Search results

Fair enough I guess. That's basically what I said.

Valid point. Some don't need a definition of god before claiming god doesn't exist, but at the same time they're asking for a definition in order to examine the statement "god exists". Hence why I came up with this core definition that even atheists implicitely know. Or are they saying "X...

Does our universe have a cause? If yes, god exists. If not, it doesn't. Do mass-having objects move towards each other? If yes, gravity exists. If not, gravity doesn't exist. Not accept, rather "not reject". Being neutral. You're using a weird definition of existence then. :D

Some atheists are claiming a lot more than that. If you're not claiming god doesn't exist, I have no problem with your viewpoint and I probably completely share it. Easy. How could that monster create spacetime if it's part of the spacetime?

Sure, that's why I also believe god doesn't exist. But these 3 points don't proof anything. And now don't get started with your Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because that monster doesn't have a function. God does.

I think it's a paradox rather. Time started to exist too, right? Then how can you reject the notion god, but not reject all these other things that you don't grasp? I guess it's neglectibly subtle, so never mind.

Unless you're assuming causality ouside of time. But if you accept the second postulate (thus rejecting causality outside of time), you're rejecting this logic: X started to exist <=> X has a cause Why is this any better? This is exactly what I meant by "everything...

How do you define 'universe' then? Time is unseparable from space, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

True, so we have to choose one out of two postulates that don't seem to make a lot of sense: -the universe had a timeless cause, a timeless mechanism caused it => causality exists outside of time or -the universe doesn't have a cause => everything came out of nothing Which one do you pick...

Huh? :D Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. It seems contradictory to me.

Thanks for sharing this insight. :D

So you agree that the universe had a beginning, but then you claim that this beginning isn't caused by anything. Doesn't that contradict common logic? When you see a rock, you don't say: "Well it came into existence, but nothing caused it to exist. It just all of a sudden was there and that's it."

In before swag says "I like turtles".

There is a lot of confusion regarding the definition of god. And it's this confusion that makes atheists think they can righteously say to theists (defined in the most broad sense of the word here) that god doesn't exist. But actually, god does exist if you're assuming causality*. What most...