You didn’t understand absolutely nothing, but it’s normal cause it’s hard to understand and to explain.
why do you think a put the (just for explenation perposes) ?
It still has to be rationally consistent, and Whitefire makes a valid objection, since your explanation is unevidenced conjecture it has no real explanatory powers.
I could as easily claim pixies did it, and simply apply all your assumptions about a deity to them.
YOU are the one with “understanding” issues. I don’t understand gibberish or made up, imaginative stuff THAT cannot be explained or communicated to others even in the simplest terms.
You are only “right” or “understanding” in your own mind. It has no real world use.
BTW: your use of nothing isn’t accurate. What you are proposing is “nonsense”. Makes or has no sense.
RE: “ You didn’t understand absolutely nothing,“ This means “Whitefire, you did not understand absolutely nothing - which means I understood something.
If you don’t understand you can’t tell the difference anyway, if i’m imagining or not.
Well there is no if about it is there? You offered just bare assertions after all. Hypothetical can useful, but you can’t imagine something into existence, and you don’t seem to have any objective evidence at all to offer. Of course even were your first cause hypothetical not deeply flawed, for any theist all their work is before them, since a first cause need not be a deity after all, let alone a specific deity, and if they can demonstrate evidence for any deity then they wouldn’t need first cause arguments.
They are not compatible, java it’s not php, you can’t use $ inside java it won’t mean anything so to speak.
Do you believe there is a first cause or not ?
This world 2 you can say that it is the world before bigbang, where even nothing means nothing so to speak. where is imagination ? it’s abviously mind boggling.
If i told you i’m going to count to infinity and when i finish, you start running for example. thinking that you’re eventually going to run, it’s like infinite regress exist. which is nonsense. if infinite regress exists then we will never exist.
Since there is a first cause, how can anything other than this first cause be god ? the first cause is god because this first cause was alone before creating everything. he was alone because he is first cause so to speak.
I know that i’m repeating myself but i’m practicing, trying to make it better every time. hopefully not worse.
Yes or no: Did I say that?
I don’t believe any claim without sufficient objective evidence, why would I, and you have as yet demonstrated none despite several requests.
I don’t know what that has to do with my objections to your argument, but as I said the premise of a first cause from outside of a temporal material universe cannot be deduced rationally from cause and effect, because we have only observed this inside a temporal material universe.
Postulates for the cause of a deity are only relevant to illustrate that first cause arguments are rationally inconsistent when they create a rule, apply it outside of the conditions we always observe it operating in, and then immediately break it to exempt their god claim from it.
You don’t remember what you say ? what is that ?
Yet a deity can exist forever, again your argument is not rationally consistent.
You haven’t come close to establishing a first cause, and your second premise is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Logically no one has to come with an alternative to your god claim, the burden of proof is entirely yours, as the claim is yours, rationally not being able to disprove something doesn’t validate it. We have seen too many theists come here and try to reverse the burden of proof this way. It heavily implies they are holding an empty bag.
Again I ask what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
I have seldom seen such obviously circular reasoning.
Do you think that infinite regress is true or not ?
Is that a yes or a no?
I don’t know, but you can’t claim it is both impossible, then claim a deity has always existed, that’s a rational contradiction.
Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity? Yes or No? I’m getting tired of asking.
i’m tired, cause i keep saying same things.
he created infinity, it doesn’t mean anything " he can exist for ever ". tell me then did he exist for ever before he created “the existing for ever” ? it’s irrelevant.
The exist didn’t exist before he made it first.
i don’t know what to say more than that.
how can you see anything if you keep doing this.
The same unevidenced things, and you chose to come here and share these assumptions, so you can expect them to be subjected to proper critical scrutiny. Now…
So which is it?
I have no idea what that means, it seems like gibberish to me sorry.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Are you ever going to answer this?
1 Like
This again is an assertion. It is a claim you have no evidence for.
You diptard! THAT IS THE 'BLACK SWAN FALLACY." The only person carrying the burden of proof is the person making the assertion, all swans are white. (“All things are caused.” In case you missed the analogy again.)
CAUSALITY breaks down at "PLANCK TIME. " 1. Demonstrate the universe had a cause. 1. Demonstrate your God is that cause and this thing you are calling a cause is not a natural process common to the cosmos. 3. Demonstrate how all the stuff of the universe can become nothing or how it was all once nothing before becoming something.
Oh dear.
You really don’t understand the notion of the burden of proof, do you. Have a read of Russell’s Teapot, below.
The atheist who states simply “I do not believe”, is making no claim and so has no burden of proof. Period
Everything thing has a cause:? We do not know for a fact that everything has a cause. A fact justifies its own existence. The only thing which may be inferred from a fact is itself.
Your argument is that of First Cause, one of the “Five Ways” [to prove the existence of god] proposed by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Each has been discredited for centuries. (see link)
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0_))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The Quinque viæ (Latin " Five Ways ") (sometimes called “five proofs”) are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica . They are:
- the argument from “first mover”;
- the argument from causation;
- the argument from contingency;
- the argument from degree;
- the argument from final cause or ends (“teleological argument”).
Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the “unmoved mover” – in his Summa Contra Gentiles .[1]
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Russell’s teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell’s teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.