The Existence and Attributes Of God

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devans99's picture
I am not claiming that God is

I am not claiming that God is omnipotent which answers a number of your questions.

God is not the product of bisexual reproduction so has no gender.

Every star has a habitable zone so the universe is set up for abundant life.

God needs/has no reason to exist - he is the first cause and nothing comes prior to him logically so there can be no reason for his existence.

arakish's picture
Why are you posting without

Why are you posting without scientific based objective hard empirical evidence?

See y'all, I win $200 from everyone. Dan ignored the post. Still spewing nothing but your brain diarrhea.

Dan: "Every star has a habitable zone so the universe is set up for abundant life."

NO! Every star does NOT have an habitable zone. Class O, B, and A stars are considered hostile to any life due to the amount of radiation they pump out. O and B stars actually pump out so much radiation that they are "pushing" stars that are LYs away, further away. A Class stars the same size as our sun would have an habitable zone well outside the orbit of Neptune. And once you get that far from the star, all you have is uninhabitable flotsam similar to the Asteroid Belt and Kuiper Belt.

Do some research. You are only proving how stupid your are needing to plagiarize others' arguments to make yours.

QUIT PLAGIARIZING!!

Nyarlathotep: Don't we have an unwritten rule for plagiarism without attribution? ALL arguments Dan spews are plagiarized from apologetic WWW sites.

rmfr

EDIT: removed replicate text and misspelling

Devans99's picture
No the habitable zone is

No the habitable zone is merely farther out for hotter stars which are in a minority anyway.

What have I plagiarised?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - What have I plagiarised

Dan - What have I plagiarised?

If you plagiarized or posted copyrighted material here, you better remove it; fast.

Devans99's picture
All my own work OK!

All my own work OK!

arakish's picture
Not! Everything you have

Not! Everything you have posted is plagiarized from William Lane Craig's debates. You have just reorganized the text so it not a direct copy paste. However, it is still plagiarized from WLC's debates.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media

Go have a listen. You are offering the EXACT SAME arguments. EXACTLY THE SAME.

Go read about the Kalam Argument. Ontological Argument. Everything you are posting is plagiarized.

Now if you had written in your OP that the Kalam this says, and ontological this says, etc., etc., then you would be guilty of plagiarism. All you are doing is rewriting the same exact arguments as your own. Now go back and fix your OP.

rmfr

Devans99's picture
You are absolutely full of

You are absolutely full of shit. Show me one web page where you can find my arguments.

The Kalam argument uses cause and effect, most of my arguments do not for example.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - You are absolutely full

Dan - You are absolutely full of shit. Show me one web page where you can find my arguments.

Looks like you've been posting material that matches material from the domain: philosophyforum.com.

Fix it, or I'll "fix" you.

Devans99's picture
I am the user devans99 on

I am the user devans99 on that site.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Listen Dan, one of these two

Listen Dan, one of these two things is going to happen next:

  1. You are going to deal with this mess; I recommend removing the material you copied to this site by editing your post(s).
  2. Or I'm going to have to do it. That will suck because I have better things to do with my time. If I have to do this I will remove your access to this site so I never have to do this again (on your behalf).
Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan has chosen option #2, and

Dan has chosen option #2, and has left the building.

NewSkeptic's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

"Dan has chosen option #2, and has left the building."

Perhaps I was wrong and there is a god!

Sheldon's picture
"Dan has chosen option #2,

"Dan has chosen option #2, and has left the building."

Well there's no denying THAT had a cause.

If anyone misses him, just reread one of his thread OP's, they're all basically the same.

arakish's picture
Dan: "No the habitable zone

Dan: "No the habitable zone is merely farther out for hotter stars which are in a minority anyway."

Quit showing off your ignorance. O, B, and A stars radiate into the Gamma (γ) rays, X-rays, and High Ultra-V, respectively. Such stars are NOT inhabitable. Compared to them, our G class star radiates in the green visible light spectrum. Electromagnetic Spectrum. And some of the W class, Wolfram-Rayet, stars are thought to be able to radiate into the Cosmic rays (beyond Gamma rays).

Quit showing off your ignorance!

Do you understand what a degree in Astrophysics, with focus in Celestial Mechanics and Orbital Mechanics implies? This is something I have been studying for over 45 years. How long have you been alive?

Additionally, since O, B, and A stars radiate into the Gamma (γ) rays, X-rays, and High Ultra-V, respectively, making them uninhabitable, their radiation levels also make them impossible for us humans to look at without being completely blinded. Even indirect looking will blind us pathetically inferior and puny primates. An O class star will blind instantaneously even with our eyelids closed and scrunched. B class stars will blind us in a matter of couple hours with eyelids closed. With eyelids open, then blindness may occur in as little as 5 minutes to 15 minutes. A class stars will blind us in a day or two with eyelids open. Maybe a week or two with eyelids closed.

And do you NOT understand the fact that O and B class stars blast radiation so forcefully that they are pushing other stars LYs away, further away? Just how much research have you done?

Us puny and inferior primates would need welder's lenses in goggles just to see. On A and F class stars, bees would be much superior to us puny primates since they can see into the UV-spectrum. As well as wasps, hornets, cockroaches, and some ants. We'd be at such a disadvantage, the insects would completely overwhelm us as we all died from radiation poisoning.

DO SOME RESEARCH. Quit showing off your severe lack of knowledge. Look into other knowledge besides that unholy book of plagiarized lies. Perhaps this is where you get your plagiarism habit from. You figure since the Bible was plagiarized and re-written from myths and legends FAR! older than the Bible AND the Hebrews (Jews, Israelites, whatthefuckever), you can do the same. I wish we could meet FtF. Then I could say this to your face, "Plagiarizing LIAR!"

Where do you live? PM me so I can come say these things to your face! (Of course, do not do this. It violates forum rules.) Basically, I am saying I ain't just saying these things behind the WWW. I am also saying I'd do it FtF. Think Critically about that.

@ Nyarlathotep

Dan ain't truly plagiarizing. What he is doing is using the kalam, ontological, and whatthefuckeverogical arguments without attributing the fact that he gets his arguments from these other arguments. At least William Lane Craig with always say something like, "According to the Kalam Argument," or "According to the Ontological argument," etc., etc.

I am calling Dan's argument plagiarism because he is NOT attributing from where he gets his arguments.

1. Can’t get something from nothing so something must have existed ‘always’. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

If memory serves, this is the ontological argument? I am not sure any more. I have heard ALL of Dan's arguments since before he was born. In other words, I have heard the SAME EXACT arguments Dan is using since 1961.

5. The first cause determines the second, the second the third, and so on. In a universe with no first cause, nothing would be determined, so nothing could exist

First Cause argument? Please. This one is much older than I am. And then another problem is I cannot remember who first proposed these preposterous claims/arguments. I just know that everyone that Dan uses is plagiarized and has debunked for centuries.

6. The universe is fine-tuned for life. Must be a fine tuner. But the fine tuner’s environment must also be fine-tuned for life. Implies another fine-tuner. This infinite regress must terminate with a timeless fine tuner who is synonymous with the first cause.

Dan, you do know that this one is completely, totally, thoroughly, absolutely, utterly, fully, perfectly, entirely, and wholly debunked with just 7 words? Your God's number of perfection…? Life fine tuned itself to the universe. Period. Exclamation point!

@ Dan

You are another person like Ain'tHumble&Can'tThinker (HumbleThinker more accurately named) and have absolutely NO mental capabilities for critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought.

Go back to school. Quit skipping classes to smoke that weed. Marijuana is bad for yungun and developing brains. Come back in 20 years when you have learned a Baccalaureate. Then you may actually be able to say some cogent, compelling, telling, persuasive, plausible, credible, impressive, and valid.

In case you are wondering, yes, my wife used to call me "A walking thesaurus with a plethora of useless, but truthful, factoids."

And here is another factoid for you. The arguments you used in this thread's OP are the SAME EXACT arguments you have used in at least four, maybe five, other threads you have started. And I even stated you were plagiarizing from William Lane Craig in those threads. Still nothing new with you Religious Absolutists. You just keep spewing same bullshit over and over and over and over and … … For at least 6 decades. Do you know how long 6 decades is?

rmfr

EDIT: fixed two incorrect words to proper words. If I missed any others please forgive me.

Sky Pilot's picture
Dan,

Dan,

"Every star has a habitable zone so the universe is set up for abundant life.

God needs/has no reason to exist - he is the first cause and nothing comes prior to him logically so there can be no reason for his existence."

The observable universe is estimated to contain over 200 billion galaxies. To visualize the scope of that if each galaxy occupied one cubic foot the size of the sphere would be over 7 miles in diameter. So our galaxy would be just one cubic foot in that 7 mile sphere. Then find our planet in that one cubic foot of space. Then find the Middle East and locate the acre that Israel occupies. Now imagine that the bblical God character is only concerned with the idiots who live on the one acre in a sphere of worlds that occupies 200 billion cubic feet.

So even if a celestial God does exists he would qualify as an imbecile.

The observable universe is so large in comparison to us that just because we think we see distant objects it doesn't mean that they exist at this very second in our time. They could be images of things that no longer exist. The universe could be a trillion times larger than the observable universe but we will never know what it is or how large it is. Our decendants might get some more information but you and I won't. Heck, one hundred years ago people thought that the universe was just the stars they could see with their naked eyes.

How does the chicken get inside the hard egg shell?

Devans99's picture
I agree, God would not have

I agree, God would not have had time to find us yet with the size of the universe, hence we have not heard from him.

Sheldon's picture
"God is not the product of

"God is not the product of bisexual reproduction so has no gender."

Assumption 1

" the universe is set up"

Assumption 2

"God needs/has no reason to exist"

Assumption 3

"he is the first cause "

Assumption 4 (and a contradiction of your first assumption)

"nothing comes prior to him"

Assumption 5 (and another contradiction of your first assumption)

"there can be no reason for his existence."

Assumption 6 (and yet another contradiction of your first assumption)

That's a six unevidenced assumptions in 4 sentences Dan, you'll have Occam spinning in his grave...

Devans99's picture
There can be no reason for

There can be no reason for God's existence because there is nothing logically prior to him. This incidentally answers the old question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' - 'no reason'.

toto974's picture
Even if there was a first

Even if there was a first cause and we have no evidence for it ( Remember you can't logic something into existence so don't bring up your old thread), why must it be a god, and specifically the christian/muslim/ jew one? Why must it be an intelligent and supernatural one?

Just don't AFFIRM the Big Bang is a supernatural one.

arakish's picture
O! BTW, since I won the bet,

O! BTW, since I won the bet, party on me.

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP

Re: OP

(Before reading any other responses.)

Ugh... *face palm*... Sometimes it is truly painful reading some of this stuff.... and maybe even a little sad. Why oh why are so many people so terribly desperate to have such a strong desire for some sort of "supreme being" to rule over their lives?... *sorrowful sigh*...

Not going to address every point, just one in particular that stands out.

Intelligent Design (The universe is "fine-tuned" for life.) - Consider this hypothetical for a moment.... Let's take every grain of sand from all the beaches and deserts on Earth and isolate them from anything and everything else in some huge self-contained sealed sphere. And let's say that out of all of those countless grains, only ONE has some form of microscopic life on it. And those life forms look out from their tiny grain of sand and see all the other grains of sand scattered out to what looks to be infinity. Their "universe". These life forms cannot leave their grain of sand without highly advanced equipment, else they will instantly die. And to the best of their knowledge, none of the other grains of sand within their view will support life. Matter of fact, there are even places on their own grain of sand that are deadly to them. Yet, for some odd reason, those life forms believe their entire universe was perfectly designed ("fine-tuned") specifically for - and for the sole purpose of - their existence. Because some type of all-loving "creator" made it all just for them.... *scratching chin*.... Ummm, riiiiiiiiight.....

(Now to go read other responses.)

toto974's picture
Cool metaphor, sand all the

Cool metaphor, sand all the way! Even the Earth can be deadly, it is "less" deadly now because we have science and technologies that help avoid our asses being spanked a lot of time a year.

Cognostic's picture
@Dan RE: The Kalam

@Dan RE: The Kalam argument uses cause and effect, most of my arguments do not for example.

The cosmological argument you gave us in this thread does, it has been rejected, go back and try again. Stop repeating yourself like a retard. YOU ARE WRONG.

And in your next post, Just start with the first premise. There is no point in this bullshit full page explanation when you can not get past "everything has a cause."

Not even the modern version of the Cosmological Argument makes this inane assertion. THAT'S WHY THE KALAM IS THE LATEST VERSION.

PAY ATTENTION NOW! The Argument for Allah === The Kalām cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God; named for the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism), it was popularized by William Lane Craig in his The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979).

"Whatever begins to exist had a cause." You still have to prove the universe began to exist. WELL? I gave you the video and marked the time for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE Go to 124

Devans99's picture
Yes my arguments are

Yes my arguments are different arguments from the Kalam argument. None of my six arguments are of the form of the Kalam argument. I am not plagiarising anything.

arakish's picture
Dan: "Yes my arguments are

Dan: "Yes my arguments are different arguments from the Kalam argument. None of my six arguments are of the form of the Kalam argument. I am not plagiarising anything."

Wow! I think I am going to need Cognostic's Payloader on this one. The shovel just ain't going to work. Cognostic’s Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back. ***beep beep beep beep beep***

Every last argument in this thread's OP is plagiarized from arguments that have been completely debunked for over at least 200 years, some debunked for far older.

Dan, all you have done is plagiarize (arguments 1-6 in OP) …

  1. Ontological Argument
  2. Kalam Cosmological Argument
  3. Cosmological Argument (a.k.a. First Cause Argument)
  4. Ontological Argument
  5. Cosmological Argument (a.k.a. First Cause Argument)
  6. Fine-Tuning Argument

All plagiarized from elsewhere since you refuse to give attribution.

Plagiarizer!

rmfr

EDIT: Well, damnit. Dan asked for the evidence and posted it here. But he probably never saw this post since he decided to say I was "full of shit" and Nyarlathotep caught in plagiarism like I did. Ohh... well.

Cognostic's picture
FFS - You really were made

FFS - You really were made in the image of your God. How dense can a person be. YOUR FIRST ASSERTION FAILS!

Leaving aside semantic issues about what ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ mean, we can point out that the claim ‘something cannot come from nothing’ must derive from either:

A logical argument from an accepted premise.
Empirical observation of the universe.
There don’t seem to be any generally accepted premises which would yield this conclusion by deduction, so we can rule out the first possibility.

We’re left, then, with the second option, and what the argument says is:

Something has never been observed coming from nothing, therefore it never happens.

But that’s obviously absurd. New things happen every day that we’ve never observed before, and we have no difficulty accepting their reality.

Whether or not ‘something’ can ever come from ‘nothing’ is a matter for empirical investigation. It can’t be ruled out by invoking an alleged ‘law’ which is derived from the incomplete observation of local empirical events over a short period of time.

Even if something has to come from nothing, which it doesn't, you do not get anyplace close to a god. You have not ruled out natural causes. An original first cause that was not a God. You do not get to assert a magical fairy tale being into existence. FALL BACK; REGROUP AND TRY AGAIN WITH A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. THIS WORN OUT PIECE OF SHIT IS NOT WORTH TALKING ABOUT.

Devans99's picture
Something can come from

Something can come from nothing is basically like saying 1=0. If that is the axiomatical system by which you wish to lead your life, you will likely find it full of many mysteries.

arakish's picture
Hey Dan!

Hey Dan!

Don't Forget …

∞ + 1 = ∞
∞ - 1 = ∞
∞ ÷ 2 = ∞
∞ × 5 = ∞
√∞ = ∞
∞³ = ∞
∞^∞ = ∞
etc.
etc.
etc.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
http://www.atheistrepublic

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/existence-attributes-g...
Dan "my arguments are different arguments from the Kalam argument."

Do me a favour Dan.....

Kalam > Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Dan > It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

Kalam > The universe began to exist;
Dan > There was a start of time.

Kalam > The universe has a cause.
Dan > the only way out of this infinite regress is to have a timeless first cause...

Kalam > If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
Dan > The Big Bang theory suggests that spacetime began 13 billion years ago. This would require a timeless first cause

Kalam > An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.
Dan > Having established there was a first cause, we can move onto establishing the attributes of the first cause:

can you really believe anyone is dumb enough to fall for that lie, you have plagiarised the Kalam argument almost verbatim, with some word salad added to try and fool us.

Christ on a bike Dan....fucking hilarious

Devans99's picture
I have proved there is a

I have proved there is a start of time using a method completely different from Kalam.

I argue for eternalism, whereas Lane is a presentist.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.