<p>But I’m not undersanding why you think Jesus is the cause. </p>
<p>And this thread is just to see the different reasons people have for their beliefs not to find some truth that’s been debated for centuries.</p>
<p>Lol I kept seeing the “Jesus never existed” ad.</p>
<p>Atheism does not need an argument; you have already provided it.</p>
<p>Again, I am sure most atheists will agree there is a cause, but a simple disagreement about the nature of that cause produces the argument you are looking for.</p>
<p>Many years ago the fact that lighter elements combined to form heavier elements in the center of stars was out of our reach, and it could be said then that god created all of the elements.</p>
<p>Now the time up to and before the big bang is out of our reach. Who is to say that it will be forever.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know if the first premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, is true. I think that first premise is also an argument that cannot be proved or disproved.</p>
<p>thank god for a decent thread finally…</p>
<p>anyways, bassplrflea.</p>
<p>first of all, i would like to see how mathematicians agree on “god’s metaphysical nature.” “theology” seems to be quite out of the realm of the study of mathematics if you ask me. </p>
<p>And you are completely right, the cosmological argument is sound. However, it is quite a leap to automatically assume the first cause was God. </p>
<p>Here, we really have two choices. </p>
<p>First, since you stated that you were a Christian a couple of posts back, i’m assuming by “God” you mean “Yahweh” or the Judeo Christian God, whatever, tomato tomato. Now how can you prove that the first cause was that specific God, or not, like too old said, Chester cheeto? (empirical evidence or objective philosophical arguments only please. What i mean is no quoting the bible for this one) </p>
<p>The second choice is that you are using “God” as a blanket term for whatever kicked started our universe. By then, you are merely playing a semantic game with us by replacing something as awe inspiring as the beginning of the universe with “God.” </p>
<p>This is why we need to clearly define our terms so we don’t end up arguing about different ideas of God.</p>
<p>bass: “i am wholly justified in believing in JESUS as the CAUSE of the universe.”</p>
<p>I realize by not addressing this, it may seem that I am addressing it, so let me agree and say I believe you are.</p>
<p>“Whatever begins to exist has a cause”</p>
<p>based on what? logic?</p>
<p>Thanks, legendary, my point exactly.</p>
<p>i also forgot to address another point you were making, the one about making an “analytical argument for atheism.” </p>
<p>let’s clearly define what i mean by atheism first. Namely, it is the belief that there is no supernatural being “out there” governing the affairs of the man, or the universe. </p>
<p>We can approach this two ways, scientifically and philosophically.</p>
<p>It is almost laughable to even consider approaching this scientifically. Not because “god lies outside of the realm of science” but because science does not deal with absolutes. Asking a man to absolutely disprove the existence of anything at all is just bad science.</p>
<p>Philosophically, the burden of proof is on you to prove that god exists or else your argument is basically an argument from ignorance fallacy. (you can’t prove X doesn’t exist therefore X does exist).</p>
<p>I have been an atheist since I was about 13 years old (I’m 21 now). I think one of the biggest factors in me changing from a christian to an atheist was the fact that I attended christian school from 1st to 12th grade.</p>
<p>One of my favorite quotes from Penn Jillette: “Read the Bible because we need more atheists, and nothing will get you there faster than reading the holy Bible”</p>
<p>Physicsfem,</p>
<p>I might tend to agree, but I am being courteous to bass because if I believe his posts it seems he is much more well versed in the philosophical argument he posed, and any attempt to argue without myself knowing the details would just be wise-acring on my part.</p>
<p>not proving that god exists does NOT prove god does not exist. it just proves that you cannot prove it. and if you can’t prove he exists, you shouldn’t be able to say he does for a certainty.</p>
<p>For myself (I am agnostic), I would really love it if someone could prove or disprove god. I don’t really try to argue the issue with people because, like you (too old), I don’t have an answer and I don’t know enough about the subject to be able to take a position. But when I hear people’s arguments I do try to analyze them to see if they make sense. So far–no luck. If god exists, though, I would love for someone to prove it to me.</p>
<p>anything is possible…</p>
<p>…for now</p>
<p>cr_brook,</p>
<p>your completely right, i am not able to say god certainly does not exist. But i can that he most likely doesn’t. To borrow Bertrand Russel’s teapot example for a moment, I can not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is NOT an infinitely small teapot floating in the orbit of our solar system. But while I can not say for certain that there isn’t a infinitely small teapot somewhere out there in space there is still a huge chance that there isn’t. Therefore, the only way to settle this question would be for someone to actually prove the teapot DOES exist.</p>
<p>im reiterating a bit here, but the main flaw in these types of “you can’t prove it certainly does not exist” arguments is that it assumes existence or non existence to be a 50/50 chance. If I say to you one day that a unicorn with 4 eyes and 18 legs exists, it doesn’t make the existence of such an entity a 50/50 percent chance, it is more likely a 0.000000001 to 99.999999999 percent chance. And really, with those odds, are you gonna be betting your money on the thing existing?</p>
<p>in that whole post you didn’t give any reason why god not existing is more likely than god existing…</p>
<p>its called a fallacy…i dont remember which one…</p>
<p>I can see it already… this thread is going to extend to 10 pages long with non-stop arguing between both sides. then it’s going to end once UCLA comes out. </p>
<p>but im going to call it for the hell of it - this is going to be all bad…</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062387786-post3.html]#3[/url]”>quote</a> …The first argument for God’s Existence that is true is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is actually a combination of science and philosophy as it comes from the Philosophy OF science family.</p>
<p>The argument can be summed up as:</p>
<ol>
<li>Whatever begins to exist has a cause.</li>
<li>The universe began to exist.</li>
<li>Therefore, the universe has a cause.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>The above argument does not prove a ‘super-natural’ cause. It would be just as accurate for a ‘natural’ cause/process. Then, by [Occam’s</a> Razor](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor]Occam’s”>Occam's razor - Wikipedia), the ‘natural’ cause has to be concluded over the ‘super-natural’ cause.</p>
<p>A [counter</a> argument/thought experiment](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061689874-post9.html]counter”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061689874-post9.html):</p>
<p>
</p>