humans required no creator.

Yes so it was created like I said becuase it has a beginning.

Is that a fact? Then, you'll have no problem telling us the precise moment everything began. Science would greatly appreciate your insight.

Also, a first cause doesn't make a conscious creator necessary, sorry to say.

[Crossless2.0]

You want me to give you a silly simple analogy. Although there is no possible analogy that fits. Because nothing is the first except God.

Imagine a house. Everything perfectly set., the doors of wood, windows, table chairs, beds everything, In the middle of a desert. Both of us see it. I say what a beutiful house made by X. U say no it just there I can't give you any possible answer because I am refraining to think out of ignorance . While is say there 'must' be a builder it didn't just pop out for no reason. Its obvious.
And then u start blaming me that I am asserting things without evidence and that it just there no need to think about it.

Some analogies are better than others, and this one stinks. We know from experience that houses and furniture are designed, manufactured objects. What evidence -- aside from your baseless insistence that it is so -- do we have that the universe is a designed thing? We intuit design by contrasting designed objects with naturally occurring objects. On what basis do you decide that nature itself is designed? What are you contrasting it with?

[Lemonvariable72]

Somehow lord Gemini you remind me of the people of krikket from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. They were a kind and charming people that lived on a planet in a dust cloud on the edge of the galaxy. They had idea the universe existed until a space ship crash landed on their world and they through reverse engineering discovered the universe. How do you think they reacted?

[Bad Writer]

Welcome back, Stat! I hope you're fully recovered; this forum has been lacking in heavy YEC arguments since you went on hiatus, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Creating the universe seems like a small and pitiful thing compared to a being that can supposedly do anything/everything.

I find it rather impressive myself.

Impressive in retrospect, especially since you've claimed that there had to be a creator for something that very well may have been natural. It's a shame nothing on so grand a scale occurs much as of late. All your god sees fit to do nowadays is bestow us with his esteemed visage from time to time.



Damn, I want some of this water here turned to wine! Jesus has gotten really lame over the last 2000 years since he hung out with his groupies in Jerusalem.

That’s my point; so as an atheist you do not believe that anything actually exists?

Anything? Do you really think that we believe nothing exists?

Since everything can be defined as a god and you do not believe in the existence of any gods you therefore do not believe that any one thing exists right?

Why do you make these straw men? You're better than this. Our pal here "lordofgemini" actually thinks that everything, a.k.a., our universe, is god. Discarding his definition of god, does not mean we discard everything with it.

You said that the definition of the term “god” is determined by those who believe in it, so if you believe cats exist and as long as one person believes cats are gods according to your reasoning you would now be a theist and not an atheist.

Straw man again. The real answer is that we are not theists because a person believes cats are gods (e.g. the ancient Egyptians did worship cats). Most people have their own views of cats as simply animals with no supernatural abilities.

By this same token, we understand that you believe there was a man named Jesus. The fact that you worship this man does not also make us theists if we also acknowledge a belief that there was a man named Jesus.

So stop sitting there equating our belief in a thing with someone else's belief in the deistic nature of said thing. You don't have to create straw man arguments just so that you can have a debate with a group of people for which it appears you hold some disdain.

Also, please stop trying to convince us that we don't know the actual definition of "atheist". How hard is it to acknowledge that we have this term applied to us because we simply lack a belief in just one more deity than you?