"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Traditz]

---

Very interesting discussion you guys have here. I'm a theist myself.

I personally find the argument from contingency convincing.

By the way, the idea that the universe has always existed can't be right. Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe had an absolute beginning. Scientific findings also show us that the universe is expanding, so there was a time when the universe was only a singularity.

I also believe that the default position on the question of God's existence is agnosticism. Atheists also need to give reasons why they beleive God does not exist.

[Sinyalan]

Atheists also need to give reasons why they beleive God does not exist.

It is not the job for the atheist to prove his existence. But this god, is an omniscient, primordial and eternal who created man in his own image and therefore posseses a digestive system, sense organs, limbs and other attributes that would be useless to an immortal being. If god came first, what would he eat or walk upon? Why would he have those five senses if nothing to sense yet existed? And if he has 'always' been here, how long did he sit around doing nothing until he decided to invent the Universe? And why? And if he hadn't yet invented the universe, what exactly was he sitting on? Where is he going to exist if there is nothing to exist in? And what is wrong with the idea that we all just expire and disintegrate and rot?


I am in fact convinced since none of those questions can be answered correctly - although majority of theists would go as far faith and beliefs - that is not a proven ground that he exist.

[bungot25]

we have lots of reasons to doubt, but for me? there is an intelligent being who designed our origin because even scientist coudnt explain the origins of evolution...do you think dawkins is a dumb person??

[handsoff241]

Can I take back my words, that I won't troll into this thread? I smell "sound" arguments here.

[schmuck]

The two aren't the same, and atheism is NOT the logical response to a lack of evidence. That is effectively a positive claim: that you KNOW God does not exist. You must prove that this knowledge is true. If you can't it is irrational.

It is precisely your claim that you have no burden of proof that I am questioning. Disbelief is not the default when the issue is uncertain. If you don't know, then you don't know. Then you need no proof. Yet you claim the certainty of atheism. So if you know God does not exist, then you need proof. By relying on the claim that you have no burden of proof, you are simply assuming that which I have called into question. That is not proof.

Gets mo?

Let us look at definitions ha.

Agnostiscism - lack of knowledge on the existence/non-existence of god
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of god

By definitions alone, 'I am atheist because I am agnostic' is valid.
I don't believe in the existence of god because I lack knowledge in the existence/non-existence of god.

I DO NOT claim that I believe that god does not exist. <- stop putting words in my mouth.
Rather, I only say:
I don't believe that god exists. <- tell me, asa ang claim dira??

Non sequitur. You have to show the premises that were not proven. And you have to make sure those premises are essential to the strongest version of the argument (and not just an author's rendering of it). You have done neither in that post.



You did not address the argument. An infinite regress is irrelevant. It does not remove the necessity of the Necessary Being.

LOL! dont you know that Recursive or Circular Reasoning is a LOGICAL FALLACY?

It seems you are having trouble understanding the Argument from Contingency. That is not necessarily a failing on your part, as there have been bad and insufficient ways of stating it. I will suggest a simplified one below.

Let me refer you to a previous post:
https://www.istorya.net/forums/spirit...ml#post4851079

1. Either all things are necessary beings or not.
2. All things cannot be necessary beings because some can go out of existence or some rely on another being in some way for their existence.
3. So either all things are contingent or not.
4. But if absolutely all things are contingent, how do they get their necessity?
5. If all things are contingent, therefore, they are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings:
6. There must exist at least a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

Analysis of the above:

• 1 is a logical truth. Simple logical construct of two mutually exclusive categories that can hold anything (A = all things are necessary; B = !A' or B is all that is not A).
  
  
• 2 is true. Try denying it. Nothing ever ceases to exist? Dang, I'm Elvis!
  
  
• 3 is a logical truth. Same as 1.
  
  
• 4 and 5 involve the basic act of inquiry. We ask "why?" To claim that things are not intelligible or need no explanation is quite contrary to the spirit of inquiry of the sciences and all other rational endeavors to gain knowledge. This act of seeking explanation is sometimes referred to as the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
  
  
• 6 is the proven conclusion. To deny it is to deny 4 and 5, which is to claim absurdity, and to go against the Principle of Sufficient Reason thereby abandoning any reason for rational inquiry. You wipe out all of science with that one!

Subayon nato.
definitions
contingent - possible but not certain to occur
neccessity - the condition of being essential or indispensable

1. Not all things are neccessary. Supported by point 2. There is no such thing as necessary objects. There are necessary "truths" but they are not about physical "objects" or "things".
2. true
3. Not all things are contingent(improbable).
The existence of the universe is not contingent, simply by the fact that we are here talking about it.
It can be certained that the universe has always been.

4. Wrong, response to 3 states that not all "things" are contingent. There is no such thing as contingent objects. There are contingent "truths" but they are not about physical "objects" or "things"
5. Again, not all things are contingent.
6. Again, point 2 states that not all things are not neccessary. There is such thing as a contingent being or a necessary being. That is a false premise.

Haay, don't you even read the previous posts? Your claim is irrelevant. I have said several times that it does NOT matter if the universe always has been. After all, there is no logical reason why a set of contingent beings have to cease existing all at the same time. But they are all still contingent. But not everything can be contingent, as shown above. Ergo, there is at least a Necessary Being.

Wrong. It matters that that the universe has always been, it removes the need for a "Necessary Being".

So the Argument from Contingency still stands. I now have proof for my theist claim. You have NOTHING for your atheist claim, except, perhaps, your EXCUSE for not proving it.

Really?

[mannyamador]

By definitions alone, 'I am atheist because I am agnostic' is valid.

But it is NOT the logical conclusion. If you insist it is, then so is: I am a theist because I am agnostic.

I DO NOT claim that I believe that god does not exist. <- stop putting words in my mouth.

Looks like you still have to figure out if you're really an atheist. Let me know when you do.

LOL! dont you know that Recursive or Circular Reasoning is a LOGICAL FALLACY?

That is why atheism is illogical. In case you haven't figured it out, infinite regress is an OBJECTION to the Argument from Contingency!

The argument from Contingency does NOT rely on any infinite regress. Infinite, finite, or even no regress of contingent beings doesn't matter. There is still no necessity in any of these situations. They are essentially irrelevant to the argument.

Now to your flawed analysis.

1. Not all things are neccessary. Supported by point 2. There is no such thing as necessary objects. There are necessary "truths" but they are not about physical "objects" or "things".

Not about physical objects? That's quite an unfounded ASSUMPTION there. Kindly prove that things or physical objects cannot be contingent. Contingency refers to things. And we find things that cease to exist. It is an observable fact, and can be deduced from ideas as well. Your argument already fails at this point.

3. Not all things are contingent(improbable).
The existence of the universe is not contingent, simply by the fact that we are here talking about it.
It can be certained that the universe has always been.

Show me proof that the universe has always been. Have you got an observer out there? Hehehe... You can't. And even if you did, it is also irrelevant, as I have said before.

4. Wrong, response to 3 states that not all "things" are contingent. There is no such thing as contingent objects. There are contingent "truths" but they are not about physical "objects" or "things"

Same error as in 1.

5. Again, not all things are contingent.

Hahahahaha!!! That is PRECISELY what I am trying to prove!!!! You have just proven the existence of a Necessary Being!!!

This is truly hilarious! You have just blown your foot off. From my experience, atheists don't usually make this kind of mistake. But you just made it to my record book! Please get some advice or help from the other atheists here, dude! Yours is the sorriest performance in a discussion that I have ever encountered from any atheist on this issue (and I have had very many such debates).

It matters that that the universe has always been, it removes the need for a "Necessary Being".

Not at all. A group of contingent beings -- no matter how long they as a collective have been in existence -- does not provide necessity. Their existence is still unexplained. Therefore a Necessary Being is needed. Principle of Sufficient Reason, boy.

Really?

As demonstrated above. QED.

By the way, the idea that the universe has always existed can't be right. Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe had an absolute beginning. Scientific findings also show us that the universe is expanding, so there was a time when the universe was only a singularity.

I agree with you that the fact that the universe has not always existed has been established by science. This is a discovered truth. As far as the Argument from Contingency goes, that is a helpful truth, but it is not absolutely necessary for the argument to stand. Still, it's good that science can help establish this fact. Cool with me!

I also believe that the default position on the question of God's existence is agnosticism. Atheists also need to give reasons why they beleive God does not exist.

Exactly!!!

[mannyamador]

But this god, is an omniscient, primordial and eternal who created man in his own image and therefore posseses a digestive system, sense organs, limbs and other attributes that would be useless to an immortal being.

You know that saying about "being more Catholic than the Pope"?

In this case, I think you may be interpreting the Christian Scriptures even more literally than most Christians.

No offense meant, of course. I'm just pointing this out since it really caught me by surprise. God bless!

[schmuck]

Not about physical objects? That's quite an unfounded ASSUMPTION there. Kindly prove that things or physical objects cannot be contingent. Contingency refers to things. And we find things that cease to exist. It is an observable fact, and can be deduced from ideas as well. Your argument already fails at this point.

Can or cannot an object occur? Can an object happen? What is the definition for contingency?

But it is NOT the logical conclusion. If you insist it is, then so is: I am a theist because I am agnostic.
Looks like you still have to figure out if you're really an atheist. Let me know when you do.

In short, uto-uto ka. Tuo ka bisan wala ka kibaw

That is why atheism is illogical. In case you haven't figured it out, infinite regress is an OBJECTION to the Argument from Contingency!

The argument from Contingency does NOT rely on any infinite regress. Infinite, finite, or even no regress of contingent beings doesn't matter. There is still no necessity in any of these situations. They are essentially irrelevant to the argument.

Your contingency argument DOES not escape Recursion as what I have already stated by following through and looping your argument.

Show me proof that the universe has always been. Have you got an observer out there? Hehehe... You can't. And even if you did, it is also irrelevant, as I have said before.

Your asking me to do what?
Why is it irrelevant?

Hahahahaha!!! That is PRECISELY what I am trying to prove!!!! You have just proven the existence of a Necessary Being!!![/INDENT]

Not all things are contingent, and that non contingent thing is the UNIVERSE!

You: Necessary Being creates the universe
Me: Universe has always been

Using Occam's Razor, which of the two is acceptable?

Not at all. A group of contingent beings -- no matter how long they as a collective have been in existence -- does not provide necessity. Their existence is still unexplained. Therefore a Necessary Being is needed. Principle of Sufficient Reason, boy.

Sakyan taka ha.
I claim that this Necessary Being you keep blabbing about is non other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Until you can prove otherwise, this claim shall stand.

I agree with you that the fact that the universe has not always existed has been established by science. This is a discovered truth. As far as the Argument from Contingency goes, that is a helpful truth, but it is not absolutely necessary for the argument to stand. Still, it's good that science can help establish this fact. Cool with me!

Cyclic Universe. look it up.

[handsoff241]

@mannyamador, be you a Catholic or not, I am sure you are a Christian somehow and sir, you are doing it wrong.

[Lovely Charm]

@mannyamador, be you a Catholic or not, I am sure you are a Christian somehow and sir, you are doing it wrong.

care to explain where manyamador wemt wrong sir handsoff?