I don't understand this.

The athiest must agree that everything had to come from something. For to say that “everything has always existed” is just as big of a leap of faith as saying, “There is a God.” (In fact, it’s even more of a leap of faith, which I will be getting to).

To say that everything had to come from something holds true with our daily lives. The tree had to come from a seed, and a tree before it, and so on.

If everything we see works in terms of cause and effect, then for there to be a first cause, it must be some entity which is above the rules that we know. If it were free from cause and effect, it would also necessairly be free from the bonds of time and space (which is where all causes and effects take place).

Now, it would be possible, or perhaps even necessary, to view this “thing” as the source of all other things. Thus, if conscious life somehow “springs up” in this system that it somehow created (which we know as the universe), then this thing must be the repository of all consciousness, and must thus be conscious.

I mean, it either has to be this way, or everything has always existed. And even if it is the latter, it still does nothing for those who wish to deconstruct morality and ethics, for they would simply be part of natural laws that even the athiest must agree with.

I have yet to meet an athiest that I consider to be an intelligent being. I see them as the “emo child” that is trying to shock people into giving them attention. They know these people will be “afraid” for their souls, and they crave the attention this gives them.

They know nothing of causality, or of the law of non-contradiction.

Anyone who doesn’t strongly consider the possibility of the prime mover is a fool. It would be like saying “All phenomena we experience only SEEMS to be cause and effect, thus it would be possible for everything to have always existed, thus there is no God.”

Everything created must have a beginning. Thus, the prime mover cannot be created by anything else, and must thus exist above the laws of the universe. The very fact that we can conceive a “greatest thing” (that being God) is proof of his existence. For anything we imagine is merely a fusion of what is real. So to conceive a sequence of things, and to find a “greatest” thing among those things is to admit to the ability to make value judgments based on something objective. Without set time and space, objectivity is impossible, and everything is a matter of opinion. In order to HAVE set time and space, it had to be set by something.

Every athiest must agree with this. He cannot even say that, “The end of man is to find what is true.” For if the end of man were to be something objective, it would have to be set by something above man. Nature has no will, so it cannot force this disposition upon man.

Gah…this is all so simple. How can people still not believe in God? We tend too quickly to the methods of science. Even a person who believes in the Big Bang can still believe in God. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, either.

Argh. I’m so tired of all of these emo kids trying to deconstruct morality by pretending something (which by the very fact they can conceive it must mean it exists) doesn’t exist.

I agree with most of what you’ve said except that just because we have an idea of a supreme being, doesn’t mean one actually exists. Descartes tried using this as an argument and it has had negative feedback ever since.

I also don’t agree that it is so easy as you might see. For I have often felt the same, but been dragged into agnosticism and felt totally the opposite. If anything that all, I believe something far more intelligent than us exists. I can trust credible people who have seen ufo’s leap 20 miles in a few dashes. For it is possible, and it is easy to believe something else is behind it all, but as far as one God it rests merely on what God. Any explanantion of what God is hard to grasp because it’s not able to be grasped as of now.

Both sides are compelling, and I mean Atheism versus Religion. And one side is truly grand at falsely deceiving.

Ants are great at what they do, but it’s doubtful they have the slightest idea that we have greater intelligence and can even grasp what we are. This same principle can possibly be applied to us. For we know our job great as we see, but we possibly lack what is greater than us. We don’t understand many things, and we may never understand, because we lack.

I mean it seems impossible that anything has existed infinitely or has sprung into existence from nothing by nothing. Both options over thorough thought seem impossible. We’d think it’s only one, but maybe we still miss something.

Please don’t be offended or discouraged by the angry remarks that will result from your post.

“There is a God” is merely a deference of the statement “everything has always existed”. If the Creator has always existed, why cannot his (in that case uncreated) Creation have?

You can either conceive of a “first cause” (which is indeed in contradiction to the law of cause and effect, which states that every cause is an effect and vice versa), or conceive the chain of cause and effect as closed, i.e., circular. In the latter case, there is no entity which is above the rules.

Yes, but then the ethics of Hitler would be as natural as the ethics of Jesus.

So, to the contrary: the very fact that we can conceive of a God is proof that he is merely a fusion of things we know (like a unicorn, or a chimera).

You are the one making it so simple with your wishful thinking.

Well my view, as an atheist, is to doubt everything, until it is proven, a kind of Descartes philosophy.

By the way, there are also people who say God is the universe (pantheists).

If there is no overriding source of good, then the true athiest must feel this way.

He would have to agree that Hitler, having no soul, was just a bunch of atoms and molecules colliding together, just like the athiest who is thinking about him. Thus, anything Hitler would have come to hold as a personal belief (ie. all Jews must die) would have been the result of random chance. Just a bunch of neural pathways trained and retrained by an equally predetermined and seemingly random environment.

Under this world view, it is impossible to make value judgments. Thus, the athiest has no room to speak on morality. That is, unless, he wants to judge beings who could not have acted in any other way, which seems superfulous.

No. In order to have a concept of “greatest” there must be a “greatest” thing. We cannot come to the concept of greatest by fusing good on top of good on top of good ad infinitum. It has to come from the greatest thing.

Having the concept of a “greatest” thing within a set of finite things is not sufficient for explaining our ability to make value judgments. Though a particular set of things may have a greatest thing, that particular set of things may be compared to other particular sets of things. And we can determine if one is greater than the other. Now, this cannot go on forever. There must be a greatest thing. I’m sure I’m missing something here, but it’s 7:30 in the morning.

Also, anyone who believes that cause and effect is a chain that repeats itself over and over…well, I ask you to demonstrate this to me in some way. Also, if that is the case, then our existences are meaningless. If you believe this, you have no reason to enjoy life. You shouldn’t even be posting on this forum. You’re just stuck in this circle doing it over and over again.

Actually it is exactly the opposite. Assuming a god takes it one step further than it logically needs to go. Ever heard of occams razor?

The atheist surely can speak on morality. Many atheists blame only humans for the evil that occurs and often carry strong moral stances. Since words such as Predestination and Free-Will are null and void to many. The society in which we live can and does create a moral code. Also, mind you not all athiests are non-religious.

This is worth repeating for the sheer scope of the amount it is completely overlooked. Pidgeon holing is bad.

You’ll have a tough time arguing morality and God are somehow intertwined. HINT They’re not.

I cannot, as it is theoretical (but so is your God). However, if every cause must be an effect, and therefore have a cause that is itself an effect (as the law of cause and effect says it must), then there is either an open chain with “an infinite number” of links, or a closed chain with a finite number of links. And as I think the concept of “infinity” is nonsense - there is no such thing as an “infinite number”, and “infinitely long” (for example) is a self-contradiction, as “long” is a relative term -, there must be a closed chain with a finite number of links. But the law of cause and effect is a very simplified model; a more recent, more accurate model is the law of the conservation of energy (which presupposes a finite amount of energy).

Yes, I believe they are. Inherently meaningless.

I have no choice, have I?

“Our presuppositions: no God: no purpose: finite force. Let us guard against thinking out and prescribing the mode of thought necessary to lesser men!”
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 595.]

It’s not necessary to a lesser man.

The lesser man is the one who assumes that his consciousness is the highest form in the universe, when the very structure of the universe is anything but random.

You are in this discussion to find out what is true. Thus you have given yourself some meaning. You’re not being a very good nhilist right now.

What is not?

Well, thank you for sharing your definition of a lesser man with us.

Please speak for yourself.

Oh my. Should I be worried?

Just as the presupposition that everything was at rest until acted upon was turned on its head, the presupposition that the universe was created may be turned on its head. Motion is prime.

Maybe the universe has always existed. There never was a first cause. This is probably beyond human comprehension as is God, right?

Hi. Let me steal an argument from Apuinas which might be used against an eternal universe. Natural things of which the world is composed come to be and pass away. But if they can pass away, at some point they all will pass away…if there is nothing holding them in existence. So at some point the universe will cease to exist. I think this shows it unlikely the universe is, on it’s own, eternal.


“Nihilism does not only contemplate the “in vain!” nor is it merely the belief that everything deserves to perish: one helps to destroy. - This is, if you will, illogical; but the nihilist does not believe that one needs to be logical.”
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 24.]

This is why I am in this discussion.

I’m not an atheist and your argument is very uncompelling.

I’ll analyze a bit of the argument

You start with your conclusion: Only fools do not believe in the primer mover.

Then you argue by analogy: All phenomena is cause/effected, therefore matter must have been created by God

Restatement of conclusion: Everything created has a beginning, therefore prime mover, 1) existed 2) existed beyond laws of the universe

I’m not sure if you realize this, but this argument is exactly the same thing as the atheist argument:

Something happened and the Universe was created, this something may have been outside the laws of the current universe.

The only difference is you add more loops to the argument

for someone mentioning understanding you sure have a lot of closed statements. they all seem to be based on liniar logic rather than relative logic, for some reason I get the feeling you didn’t study einestine very much.

These are the things I dont understand about your statement.

that is to say that the tree came from the seed and not from the soil around it. the tree may have started as a seed but became a tree by combining it’s surroundings with itself, the seed was a start not the source.

Assuming that their was a first cause and assuming that space and time are in fact binding, according to Einstine space and time are not absolute however, a particle traveling at or near the speed of light is untuched by the effects of time, just as an object held in proximity to a large mass is less affected by one further away. To assume a begining or end to something that extends beyond human perception is just as foolish as to assume there is none, the fact that it extends beyond our perception means that making any assumption is foolish.

again assuming first cause.

not being an athiest I wouldn’t know but if you see them as an emo child you wouldn’t either since your oppinion is allready set.

to not concider the posability would be to assume about something that goes beyond our perception and as I said that would be foolish.

Again assuming first cause and space and time being absolutes.

Assuming man is not from nature, If Man is from nature he therefore allready posesses the disposition within himself.

a belief is a choice made from what you know when not all is known. to not beleive or to disbelieve is also a belief in this context as is to question. To assume a belief is wrong because it differs from your own is the same as to assume something about something that is beyond your perceptions, and therefore foolish.

for some reason this statement makes me think you know someone who is like this personally and you have carried over your stigmas to all athiests rather than see them for who they are. but then I could be mistaken.