"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[mannyamador]

---

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

See the articles and responses I posted earlier.

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

Recursion does not matter. How does recursion of contingent beings bestow necessity?

Your asking me to do what?

You stated that the universe can be ascertained to have always been. So, show me the proof that the universe has always been. Or are you backing out again?

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

I thought you were beyond using this old, tired, and long-refuted pseudo-objection. But let's deal with it. So how does a simple collection of contingent beings suddenly become non-contingent (or necessary)? How did it suddenly get necessity? Such a collective is also unexplained without a necessary being, which violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

You: Necessary Being creates the universe
Me: Universe has always been
Using Occam's Razor, which of the two is acceptable?

The second claim is not acceptable because it is irrelevant. There is no necessity in contingent objects, no matter how many or how they time their ceasing to exist (I bring up the timing since they don't all have to cease existing at the same time). Number of time don't bestow existence or necessity and are quite irrelevant.

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.

Hehe... but those are just words. They really mean nothing. If a being is necessary, then it can't be contingent, which rules out it's being made of spaghetti or being a physical monster. Attaching silly terms to the Necessary Being does not disprove it or refute the argument. But it does indicate that you're getting desperate.

The "flying spaghetti monster" description only seems silly because such a thing is corporeal and looks funny. But these are attributes of contingent beings. A necessary being cannot have these attributes. So your flippant (and immature) description of the necessary being is impossible and your claim stands refuted. A necessary being cannot be a flying spaghetti monster (or any other of the entertaining images you have conjured up).

QED. Again.

Cyclic Universe. look it up.

Still irrelevant. An infinite regress does not give necessity or explain existence. Perhaps it is also rendered false with Occam's Razor too. I will explore that idea at a later time. But that is not even needed at this time.

I don't believe that god exists. <- is not a claim, it is the rejection of the claim 'god exists'

That rejection IS a claim. Logically, it too is a proposition that can be accepted or not, like any other.

Let me rephrase my answer, I reject the idea of god existing because there is no evidence to support god's existence.
And to believe something just because the opposite has not been proven is unreasonable.
To not believe in something because there is no evidence for it is reasonable.
That is my criteria for something to be acceptable. Reasonableness and evidence.

Same error. Why should atheism be the default position when there is no evidence either way? The third statement is an unfounded assumption. And it does not apply to your situation.

In the physical world, we might not believe in flying spaghetti monsters because there IS a reason for not believing in it. We know there is incongruence in the concept. We also know from observation that spaghetti does not fly (or horses don't have a single horn on their heads, aka unicorns; or that trolls given their dumb and aggressive nature and physical attributes cannot exist and should have been spotted; etc., etc.).

The point is that there is actual evidence showing that some particular object probably does not really exist. But the same cannot be said of God, because there is absolutely no proof (at least none that you have ever been able -- or even willing -- to produce) that He does not exist. So your analogy -- however entertaining the images used might be -- does not apply.

Your position is still therefore unreasonable.

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

May I ask you to explain what you mean? Perhaps you are referring to my style? If you find it offensive or aggressive, I can change the approach. No problem. Thanks.

[handsoff241]

May I ask you to explain what you mean? Perhaps you are referring to my style? If you find it offensive or aggressive, I can change the approach. No problem. Thanks.

Nothing wrong with your reasoning, thought i'm not a fan of it.
Your approach with regards to what we "should" be doing to them(non-believers).

"ug kung dili sila maminaw sa imung gi-wali, biya nianang lungsora ug itaktak ang mga abog sa imung sandalyas"

[schmuck]

^ manny,

Occam's Razor, with two opposing arguments, the side with the least assumptions is to be preferred.

I actually re-read the book again just for you on the part which tackles this argument.
Basically Thomas Aguinas first 3 "proofs" is summarized as follows:
It comes up with a regress ( all things are contingent(improbable), all things are caused, etc)
And then attempts to break the regression by putting a 'god' with the assumptionthat it is immune to said regress.
Basically that's it, your conclusion is not a conclusion but another assumption.

Even if given the luxury of this assumption manny, if the existence of god can be proven by mere word play alone then how trivial is that? All these words must be mapped to reality with evidence.

And the attributes of this god that is plugged here, omnipotence(powerful enough to break the regression and create everything), omniscience, and omni-etc, is self contradicting. Such a being can not exist.

Oh, and you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible Pink Unicorn and trolls because they are non-corporeal

[tokidoki]

The point is that there is actual evidence showing that some particular object probably does not really exist. But the same cannot be said of God, because there is absolutely no proof (at least none that you have ever been able -- or even willing -- to produce) that He does not exist. So your analogy -- however entertaining the images used might be -- does not apply.

^^ As I have stated earlier last night that, based on interpretation, some of us can prove that god does not exist. Why? Because different groups "define god" in different ways. When confronted with the contradiction about HOW they see god (good, merciful, miraculous) VS what the world really is (suffering, dying, Estrada winning the presidency) then how can their preachings be RIGHT AND TRUE if reality shows otherwise? Wouldn't that be enough evidence to prove that whatever imaginary deities they worship to does not exist? I, for one, may not be sold out on the god concept but I still think they are seeing things wrongly.

"It is the nature of man to create gods not worship them"

[regnauld]

Look at those trees they are still and yet full of air! See the green leaves? They are moving. No your mind is moving! - ZEN

The point is there is no GOD and there is GOD! Now solve the puzzle! wow my old wisdom is gone!

[handsoff241]

When confronted with the contradiction about HOW they see god (good, merciful, miraculous) VS what the world really is (suffering, dying, Estrada winning the presidency) then how can their preachings be RIGHT AND TRUE if reality shows otherwise?

As for a Catholic teaching, God being good, merciful and miraculous contrasted to the fact manifested by the world as full of suffering, people dying and of course the worst, Estrada winning, is not a valid argument at all for contradiction. Because our teachings(Catholic) explains that those earthly manifestation which are in direct opposition to what our God is, are just minor factors of proving faith and being given a chance of martyrdom and to glorify Him. That is, as the Catholic teachings say.
We deem that the idea you presented is itself a manifestation of our God, but faith is required to understand everything.
The world as a bad a$$ does not make our God untrue.

[regnauld]

Richard Dawkins is still sleeping from his spiritual self and when he awakes he tries to deny that there is no GOD and suddenly declares in his silence that there is GOD! Kudos mr. Dawkins! Now let us go back to EVOLUTION!

[handsoff241]

Like it will happen... if it does. I'd pay for a round trip ticket to where he lives just to say.. BOHOO!

That is.. if it happens.

[schmuck]

I doubt that it will happen.

Evolution disproves the biblical god and all other creation myths.

@hands, playing the faith card again I see

[NASYO]

Evolution disproves the biblical god and all other creation myths.

what kind of unbiblical God do you have schmuck?