Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by atomicjellyfish
i read like the first few pages of the thread and
- yeah, the big bang explains how the universe came into being but not the point before it because LITERALLY at that point all of physics breaks down, as in a singularity the rules of physics do not apply and therefore nothing can be predicted
- why can't we all just agree with aristotle in that the universe just spontaneously came into being
- the whole thread is stupid because the argument in the title cannot be thrown out as it is BASED on the pro-god argument that purpose and cause are seen in nature, so everything must have a cause, meaning the only thing great enough to cause this is god, and so god must exist, but then something must have created god (2 years of gcse re guys XD)
- the whole of philosophy is based on making assumptions WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE OR NOT in order to think through an argument (my mother is a philosophy professor so I hear a lot of this)
- athiests rule
- yeah, the big bang explains how the universe came into being but not the point before it because LITERALLY at that point all of physics breaks down, as in a singularity the rules of physics do not apply and therefore nothing can be predicted
- why can't we all just agree with aristotle in that the universe just spontaneously came into being
- the whole thread is stupid because the argument in the title cannot be thrown out as it is BASED on the pro-god argument that purpose and cause are seen in nature, so everything must have a cause, meaning the only thing great enough to cause this is god, and so god must exist, but then something must have created god (2 years of gcse re guys XD)
- the whole of philosophy is based on making assumptions WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE OR NOT in order to think through an argument (my mother is a philosophy professor so I hear a lot of this)
- athiests rule
I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
nah that was my biology teacher
was he wrong
i'd be very glad to inform him of his ignorance XD
Original post by Whitewell
I hope your mum didnt teach you about Aristotle! He thought the world was eternal
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
google has now made me more informed XD thanks
Original post by atomicjellyfish
nah that was my biology teacher
was he wrong
i'd be very glad to inform him of his ignorance XD
was he wrong
i'd be very glad to inform him of his ignorance XD
Inform him with a vengeance
Aristotle was explicit that he thought the universe was eternal. Perhaps your biology teacher was mistaken because of the unmoved mover argument? People seem to think its like the Kalam cosmological argument which argues for a beginning, or a first mover to start the dominoes falling. Its quite a common misconception. Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
Inform him with a vengeance Aristotle was explicit that he thought the universe was eternal. Perhaps your biology teacher was mistaken because of the unmoved mover argument? People seem to think its like the Kalam cosmological argument which argues for a beginning, or a first mover to start the dominoes falling. Its quite a common misconception.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Aristotle was explicit that he thought the universe was eternal. Perhaps your biology teacher was mistaken because of the unmoved mover argument? People seem to think its like the Kalam cosmological argument which argues for a beginning, or a first mover to start the dominoes falling. Its quite a common misconception. Posted from TSR Mobile
ah i think i got confused with his theory of spontaneous generation
he though life spontaneously arose from non-living matter
Original post by atomicjellyfish
ah i think i got confused with his theory of spontaneous generation
he though life spontaneously arose from non-living matter
he though life spontaneously arose from non-living matter
Yeh that makes sense too
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Whitewell
I haven't read the whole thread, i think the trust of his point is that the universe is contingent. Arguing the PSR, the universe's explanation for it's existence is a neccessary being which has a number of attributes that God has. One of these includes free will or the ability to choose, otherwise you wouldnt be able to explain contingency will necessity, everything would follow necessarily and you would have modal fatalism.
http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html
Posted from TSR Mobile
http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html
Posted from TSR Mobile
OK gimme like 12 years and I'll figure out what's actually going on and give some sort of response that might make sense.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It is special pleading. It goes against basic logic and thus we can conclude it isn't true.
You haven't provided evidence for God's existence, let alone that he can create something from a literal nothing.
You can believe what you like, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.
We probably will.
It's not true. Your comparison is false, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you say it.
It is special pleading. It goes against basic logic and thus we can conclude it isn't true.
You haven't provided evidence for God's existence, let alone that he can create something from a literal nothing.
You can believe what you like, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.
We probably will.
It's not true. Your comparison is false, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you say it.
Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
Original post by StudyJosh
Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
Sigh, no it doesn't. You need life for it to evolve but abiogenesis =/= life, it's a theory describing how life came from non-life. They are independent theories.
Saying there is evidence without able to produce it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence.
Original post by StudyJosh
Evolution depends on abiogenesis needing to happen just as the Big Bang needs the universe to start before it can happen.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. You may not accept it but that doesn't change the fact.
Are you high?
Original post by !!mentor!!
And there can be an outside of outside of time *facepalm*.
No, you didn't use Danth's law correctly, nokay.
There can't be an outside a place where time exists. Time came into existence with space, which is why we refer to the space-time continuum as the space-time continuum.
And there can be an outside of outside of time *facepalm*.
No, you didn't use Danth's law correctly, nokay.
There can't be an outside a place where time exists. Time came into existence with space, which is why we refer to the space-time continuum as the space-time continuum.
I said God is outside of time... So how is there an outside of him? okay
I used Danth's law correctly. God is transcendent, he didn't come into existence with time or space, he was there before.
Original post by !!mentor!!
I didn't say that I believed the big bang was ongoing. I said that other researchers had recently postulated that the big bang could be ongoing and so could be eternal.
I didn't say that I believed the big bang was ongoing. I said that other researchers had recently postulated that the big bang could be ongoing and so could be eternal.
I hope so, because you mentioning that I can't say the Big Bang happened seems to imply that. Whether the Big Bang is on-going on not doesn't mean its eternal because it's not the same Big Bang happening every second XD
Original post by !!mentor!!
I absolutely did. My condescension helped you understand somethings. Further condescension may help you understand other things. Although you being so triggered in your last post that you felt the need to shout was an inadvertent result.
I absolutely did. My condescension helped you understand somethings. Further condescension may help you understand other things. Although you being so triggered in your last post that you felt the need to shout was an inadvertent result.
It didn't really help anything - I don't see how I learned anything as you just got disproven in that regard as you did before when you suggested the Big Bang was eternal.
I don't see how using CapsLock to put emphasis on a few words equates to shouting but I guess you're used to redefining words so much - it's hard for you to change old habits.
Original post by !!mentor!!
You've confused the word 'state' to mean a place which is why you think there is a place where time doesn't exist (which you said above). 'State' in this context means a certain condition. Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.
And you categorically stated that evolution was dependent on abiogenesis. Which it's not. You didn't compare them.
You've confused the word 'state' to mean a place which is why you think there is a place where time doesn't exist (which you said above). 'State' in this context means a certain condition. Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.
And you categorically stated that evolution was dependent on abiogenesis. Which it's not. You didn't compare them.
I didn't confuse the word. I repeatedly said God is outside of time - his condition - God himself is outside of time. Yes, heaven exists out of time but I said God is eternal which means he is out of time.
Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.
The Big Bang couldn't happen without the beginning of the universe, the same way evolution couldn't happen without the beginning of life. In that way, it is dependent.
Original post by !!mentor!!
No, you don't, as shown above.
No, you don't, as shown above.
I do but you seem to be lacking in them, as shown above.
Original post by !!mentor!!
They completely go against what you said. I've already explained that there can't be a place outside of time (see: space-time continuum)
They completely go against what you said. I've already explained that there can't be a place outside of time (see: space-time continuum)
Already disproved as shown above.
Original post by !!mentor!!
You absolutely redefined a word for your purpose. I could say 'fairlough' instead of strawman and try to pretend it's an acceptable alternative as that word is similar to scarecrow in that they're homonyms. The point is fairlough is not an alternative word for scarecrow and neither is strawman.
You absolutely redefined a word for your purpose. I could say 'fairlough' instead of strawman and try to pretend it's an acceptable alternative as that word is similar to scarecrow in that they're homonyms. The point is fairlough is not an alternative word for scarecrow and neither is strawman.
Fairlough isn't homonym, you mean homophone and it's not a homophone either. You're really great at redefining words, aren't you? I mean, you've just done it twice in one sentence. Anyway, scarecrow can be made out of straw and so could be called a strawman scarecrow or straw scarecrow but whatever.
Original post by !!mentor!!
Linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated. See, I can make tenuous links as well.
You're learning because of my condescension to you. My methods are evidently working so the best thing is probably for me to continue to deal with you as such.
And if you're taking your lead from me (by being a pedant) then you shouldn't be easily led.
Linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated. See, I can make tenuous links as well.
You're learning because of my condescension to you. My methods are evidently working so the best thing is probably for me to continue to deal with you as such.
And if you're taking your lead from me (by being a pedant) then you shouldn't be easily led.
No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like linking them starting their relationship with them breaking up.
I haven't learnt anything, in fact all your 'learnt' points are just getting disproven again and again.
Because I choose to take the lead from you in regards to being a pedant, how does that indicate I was easily led? Are you a bad person to copy pedantic behaviour from?
Original post by !!mentor!!
You failed from the get go and now you're just trying to flog a dead horse. Even another atheist supported my position and against yours. Even the Pope believes that the big bang cause the universe. Do you know something Pope doesn't? I would think the pope has a better grasp of christianity and god than you?
Eternal is not defined as outside of time. The only people that use that are religious folks like yourself.
Outside of outside of time makes perfect sense if outside of time does. In order to believe my proposition you just have to have faith, ain't that right?
You failed from the get go and now you're just trying to flog a dead horse. Even another atheist supported my position and against yours. Even the Pope believes that the big bang cause the universe. Do you know something Pope doesn't? I would think the pope has a better grasp of christianity and god than you?
Eternal is not defined as outside of time. The only people that use that are religious folks like yourself.
Outside of outside of time makes perfect sense if outside of time does. In order to believe my proposition you just have to have faith, ain't that right?
I didn't fail from the get go, you were wrong in the fact the Big Bang could be an eternal first cause. Admit it. The other atheist realised what you were arguing and changed his mind at the end. The Pope believes God caused the Big Bang so how in anyway would that mean it is the eternal first cause. You could call it a first cause if you want but no eternal. The Cyclic Model is saying the universe is eternal not the Big Bang.
The Pope certainly isn't credible in terms of Christianity. Forced celibacy? Pseudo-baptism? Apostolic succession and priest sexual abuse cover-ups? gr8 b8
You already admitted the definition of where time has no application. Even if we were to agree with the definition that it means without beginning or end, how would that cause problems for God when he's also transcendent?
God is outside of time (that condition of where time has no application). God himself. So saying outside of outside of time? What is outside of outside of time. How can something have time not applied to it in a place where there is no time applied? You don't need faith to understand that, it's something called 'critical thinking skills'
Original post by !!mentor!!
I understand the big bang. You should take your lead from the pope as he understands that's how the universe came into being.
Again, I never said I thought the big bang was eternal. I referred you to the researchers who postulated that.
I understand the big bang. You should take your lead from the pope as he understands that's how the universe came into being.
Again, I never said I thought the big bang was eternal. I referred you to the researchers who postulated that.
The researchers said the universe was eternal not the Big Bang, just stop. There were simply saying there were multiple Big Bangs.
Your first post on this thread was 'why can't the Big Bang be the eternal first cause?'
Original post by !!mentor!!
That absolutely is christianity. It's in the bible. Do you not believe in the bible now? I could even offer you the passages encouraging the evil I mentioned if you'd like? You see, using evidence helps your cause. You should try using evidence sometimes, instead of feelings.
You said that christianity isn't evil but these people categorically state that god told them to kill their children. And so christianity is evil.
That absolutely is christianity. It's in the bible. Do you not believe in the bible now? I could even offer you the passages encouraging the evil I mentioned if you'd like? You see, using evidence helps your cause. You should try using evidence sometimes, instead of feelings.
You said that christianity isn't evil but these people categorically state that god told them to kill their children. And so christianity is evil.
There is nothing evil about Christianity, I've already told you if you want a sufficient rebuttal then you will get one if you start another thread because that is not what this thread is about. You haven't used evidence yet so why expect me to first when you're making the claims? #triggered
Oh and saying, that because people said God told them to kill their children (even though he condemns child sacrifice as an abominable act in the Bible) doesn't mean God told them to do anything, I love how you think that's evidence that Christianity is evil. (lack of critical thinking skills)
Original post by !!mentor!!
Don't be so triggered. You need to chill out. At least you're not shouting in this thread ("oh, no he did not just go there. Oh, yes he did" ). You see, not only did my condescension work in teaching you something, it stopped you from being angry. I'd say that learning and being calmed is a positive effect.
Don't be so triggered. You need to chill out. At least you're not shouting in this thread ("oh, no he did not just go there. Oh, yes he did" ). You see, not only did my condescension work in teaching you something, it stopped you from being angry. I'd say that learning and being calmed is a positive effect.
??? Um... okay, seeing as you've been condescending from the near star and you're only claiming I got 'angry' in the last few posts then why didn't it stop me from getting angry in the first place?
Original post by !!mentor!!
No, you said god is the eternal first cause. So if god can be an uncause cause then the big bang can be the unbeginning beginning.
You used Capslock because you were so angry. Perhaps when you calm down you could just converse normally. I'll be condescending the next time you get angry. You seem to stop shouting when condescended (oh, in case you forgot, that word means I patronize you).
No, you said god is the eternal first cause. So if god can be an uncause cause then the big bang can be the unbeginning beginning.
You used Capslock because you were so angry. Perhaps when you calm down you could just converse normally. I'll be condescending the next time you get angry. You seem to stop shouting when condescended (oh, in case you forgot, that word means I patronize you).
God is an uncaused cause but what is an 'unbeginning beginning'? I think you mean unbegun beginning but that doesn't make sense in the way that uncaused cause does. A cause can be uncaused. But how can a beginning not be begun?
An uncaused effect wouldn't make sense but an uncaused cause is perfectly fine.
Also, proved before, you've been condescending since the near star so that makes no sense. Using CapsLock on a few words about the definition of assumption doesn't mean I'm angry. When I typed in those words, I was like 'He's just going to say I'm angry or something' but I was like 'Nah, he's mature enough to know capslock on about 6 words on a around 500 word post doesn't mean I'm angry' - you proved me wrong lol.
Original post by !!mentor!!
Theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably by people who don't understand what the terms mean, as you've been doing but they mean different things. Ask any scientist or academic and they'll tell you the difference.
Theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably by people who don't understand what the terms mean, as you've been doing but they mean different things. Ask any scientist or academic and they'll tell you the difference.
They can be used interchangeably in a non-scientific environment. In the lab, many would call a hypothesis a prediction but it is fine to use them interchangeably out of one as each word has multiple definitions and if we are not in a scientific or academic environment, you can't assume which one is being used.
Original post by !!mentor!!
You linked abiogenesis and evolution by saying one followed the other. You even reiterated this to another user here. If you're a pedant here and to others, then maybe you are in fact a pedant without my help? But the detail you've been showing in your posts is wrong. So that's kind of like a contradiction in terms.
You linked abiogenesis and evolution by saying one followed the other. You even reiterated this to another user here. If you're a pedant here and to others, then maybe you are in fact a pedant without my help? But the detail you've been showing in your posts is wrong. So that's kind of like a contradiction in terms.
I think I did that after I witnessed you being a pedant as I said but anyway.
Original post by !!mentor!!
I have no misconceptions about christianity. I got those acts of evil direct from the bible (you see, evidence is all it takes to help your point). Do you not know your own bible? Are you saying those acts aren't in the bible?
A little less student room and a lot more reading would've helped you there.
I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but since you originally mentioned how christianity wasn't evil, I simply responded.
I have no misconceptions about christianity. I got those acts of evil direct from the bible (you see, evidence is all it takes to help your point). Do you not know your own bible? Are you saying those acts aren't in the bible?
A little less student room and a lot more reading would've helped you there.
I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but since you originally mentioned how christianity wasn't evil, I simply responded.
You simply said the Bible without quoting anything - that doesn't count as evidence but thanks for referring to the Bible for evidence but it is regarded as evidence for accounts of Jesus' life due to the accounts being written within 100 years of his life.
Christianity isn't evil but I can tell you're too triggered right now to be disproven in another thread so you can leave it at that.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Sigh, no it doesn't. You need life for it to evolve but abiogenesis =/= life, it's a theory describing how life came from non-life. They are independent theories.
Saying there is evidence without able to produce it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence.
Saying there is evidence without able to produce it doesn't change the fact there is no evidence.
Original post by XOR_
Are you high?
There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.
[video="youtube;ukOTW-pxuL0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOTW-pxuL0[/video]
Original post by StudyJosh
There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.
[video="youtube;ukOTW-pxuL0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOTW-pxuL0[/video]
[video="youtube;ukOTW-pxuL0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOTW-pxuL0[/video]
Bible verses don't prove God exists.
Original post by StudyJosh
There is evidence for the existence of God and whether you accept it doesn't change that fact.
[video="youtube;ukOTW-pxuL0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOTW-pxuL0[/video]
[video="youtube;ukOTW-pxuL0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOTW-pxuL0[/video]
I want to point out, the vastness and (subjective) beauty of the universe is not evidence for a god, it's possibly the reason you believe in one but certainly not evidence for one.
(edited 7 years ago)
I agree with the original post, God absolutely must have created everything. He is the original creator.
He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
Original post by RosesAreRed1
I agree with the original post, God absolutely must have created everything. He is the original creator.
He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
That is absolutely not what the theory of evolution says.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
That is absolutely not what the theory of evolution says.
Have you even done a bit of research?
Have you even done a bit of research?
Gettin a lid mad knowing your imaginary friend aint real are we
Original post by RosesAreRed1
Gettin a lid mad knowing your imaginary friend aint real are we
What?
Spoiler
"
even if this is a troll"
yes it was, remind me to put a troll sign next time
even if this is a troll"
yes it was, remind me to put a troll sign next time
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Resources for A-level English Lit OCR?
- GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- Alevel history help!
- English Literature Macbeth
- My year 11 journey
- OCR A Level English Literature Comparative and contextual study H472/02 - 15 Jun 2022
- A level English lit help
- OCR - Religious Studies
- GCSE AQA RS 2023 Question
- GCSE English Literature Macbeth Ambition essay
- Politics a level REVISION HELPP
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- Religious Studies GCSE 5 Marker
- motivation for a levels
- Is rereading my Literature texts now (AQA GCSE) going to help me at all?
- English language paper 1 aqa
- Religious Studies and Scripture Reference
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
