Conquer Club

Oh dear, suggs has become the self-anointed arbiter of what is important.

I am not fully expecting the apocalypse.

MR. Nate wrote:Oh dear, suggs has become the self-anointed arbiter of what is important.

I am not fully expecting the apocalypse.

don't you mean now fully expecting?

WM

MR. Nate wrote:Oh dear, suggs has become the self-anointed arbiter of what is important.

and you have become a self-confessed misser of sarcasm.


Also, it doesn't appear to have dawned on Jay that he's just advanced an argument against the existence of a God. Now he'll burn in hellfire for all eternity. Poor guy.

jay_a2j wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, because it makes no sense to say : I can't imagine A having no cause. Therefore I'll assign it a cause B which has no cause. All that does is to put the question one step further back, an needless multiplication of entities.

I'm not assigning it a cause. I'm kinda saying what you are. To say that A is the only thing to exist ever without a cause is unbelievable, literally. Human beings know nothing in this world without a cause. I have no concept of something without one. The universe must be perpetual.

As posted in the OP, given that something can not come from nothing, "A" has always had to exist. Otherwise nothing could ever come to be. If "A" is not eternal show me how it came to be? Show me how anything came to be for that matter.

Did you just say that the universe is eternal and didn't have to be created?

No. I was talking about "A".

Which is fairly clearly "the Universe", to which you assign cause "B", God.

Oh and by the way Q.E.D.

Oh, and you remember when DM said you walked into a fist the other day? This time it was your own fist.

jonesthecurl wrote:
Which is fairly clearly "the Universe", to which you assign cause "B", God.

Actually, the cause came before the universe. I like to equate "A" to God, and "B" to the universe. Because without "A" you can't have "B".

Cause and effect my friend.

jay_a2j wrote:Cause and effect my friend.

That's why I'm thinking the universe must be perpetual. Like the drinking bird.
With the question forever more being, what was the cause?

jay_a2j wrote:Actually, the cause came before the universe.

Must have..... But that doesn't automatically mean God(s)!

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:
Which is fairly clearly "the Universe", to which you assign cause "B", God.

Actually, the cause came before the universe. I like to equate "A" to God, and "B" to the universe. Because without "A" you can't have "B".

Cause and effect my friend.

Cause and effect? Than A must require a proto-A.

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:
Which is fairly clearly "the Universe", to which you assign cause "B", God.

Actually, the cause came before the universe. I like to equate "A" to God, and "B" to the universe. Because without "A" you can't have "B".

Cause and effect my friend.

Then you haven't read what I said.
"A" is the thing which has no cause, event 1. "B" is the spurious and logicless event before.

Neoteny wrote:Cause and effect? Than A must require a proto-A.

Oh dear Neo, looks like you just walked onto Jay's clever counter-argument to that logical proposition of yours. It goes a little something like this "Everything needs an originator, because that's logic. Except God, because he is magic and special. Why? Because I think so."

How can we possibly stand against such a logical and well-argued proposition as that?

Dancing Mustard wrote:How can we possibly stand against such a logical and well-argued proposition as that?

I don't know, but you keep doing it.

jay_a2j wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:How can we possibly stand against such a logical and well-argued proposition as that?

I don't know, but you keep doing it.

Congratulations again for missing blatant sarcasm, and for walking onto the fist of the opposing argument.

Once again you fail to come up with a logical answer, and appear to have tacitly accepted the view ascribed to you which is "I say God is magical, so logic doesn't apply to him, only to everything else that anybody else believes. You have to be logical, I don't. Ne-ner-ner etc".

In other words: You're fired.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Congratulations again for missing blatant sarcasm, and for walking onto the fist of the opposing argument.

I missed nothing. I just shot sarcasm back at your sarcasm, which you obviously missed.

jay_a2j wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Congratulations again for missing blatant sarcasm, and for walking onto the fist of the opposing argument.

I missed nothing. I just shot sarcasm back at your sarcasm, which you obviously missed.

May I continue to congratulate you, this time for being too conceited to recognise that fact that you just completely undermined your own blindly held opinion.

Someone give this guy a lesson in sarcasm.....

jay_a2j wrote:Someone give this guy a lesson in sarcasm.....

God really exists and he made everything 6000 years ago.

Interestingly a long time ago a bunch of men got together and decided they would make a bit of cash. So they went round telling everyone that they had been visited by a "god" and he had told them how the world was made. Everyone was so intriged that they ignored the fact that they had just been conned into believing there was an invisible man in the sky and payed money to hear about the earth. Somehow that scam grew until people were spreading tales of this "god" all over the world. And still today people blindly belive that there is an invisible man in the sky and that he made the earth. Thus logic dictates that there is a "god". As long as you take the word god to mean massive scam!!!

I would venture that it all evolved in a more complex way but essentially what you say is far more logical than the whole supernatural spiel.

stuart133 wrote:Interestingly a long time ago a bunch of men got together and decided they would make a bit of cash. So they went round telling everyone that they had been visited by a "god" and he had told them how the world was made. Everyone was so intriged that they ignored the fact that they had just been conned into believing there was an invisible man in the sky and payed money to hear about the earth. Somehow that scam grew until people were spreading tales of this "god" all over the world. And still today people blindly belive that there is an invisible man in the sky and that he made the earth. Thus logic dictates that there is a "god". As long as you take the word god to mean massive scam!!!

If you are referring to the early church, most of those people had nothing.

They were persecuted.
The were stoned.
They were killed.
They did not make money.

Why on earth would people, who knew they were lying, who knew what they were saying was wrong, tell made up stories only to be killed?
Why on earth would they make up these stories and go thought such torture and anguish for a lie?

Ask yourslef this. If you made up a story to get peoples money and a person said they would kill you unless you admittedt is was a lie, what would you do. Would you die for something that you knew was false? I doubt it.

Then why did so many people die for something they knew was false? I argue that they died because they knew it was true (saw first hand) and were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice.

WM

The point is that by that point people were actually believing. The early church was later than the original scam. Also i am not only referring to christianity. And if we look at a more modern example I very much dought that todays suicide bombers have been visited by god, and yet they are ready to kill themselves for him.

i think he's talking about the first people who "came up with the idea of a God". not the early church... i like that argument though .

stuart133 wrote:Interestingly a long time ago a bunch of men got together and decided they would make a bit of cash. So they went round telling everyone that they had been visited by a "god" and he had told them how the world was made. Everyone was so intriged that they ignored the fact that they had just been conned into believing there was an invisible man in the sky and payed money to hear about the earth. Somehow that scam grew until people were spreading tales of this "god" all over the world. And still today people blindly belive that there is an invisible man in the sky and that he made the earth. Thus logic dictates that there is a "god". As long as you take the word god to mean massive scam!!!

you talk about this like it is a known fact. you have no clue what soever. you probably made up that story (or you heard it from someone else who is a strong atheist). if this were true though like you say it is, then who would've started it? Adam? no. Noah? no. i also doubt that if someone made it up, they would bother to make all those stories about Adam and Noah, etc. for a lie.
an invisible man in the sky? no. do a little research about the religion your going to try and tell made up stories about before you do it. it will help you not get the idea wrong.

rocky mountain wrote:no. Noah? no. i also doubt that if someone made it up, they would bother to make all those stories about Adam and Noah, etc. for a lie.

Careful, you lend creedance to all mythology here. That's like sayin' Zues is real because why would anyone come up with all those stories???

Juan_Bottom wrote:

rocky mountain wrote:no. Noah? no. i also doubt that if someone made it up, they would bother to make all those stories about Adam and Noah, etc. for a lie.

Careful, you lend creedance to all mythology here. That's like sayin' Zues is real because why would anyone come up with all those stories???

even so, is that the only comeback you have of all my post? that means you can't say anything against it