ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

jjjg · Jul 10, 2003

No modern science says they are not Aussie-thinker. All of outer space is a gravitational field whether it's void of matter or not.

Huesens, if it is objective then we must detect it through our senses. The philisophical meaning of matter is something tangible that we sense.

No matter and energy are different hence the different terms to describe them. Energy is just the ability to do work and is independant from matter. As I said matter is just one way for energy to express itself.

I explained why the world needs a cause because it is contingent and potential.

Essence is the "what is". It is synonmous with the formal substance, species and nature of the objects. The way you are using the term is incorrect. There is matter and the forms that matter takes on. Essence and substance are separate terms that you are using as the same. Substance is an object being a human or a tree.

My view of God is existence not essence.

flash · Jul 10, 2003

Originally posted by billwald
Athiesm is logically false because it attempts to prove a negative.

1) Not all atheism attempts to prove a negative.

2) Proving a negative is neith impossible nor "logically false".

flash · Jul 10, 2003

WHen are we going to cover the impossibility of atheism? This issue has not been addressed.

jjjg · Jul 10, 2003

heusdens, if you're a materialist than there can only be apparent diversity. It is just the way the atoms arrange and interact with each other.

heusdens · Jul 10, 2003

jjjg:

That is not even close to what materialism is about.
Don't confuse materialism with physicalism or that sort of thing.

You can not reduce soceity, economy, psychology, etc. to how atoms interact. That is plain stupid.

jjjg · Jul 10, 2003

really, are you saying that there are forms separate from from the matter?

jjjg · Jul 10, 2003

Who are you kidding, heusdens? Materialism says everything is reducable to matter and can be explained by physical laws. The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

Hilston · Jul 10, 2003

Please forgive ...

Please forgive ...

Hi Flash,

Originally posted by flash
When are we going to cover the impossibility of atheism? This issue has not been addressed.

Please forgive the delay. I've been a bit busy, and trying to work on a long reply to another thread. I will post my thesis as soon as I can.

Thanks for your interest,
Jim

Mr. Ben · Jul 10, 2003

Yes, the Universe needs a cause as it is contingent and potential of change.

There is no proof that the universe is contingent.

And since Thomas defines God as immutable.. he cannot cause anything. To cause something is to change.

God is uncaused and eternal not self-caused or caused by something else.

How do you know the universe is not uncaused?

How do you know God is uncaused?

Why make things up and arbitrarily decide you're right without any evidence?

Mr. Ben · Jul 10, 2003

The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

Metaphysics is a purely mechanical process. It only can occur in the material universe, and it only makes sense in the material universe. Logic, reason, and thought can not exist, and are meaningless, without matter. They are directly derivative of the material world, and are a direct product of it.

jjjg · Jul 11, 2003

I have already gone through this argument without a refuting from you. I'm not going to get suckered into the same argument over and over again for 100 posts like you've done with Marco.

"And since Thomas.."

Wheew!! Mr. Ben.

You've got Thomas on the ropes now! To think he would never consider this argument when he penned it a thousand years ago.

We have already seen your metaphysics expertise with "a duck quacks" comments.

I've covered these comments without you refuting. Won't get suckered into endless arguments.

Mr. Ben · Jul 11, 2003

Sheesh..

1. We don't know the universe hasn't existed forever.
2. We don't know that everything has a cause in this universe.
3. If the universe did have a first cause, there is no reason to think it was God.

Want to do it again?

jjjg · Jul 11, 2003

We already did with the results of you running in circles as you did with Marco.

Mr. Ben · Jul 11, 2003

We have already seen your metaphysics expertise with "a duck quacks" comments.

So you don't like verification, or falsification. Not suprising as you would prefer to simply make things up. Any statement which is not a logical statement true by defintinition, or is not supported by any sort of evidence which would indicate its truth or falsehood, is inherently meaningless. This includes statements positing imaginary third person omnicient viewpoints to make distinctions between perception and truth.

One successful aspect of the positivist movement is in proving that much of metaphysics is bullxxxx. Your arguments are perfect examples of the sort of nonsense they heaped well deserved criticism on.

jjjg · Jul 12, 2003

I already verified all this in our discussions in scientific contradictions and I'm not running around in circles playing your games as you did with Marco.

Mr. Ben · Jul 12, 2003

I already verified all this in our discussions in scientific contradictions and I'm not running around in circles playing your games as you did with Marco.

You certainly appear to be running around in circles, but it's not my fault.

jjjg · Jul 12, 2003

And here we go again.

heusdens · Jul 12, 2003

Originally posted by jjjg
Who are you kidding, heusdens? Materialism says everything is reducable to matter and can be explained by physical laws. The fact that you are using metaphysics disqualifies your argument as you are overstretching your boundaries.

My thoughts do not exist in the form of atoms, neither would my thought exist without atoms (in the form of a brain).

Your interpretation of materialism is perhaps only a specific school of materialism, but is not in accordance with what other materialists claim or think.

flash · Jul 12, 2003

Talk about a bait and switch.

I want to hear an "impossibility of atheism" argument!

:bannana: :devil: :bannana:

Aussie Thinker · Jul 14, 2003

Flash,

I would like to hear it too !

Mind you as we KNOW it exists it can hardly be impossibly.

Bottom line is Jim thinks atheism is impossible because we have consciousness and a set of absolute morals or standards.

These cannot exist according to Jim unless there is a God who directed them to exist.

Mind you this same God is not beholden to this same silly rule.

He refuses to accept that even though his God could always existed .. it is not possible for the Universe to have always existed. Further that our consciousness and own self made notions of absolutes etc. are just products of this Universe like a Star or a Nebula..

Most theists can’t bear the thought we are an accident !

Like all theist arguments they have to suspend any rules of evidence and science.. I can never fathom why they bother arguing at all.. why don’t they just say God did it all Yesterday and put everything (including memories) in place.

ARHCIVE: The impossibility of atheism ...

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED

New member

BANNED

BANNED

Active member

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

New member

BANNED

BANNED