Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

So if the Big Crunch theory is correct, for example, then God is just.. all matter and energy compressed and re-exploding? Not conscious whatsoever?


I think you should abandon the term "God" here really, your definition has become so broad that it will cause less just to leave the term out, and say "I don't know what happened before the big bang"

The term is so broad because it created everything.

Originally Posted by wasup

Stop making up definitions. Definitions, in fact, are universal, otherwise human language would be useless and no one would know what else others are talking about. That is NOT the definition of god. I can't believe I am even debating that, it is so ridiculous. And secondly, your argument is incredibly fallacious. If everything needed an origin, than god did too. But since god doesn't need to have been created, why can't the universe not need one? YOU don't know what infinity is, I do. Refer back to the "definitions" part. Just because you don't know what something means doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

Definitions are not universal. Many definitions have different meanings. If everything had a origin, there would not be anything.

No, the term is broad because you do not understand what the real definition of god is.

Your argument is the same as me saying 1+1=3, because I define the = sign to mean "not equal to." Sure, it is true in that case, but it is not what the true definition of the sign is.

Definitions are not universal. Many definitions have different meanings. If everything had a origin, there would not be anything.

CONNOTATIONS are not universal, but definitions are. Hence the dictionary. Many WORDS have different connotations, but not different definitions (except in some cases regarding homonyms and words which are used in different ways). If everything had an origin, there would not be anything... what? That doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

The term is so broad because it created everything.

No. This statement is fundamentally wrong.


The usage of the word broad is not as you said.


Lets get something clear about the English language.


God =/= whatever was before the big bang


OK?

God refers to at the least, some level of consciousness.


Call what you are reffering to "Whatever came before the big bang". Not "God" because this simply isn't the correct definition.



Contrary to popular belief, God does not mean whatever you want it to mean.

Actually, I change my opinion. I agree with Dreamworld, and he's right.

But hold on, I consider "change" to mean "don't change," agree to mean "disagree," and "right" to mean "wrong."

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

No. This statement is fundamentally wrong.


The usage of the word broad is not as you said.


Lets get something clear about the English language.


God =/= whatever was before the big bang


OK?

God refers to at the least, some level of consciousness.


Call what you are reffering to "Whatever came before the big bang". Not "God" because this simply isn't the correct definition.



Contrary to popular belief, God does not mean whatever you want it to mean.

I'd admit it was far fetched but what I am try to say is that what ever was before the big bang obviously created everything.

Originally Posted by wasup

Actually, I change my opinion. I agree with Dreamworld, and he's right.

But hold on, I consider "change" to mean "don't change," agree to mean "disagree," and "right" to mean "wrong."

What argument are you agreeing with?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

I'd admit it was far fetched but what I am try to say is that what ever was before the big bang obviously created everything.

Not created- Caused. [created implies intent, but this is pedantic really, you can use create I guess.]

Not "everything"- "The universe in its present form"

And good. I agree with you.

Just don't call it God. Call it "whatever was before the big bang, if anything"


It's nice we settled this.

Why should there only be one god anyways? I don't know anything in the universe that is truly unique.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why should there only be one god anyways? I don't know anything in the universe that is truly unique.

Aha, but the usual idea of God isn't "in the universe" so why should it adhere to the rules of the universe?

Also I would argue that the situation you are in now at this specific moment in time, is in fact unique. Even if it is repeated identically in a hypothetical infinite universe with all possibilities, it will still not be this particular time, right now.

Unique? Maybe.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

Not created- Caused. [created implies intent, but this is pedantic really, you can use create I guess.]

Not "everything"- "The universe in its present form"

And good. I agree with you.

Just don't call it God. Call it "whatever was before the big bang, if anything"


It's nice we settled this.

Yes this is agreed, the only thing not agreed is whether everything has a origination or not.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

What argument are you agreeing with?

See, that's the problem with making up your own definitions of words. Nobody has a clue what the fuck you're talking about.

And by the way, you claim that everything needs an origin, right? If everything needs an origin, than god does too. In that case, the universe needs an origin just as much god needs an origin (i.e. it does not).

Originally Posted by wasup

See, that's the problem with making up your own definitions of words. Nobody has a clue what the fuck you're talking about.

And by the way, you claim that everything needs an origin, right? If everything needs an origin, than god does too. In that case, the universe needs an origin just as much god needs an origin (i.e. it does not).

Then that means there is no direct beginning to anything. A loop hole?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Then that means there is no beginning to anything.

Known as infinity. Assuming there is no end, either.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Then that means there is no direct beginning to anything. A loop hole?

What are you really saying here? If by direct, you mean that nothing in its current form has a beginning, that is wrong. I just made a sandwich. It's beginning was about... 10 minutes ago. I don't see where you're really going with that.

Originally Posted by wasup

What are you really saying here? If by direct, you mean that nothing in its current form has a beginning, that is wrong. I just made a sandwich. It's beginning was about... 10 minutes ago. I don't see where you're really going with that.

I think he means on the fundamental material level.

That is true, as matter is never created nor destroyed. And I still don't see a "loophole."

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

Known as infinity. Assuming there is no end, either.

A loop hole? Who decided their is to be infinity? Who set the universal laws? I am not stopping at infinity, if everything has an origination that means the concept of infinity, has one too.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

I think he means on the fundamental material level.

Thats what I'm saying.

I am stopping here... this is just too painful...

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

A loop hole? Who decided their is to be infinity? Who set the universal laws? I am not stopping at infinity, if everything has an origination that means the concept of infinity, has one too.

Rethink this one.


I'm not entirely sure where to start.


You understand that the concept of infinity isn't something "someone decided" one day.

I assume.

: /

Originally Posted by wasup

I am stopping here... this is just too painful...

Well I think this proves that nobody here included me can grasp the fundamental aspect of infinity. That is the one thing i am going to call God. I am going to watch a boxing fight we can continue this later. I learned a lot today, sorry for going on and on and on.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Well I think this proves that nobody here included me can grasp the fundamental aspect of infinity. That is the one thing i am going to call God. I am going to watch a boxing fight we can continue this later. I learned a lot today, sorry for going on and on and on.

I think his issue wasn't with infinity, it was with the methodology and steps of your argument.

But anyway Yeah.


For the record, why do you feel the need to call something God?

Throughout the whole debate you have been bending and changing this idea of something simply so you can call it God


Why? Whats so special about needing something to call "God"?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

...convince me!

(I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. )

This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition.

So, do your worst...

(Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. )

I don't have to do shit.

The basic laws of logic law out the fact that any claims to truth must bear proof.