Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[The Grey Wolf]

I'm not saying that, I'm saying for things like cause and effect, you need ''time''.

What?! Are you or are you not discussing a being outside of the universe?

I find this debate.... fascinating.

[Eleutheria]

I can attest to no evidence of a deity that I've found convincing, nor do I think that that existence can be rationally deduced from axioms, so I don't believe in a deity.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If there are no such things as cause and effect outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

What? No, it means that you don't need time to cause something to happen. It doesn't mean you can't cause things to happen.

How? If cause and effect require time, and there is no time outside the universe, then it has no cause.

[Blasveck]

He can.

He isn't bound by cause and effect.

If there are no such things as ''cause and effect'' outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

It means that nothing outside the universe is bound by cause and effect, which means things can exist without a cause in the first place:

IE GOD.

[Mavorpen]

What? No, it means that you don't need time to cause something to happen. It doesn't mean you can't cause things to happen.

How? If cause and effect require time

You still haven't fucking proved that this applies outside of the universe. Stop dodging this fact and do it.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If there are no such things as ''cause and effect'' outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

It means that nothing outside the universe is bound by cause and effect, which means things can exist without a cause in the first place:

IE GOD.

But then you have a being who ''caused'' the universe to exist. Which you need time for. Rather than the universe being ''uncaused''

[Spoder]

I was hoping this might be different, but no...of course, when atheists refer to religion, they are really only referring to Christianity. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION!!! I am Jewish, because I was born into it, and I have also come to being very interested in Jewish history. And I also have a respect for all religious, or non people. (Except for those who come to my door with pamphlets as to why I should convert to Buddhism, or join the local Christian Orthodox church.)

[Blasveck]

It means that nothing outside the universe is bound by cause and effect, which means things can exist without a cause in the first place:

IE GOD.

But then you have a being who ''caused'' the universe to exist. Rather the universe being ''uncaused''

Cause doesn't apply.

Because it DIDNT EXIST.

So quit acting like it does.

[Neo Rome Republic]

But then you have a being who ''caused'' the universe to exist. Rather the universe being ''uncaused''

Cause doesn't apply.

Because it DIDNT EXIST.

So quit acting like it does.

Then the only possible answer is an uncaused universe.

[Dyakovo]

[citation needed]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I'm simply arguing that Neo's trying to apply the laws of our universe to a supposedly infinite being that exists outside our universe.

Unless you can find a religion that says that God exists within our universe.

You're stating as fact that "god" exists outside the universe... So, provide verifiable evidence that said claim is true.

[Eleutheria]

I was hoping this might be different, but no...of course, when atheists refer to religion, they are really only referring to Christianity. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION!!! I am Jewish, because I was born into it, and I have also come to being very interested in Jewish history. And I also have a respect for all religious, or non people. (Except for those who come to my door with pamphlets as to why I should convert to Buddhism, or join the local Christian Orthodox church.)

I criticise most organised religions, be it Christianity or Islam or Zoroastrianism (actually did a debate on that) or Buddhism or New Age Spirituality. So I don't fit into your crass generalisation, nor does any atheist I know personally-and I know quite a few.

[The Grey Wolf]

If there are no such things as ''cause and effect'' outside the universe, then the universe has no cause.

It means that nothing outside the universe is bound by cause and effect, which means things can exist without a cause in the first place:

IE GOD.

My head hurts.
But why would God need causes and effects? If he doesn't live inside the universe, if he exists in "nothing," would cause and effects even be possible?

[Blasveck]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I'm simply arguing that Neo's trying to apply the laws of our universe to a supposedly infinite being that exists outside our universe.

Unless you can find a religion that says that God exists within our universe.

You're stating as fact that "god" exists outside the universe... So, provide verifiable evidence that said claim is true.

I can't.

I'm simply basing it off the assumed nature of God.

[Spoder]

Cause doesn't apply.

Because it DIDNT EXIST.

So quit acting like it does.

Then the only possible answer is an uncaused universe.

...No, the universe was not caused nor uncaused. You can't fucking uncause it, because THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF CAUSE OUTSIDE OF IT!!!

[Dyakovo]

I was hoping this might be different, but no...of course, when atheists refer to religion, they are really only referring to Christianity. CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION!!! I am Jewish, because I was born into it, and I have also come to being very interested in Jewish history. And I also have a respect for all religious, or non people. (Except for those who come to my door with pamphlets as to why I should convert to Buddhism, or join the local Christian Orthodox church.)

The jewish "god" is just as much bullshit as the christian one. Neither have a single shred of verifiable evidence for their existence. No deity has any verifiable evidence for their existence.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Then the only possible answer is an uncaused universe.

...No, the universe was not caused nor uncaused. You can't fucking uncause it, because THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF CAUSE OUTSIDE OF IT!!!

Then it has no cause, which as my point.

[Dyakovo]

You're stating as fact that "god" exists outside the universe... So, provide verifiable evidence that said claim is true.

I can't.

I'm simply basing it off the assumed nature of God.

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

[Blasveck]

I can't.

I'm simply basing it off the assumed nature of God.

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

Assuming that "God" exists inside our universe would mean that we would be able to observe and/or test said being, no?

[Spoder]

...No, the universe was not caused nor uncaused. You can't fucking uncause it, because THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF CAUSE OUTSIDE OF IT!!!

Then it has no cause, which as my point.

What you fail to see, dumbass, is that if cause does not exist, then uncause cannot either.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Then it has no cause, which as my point.

What you fail to see, dumbass, is that if cause does not exist, then uncause cannot either.

Well if it didn't have a cause, then it can only have no cause. Also don't insult me, or I will report you.

[Dyakovo]

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

Assuming that "God" exists inside our universe would mean that we would be able to observe and/or test said being, no?

Yes.

[Spoder]

What you fail to see, dumbass, is that if cause does not exist, then uncause cannot either.

Well if it didn't have a cause, then it can only have no cause.

Now you're just trolling...because the concept of cause does not exist, it's opposite cannot exist either. Because: for uncause to exist, you would need cause first. Same idea as teaching addition, then substraction. In order to take away, there has to be something to take from.

[The Blaatschapen]

Then it has no cause, which as my point.

What you fail to see, dumbass, is that if cause does not exist, then uncause cannot either.

Emphasis mine.

Spoder, considering that you are new. Knock it off. You're not allowed to call other people dumbasses. Attack the argument, not the poster.


The Blaatschapen - NS Forum Moderator

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well if it didn't have a cause, then it can only have no cause.

Now you're just trolling...because the concept of cause does not exist, it's opposite cannot exist either. Because: for uncause to exist, you would need cause first. Same idea as teaching addition, then substraction. In order to take away, there has to be something to take from.

Trollbaiting now, keep it up. Why does cause have to exist first? Why can't it be uncause and then cause?

[Spoder]

Now you're just trolling...because the concept of cause does not exist, it's opposite cannot exist either. Because: for uncause to exist, you would need cause first. Same idea as teaching addition, then substraction. In order to take away, there has to be something to take from.

Trollbaiting now, keep it up. Why does cause have to exist first? Why can't it be uncause and then cause?

Uncausing implies that something has been caused, and you are undoing it.