If there was no God, there would be nothing.
God is the Creator of everything.
I agree.
Side Score: 16
|
I disagree.
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
3
points
I will rarely attack someone ad hominem, but your blatant disregard for the rules of logic and reasoning in an intellectual debate have constantly proven your comments completely devoid of worth. Please start using fair philosophical arguments to prove your position. In an argument that calls God's existence into question, you, under no circumstance, can use the assumption that he exists to prove a point you have to make. It defeats the purpose. Learn how to debate, then come back to this site. Soon, no one will take anything you say seriously, unless they are equally blinded by faith. Side: I disagree.
1
point
|
4
points
There are plenty of positions I could argue on this subject, but I'll stick to the Sagan argument. The universe is did not need creating, as creation implies pre-existing material. If the premise everything must come from a higher source is accepted, then it must apply to god as well. In other words, if the universe had to be "created" then so did god. Side: I disagree.
4
points
if the universe had to be "created" then so did god. Unless one believes in aseity. That is, that the first cause is necessary, self-existent, and exempt from having a cause. Although the universe is contingent, God isn't, or so the story goes. I think aseity is classic theistic bollocks to compensate for the fact that Kalam contradicts their own views. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say. Side: I disagree.
2
points
This is very similar to what Professor Stephen Law (Senior Lecturer at Heythrop College, University of London) had to say in his celebrated introductory philosophy book, The Philosophy Gym. In the book, Prof. Law writes (through means of a dialogue): "It seems to me that to ask for the cause of something is to ask what other thing within the universe brought it about. That is how the game of asking for and giving causes is played out. When I ask, for example, what caused that tree outside the window to exist, I am asking for you to identify some other thing or event within the universe that brought that tree into existence. ... But if to ask for the cause of something is to ask what other thing within the universe brought it about, then it cannot make sense to ask what is the cause of the universe as a whole. That would be to pursue the question of causes outside the context in which such questions can be meaningfully raised." [Ref: The Philosophy Gym, by Prof. Stephen Law, page 5] What Prof. Law says is inherently congruent with what the eminent cosmologist Carl Sagan had to say, which as you very eloquently put it, that the universe did not need creating. To put it in another context, to ask such a question is to, literally speaking, extrapolate beyond a given regression range. Side: I disagree.
3
points
1
point
Well normally I would counter your arguments, but there is nothing really to counter. You are basically arguing the universe needs a cause and then assuming that cause needs to be Yahweh. In terms of the universe needing at eternal cause I can argue that time and space as we know it seem have to come into existence with the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang then there is no cause and effect as we know it. In terms of the cause needed to be Yahweh, well, he is just one of many deities that humans believe in, so even if we jump to the conclusion it was a god, why him? In terms of it being a god in general, suggesting that simply complicates things. What caused god? If we ask this of the universe then we need to ask it of gods. Proposing one or more gods with zero real evidence simply complicates things. Rather than seeing evidence of a simpler cause you are suggesting a far more complex cause that leads to any more questions. The best answer is to admit we don't know and to keep searching. Side: I disagree.
3
points
How can you ask people to respect your views and then push them in peoples face? It is one thing to be polite with your views, and respect others differences, and to debate about them in a polite fashion. What you do is quite another. Please stop asserting your opinions as absolutes, it will gain you little respect from this website. Side: I disagree.
3
points
Freedom of speech means that anyone can say what they want, and believe what they want. If I tell you you're wrong, or you tell me I'm wrong, then we're pushing our own opinions onto other people (everything's an opinion, as we can never know anything for sure). Therefore, when you tell me 100%, categorically, and that there is no room for error, that God exists and rules over us all, you are putting my opinions down. Yes, you have the right to. That's fine. But, that doesn't mean it's always right to. To go back to an earlier analogy, if I support the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then we have conflicting opinions. If you tell me I am wrong, you are infringing upon my freedom of religion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should say what you want, only that you can. I'm telling you that should accept others points of view also, claiming things that you cannot prove is not far from slander. Claiming that you believe something is not. Basically, just respect our points of view, and defend and debate your own. Discussion does not need to be insulting, and before you came onto this website it normally wasn't. But claiming that you are right and only you are right and we are wrong and then not giving adequate proof is insulting. Side: I disagree.
1
point
This statement is fundamentally flawed. You would first have to demonstrate the existence of the God you are talking about before making it. Only then would it be worth debating. The default position is not to believe in a God until you give proof or evidence that there is one. So I disagree with the structure of the statement more than the point it's trying to make. Side: I disagree.
1
point
|