Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's move on.I have said the first cause argument is pointless since you exempt God from needing a first cause purely because your needs dictate such.I have asked you to offer up other points,yet you hover around the fist cause debate,apparently because that is the only egg in your basket.So I'll move this on.
If God exists AND desires we know it (a prerequisite for desiring our worship,no?),then why isn't His existence obvious?And please don't make the lame claim it is to all who would look.Nobody denies the Sun,the moon,gravity,the effects of inertia,etc.Obvious stuff is....well...obvious.Beyond doubt.And save the "just look at creation and all it's beauty" argument.Science has shown that evolution caused nature,all the way back to the Big Bang,so this is just a circle back to the first cause debate.
So,why isn't God so obvious none could deny Him?This does not mean forced worship or belief,but just why He does not make Himself obvious beyond doubt to all?
Presumably, you would be expecting Jesus to appear in the flesh, lead you down to the nearest body of water and proceed to do a breakdance on the surface - or some such thing. Sounds like a personal problem. What would any of this have to do with putting forward a reasoned and logical rebuttal to the cause argument?
I've merely explained that I find them to be reasonable and logically persuasive - that's it. Apparently, you don't find them to be persuasive - that's fine. To each their own -so to speak. I'm not demanding that you "prove" these things to be wrong or illogical. I'm simply asking you to take part in a discourse where you might present reasoned and logical arguments in rebuttal rather than merely making pronouncements about personally held views and convictions. (Ironically, I can't help but note that this is the very thing that Christians often come under fire for doing in this forum.)
...but apparently, it's all too much to ask.
Not at all.I have plainly said that the first caused argument fails because it refuses to put God to the same test.What is so hard for you to grasp about this?I have dealt with it,and rebutted it by pointing out that you cannot explain what created God,or why God must be exempted from the first cause explanation.You cannot explain why,if you allow that God can be eternal,energy cannot.You have failed.You wish to subject your opponents to rules you refuse to abide by for your side.Move on.
Presumably, you would be expecting Jesus to appear in the flesh, lead you down to the nearest body of water and proceed to do a breakdance on the surface - or some such thing. Sounds like a personal problem. What would any of this have to do with putting forward a reasoned and logical rebuttal to the cause argument?
Not at all.Is this the best you can do in explaining why the evidence for God is not obvious beyond doubt?Really?
Try a little harder.Or just admit you have nothing but the first cause argument that you wish to be applied unevenly,to my argument but not yours.
You are getting old in this dodging and circling back to the same old rebutted argument.Come up with something else,or I will consider you done with and move on.
Not at all.I have plainly said that the first caused argument fails because it refuses to put God to the same test.What is so hard for you to grasp about this?I have dealt with it,and rebutted it by pointing out that you cannot explain what created God,or why God must be exempted from the first cause explanation.You cannot explain why,if you allow that God can be eternal,energy cannot.You have failed.You wish to subject your opponents to rules you refuse to abide by for your side.Move on.
What is energy? Don't tell me what it's properties are or give analogies about what you think it is - tell me what it is.
Not at all.Is this the best you can do in explaining why the evidence for God is not obvious beyond doubt?Really?
Try a little harder.Or just admit you have nothing but the first cause argument that you wish to be applied unevenly,to my argument but not yours.
You are getting old in this dodging and circling back to the same old rebutted argument.Come up with something else,or I will consider you done with and move on .
How many times do I have to state that I'm ready for us to go ahead, agree to disagree and move on - YOU keep back-tracking by continuing to make completely illogical and unreasoned assertions, assertions that are apparently due to your personal distaste with being in the position of having to defend something that would appear to be indefensible. In this, you have my sympathies.
tigetmax24, you shamelessly misrepresent lifertexan's argument every time. He clearly explained that the first cause argument commits special pleading by claiming that everything needs a first cause, and then not applying that premise to "God", thus the argument denies its own premise, and you accuse him of doing nothing but giving you "illogical and unreasoned assertions" to counter the argument. Your own misrepresentations are the real unreasoned assertions here.
tigetmax24, you shamelessly misrepresent lifertexan's argument every time. He clearly explained that the first cause argument commits special pleading by claiming that everything needs a first cause, and then not applying that premise to "God", thus the argument denies its own premise, and you accuse him of doing nothing but giving you "illogical and unreasoned assertions" to counter the argument. Your own misrepresentations are the real unreasoned assertions here.
What else is new.I was warned about trying to reason with him,but I'm trying anyways.
How many times do I have to state that I'm ready for us to go ahead, agree to disagree and move on - YOU keep back-tracking by continuing to make completely illogical and unreasoned assertions, assertions that are apparently due to your personal distaste with being in the position of having to defend something that would appear to be indefensible. In this, you have my sympathies.
You my friend,are simply full of BS.If you can't deal with subject honestly,then go away.You are the one who keeps demanding I rebut your first cause argument,so why the bull manure?Here is your post just a few posts ago when I tried to move on to the lack of obviousness by God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What would any of this have to do with putting forward a reasoned and logical rebuttal to the cause argument?
What is energy? Don't tell me what it's properties are or give analogies about what you think it is - tell me what it is.
LOL!.Don't define energy,just tell me what it is.
Personally,I have often wondered if energy is God,and the Big Bang was God exploding Himself into physical existence in order to experience physical existence.But this is pure conjecture on my part as a Christian no longer able to agree with the God created Adam and Eve stuff and searching for an answer that fits with what I accept of the scientific world,which does not differ one iota from what any atheist or evolutionist believes.I certainly would not offer that as any proof of God.
Neal Donald Walsch,who is pretty much a crackpot,conjectures that God created the universe via the Big Bang to experience existence,and everything in existence is merely a vessel for funneling the experience of existence back to God,and that each of us is a little part of God with amnesia.I don't think much of most of Walsch's stuff,but this is an interesting concept.
Of course,the atheist idea that there is no God is the simplest belief of all.
tigetmax24, you shamelessly misrepresent lifertexan's argument every time. He clearly explained that the first cause argument commits special pleading by claiming that everything needs a first cause, and then not applying that premise to "God", thus the argument denies its own premise, and you accuse him of doing nothing but giving you "illogical and unreasoned assertions" to counter the argument. Your own misrepresentations are the real unreasoned assertions here.
Haven't you and I been over this before?
You're misstating (purposely I suspect) the law of causality. It doesn't state that "everything" needs a first cause. It states that "every effect has a cause." Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what specific and empirical effects are bereft of a cause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
