Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

FFS. 'Because God' is not an explanation. If you are stating that nothing can come from nothing then logically that must include God. Unless you're stating that God isn't a thing, in which case you've proven, using your own logic, that he doesn't exist.

Defender OF Faith

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it:
3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events.

And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.

The only thing I cited from Mohammed life was an authentic battle recorded in history which have happened before so option 3 is a good demonstration of your ignorance take the time to search before you replay my friend

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

that's some wonderful circular logic: "God is the uncreated creator of everything and asking what is the cause of the first cause is flawed because it's God".

I would say it's flawed thinking not to question what created God or why does it have to be God as the explanation for everything. If someone isn't religious, it makes no sense to just accept the biblical account for the origin of reality.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

FFS. 'Because God' is not an explanation. If you are stating that nothing can come from nothing then logically that must include God. Unless you're stating that God isn't a thing, in which case you've proven, using your own logic, that he doesn't exist.

I answered you already about how this would be illogical and unless you can come up with a counter argument to the one I said below you wont be making any sense
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

Uncle Ruckus

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

I'm sorry but that's a joke of an argument. You justify the need for a deity by claiming a deity is necessary as a first cause to explain the existence of the Universe. By that logic a deity needs a first cause. If a deity can come from nothing, as you claim, then by your logic the same can apply to the Universe.
Moreover, going by your username I'm assuming the deity you believe to have created the Universe is the Judeo-Christian Deity-Yaweh/Jehovah, which makes your claim even more absurd.

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

that's some wonderful circular logic: "God is the uncreated creator of everything and asking what is the cause of the first cause is flawed because it's God".

I would say it's flawed thinking not to question what created God or why does it have to be God as the explanation for everything. If someone isn't religious, it makes no sense to just accept the biblical account for the origin of reality.

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

i.e.

Proof that God exists :

God exists.
Therefore God exists.
QED.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

I think statements like this are proof we definitely weren't designed by anything intelligent.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I answered you already about how this would be illogical and unless you can come up with a counter argument to the one I said below you wont be making any sense
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

Yet you also say nothing can come from nothing. Your claims are completely contradictory.

Defender OF Faith

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's a joke of an argument. You justify the need for a deity by claiming a deity is necessary as a first cause to explain the existence of the Universe. By that logic a deity needs a first cause. If a deity can come from nothing, as you claim, then by your logic the same can apply to the Universe.

You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

Moreover, going by your username I'm assuming the deity you believe to have created the Universe is the Judeo-Christian Deity-Yaweh/Jehovah, which makes your claim even more absurd.

Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

and that's why it's circular reasoning.

It does nothing to prove or support your claim. You could easily say all the Greek/Roman/Indian etc. gods exist because the first gods had no creator.

SaveOurLyric

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yet you also say nothing can come from nothing. Your claims are completely contradictory.

Or if a God can come from nothing. Then the universe can come from nothing.
Creationists cant have it both ways - which is what they need to justify their belief. But the above leaves them with an intractable problem. So they leave reason behind and get caught in an infinite illogical loop of their own making.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think statements like this are proof we definitely weren't designed by anything intelligent.

Your statement if anything shows your defeat and inability to point out the flaw in my statement because there's no flaw in it however you are either
a) to thick headed to understand
b) you lived your life as an atheist and want to die this way and hence don't want anything or anyone to change your mind no matter how clear the evidence or the proof is

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Or if a God can come from nothing. Then the universe can come from nothing.
Creationists cant have it both ways - which is what they need to justify their belief. But the above leaves them with an intractable problem. So they leave reason behind and get caught in an infinite illogical loop of their own making.

Yes, exactly. You can't impose a rule on one theory and exclude another from it.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your statement if anything shows your defeat and inability to point out the flaw in my statement because there's no flaw in it however you are either
a) to thick headed to understand
b) you lived your life as an atheist and want to die this way and hence don't want anything or anyone to change your mind no matter how clear the evidence or the proof is

I'm noticing a trend with the creationists in this thread: they ask people to point out flaws in their logic, then when people inevitably do, they just pretend it never happened. Sound arguing tactic.

a) I think that's pretty rich coming from the person whose entire argument is 'god because god'.

b) Not at all, look through my posts in this thread. I was born a Catholic and would believe there was a God if the evidence was there. It isn't though, no matter how much you want it to be.

Edit: I'm also not against people following whatever faith they like. Just don't go around trying to convince people it's a more logical conclusion than proven science and expect to be taken even remotely seriously.

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

and that's why it's circular reasoning.

It does nothing to prove or support your claim. You could easily say all the Greek/Roman/Indian etc. gods exist because the first gods had no creator.

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Even assuming that does logically qualify as proof (spoiler alert:

it doesn't

), there still isn't a shred of evidence that said creator is the one supported by your particular branch of mythology.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm noticing a trend with the creationists in this thread: they ask people to point out flaws in their logic, then when people inevitably do, they just pretend it never happened. Sound arguing tactic.

a) I think that's pretty rich coming from the person whose entire argument is 'god because god'.

b) Not at all, look through my posts in this thread. I was born a Catholic and would believe there was a God if the evidence was there. It isn't though, no matter how much you want it to be.

You never did point out a single flaw in my logic instead you kept going in circles about how if everything had a cause then what created god and I have said that God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?

housetypeb

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Where did you get the idea that he's "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."?

Uncle Ruckus

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?

I'm not sure you have a comprehensive grasp of logic. You are arbitrarily assigning traits to your deity without any regard for logical consistency. Believing in an impersonal deity without evidence is absurd. Believing in a personal and specific deity who takes an active interest in this pale blue dot is anthropomorphising an already poor explanation for the existence to the Universe. In addition, when one considers the vast amount of deities which humanity has believed in over the aeons claiming a specific deity as an explanation for the Universe makes your claim even more statistically absurd.

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

Selective quoting of the definition there old man.

The quote in full :

"NOUN
1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

let us use actual definitions, rather than one that suits you.

god:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

so there we go, Zeus is a god, Thor is a god on so on.

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

you stated that because God doesn't require a creator, he must exist. There are alpha generations of gods in various mythologies. By your own rules, Roman/Greek/Indian etc. gods must also exist.

Defender OF Faith

housetypeb wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that he's "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."?

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You never did point out a single flaw in my logic instead you kept going in circles about how if everything had a cause then what created god and I have said that God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?

Sure I did. It's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying 'Pizza is delicious because pizza is delicious'. That doesn't explain to anyone why pizza is delicious, or why they should go out and try this delicious food; it's clearly just an objective claim disguised as an argument.

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

you omitted item 2 in the definition of a god on your linked page.

god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

...for Christians and members of other monotheistic religions.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

Also from the oxford english dictionary: Odin: The supreme god and creator, god of victory and the dead. Wednesday is named after him.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Odin

There we go, I just proved the existence of Odin. We're all going to Valhalla lads, waaaaay!

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You never did point out a single flaw in my logic instead you kept going in circles about how if everything had a cause then what created god and I have said that God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?

The flaw is in the selective and prejudical definition of the word God. Its simply 'God exists therfore God exists' again.

Defender OF Faith

SW wrote: »

let us use actual definitions, rather than one that suits you.

god:

so there we go, Zeus is a god, Thor is a god on so on.

you stated that because God doesn't require a creator, he must exist. There are alpha generations of gods in various mythologies. By your own rules, Roman/Greek/Indian etc. gods must also exist.

The existence of multiple gods does not deny the existence of a single god, we first need to understand why multiple god exist? when people go to war they pray to a specific "god of war" when they want to get married to pray to the god of marriage and love.
Zeus, Odin and so one are names given by human to define each of these gods and what they do, however am saying that these gods are a single god whom the people gave names to based on what they need from him.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The existence of multiple gods does not deny the existence of a single god, we first need to understand why multiple god exist? when people go to war they pray to a specific "god of war" when they want to get married to pray to the god of marriage and love.
Zeus, Odin and so one are names given by human to define each of these gods and what they do, however am saying that these gods are a single god whom the people gave names to based on what they need from him.

Who needs logic when you have blind faith, eh?