What is most important is you can wake up in the morning and enjoy the time given to you regardless on what you believe in. I have been non religious all of my life, yet very spiritual in many ways. There are no rules or regulations in what I believe in and I am the only member of my belief system. It works for me, because I can wake up in the morning with a smile on my face and find ways to bring laughter in my day.

Although some days I wish I was the Norse God Thor and just wave my mighty hammer flexing my muscles!


and then other days

I feel like a hermit leaning on my staff wondering about the stars and planets the revolve around our planet

Even if you accept this argument as some sort of conclusive proof of a first cause, it does not identify that first cause with god. That has been my point at least. The argument does not ascribe to the first cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with a theistic god, such as immanence or the ability to rationalize. "I want to create.". Rather, it simply argues that a first cause (the Big Bang) must exist. Despite this reality, you are attempting to extract these elusive character traits because you are a human and you want them to be there.

Even if I gave into this craziness, if one chooses to accept the premise of a Creatrix or "god" as the first cause, god's continued interaction with the universe is not required beyond that point. Unless you are a practicing Deist now Spider, in which case you and I would not be at one anothers throats quite as often. You asked about my personal beliefs and they lean much more in that direction.

If a supreme being played some sort of active role in this, he has since "left the building". not unlike Elvis.

Krimsa,

The Big Bang cannot explain the existence of the universe, because the Big Bang doesn't exist infinitely in the past. So while the universe may have been caused by the Big Bang, the Big Bang couldn't have been the first cause.

As I have said, the Cosmological Argument doesn't argue for an intelligent creator...more later.

By using that argument you admit that part of you does not believe in a higher power. The higher power knows that because of his omnipotence. How does that make the higher power feel? Does that qualify you for a ticket to pass through the golden gates? Or are you just living in fear of the unknown?

I used to use the same argument myself. Then I thought it was probably a cop out to do so. Please don't be offended by my comments. You're entitled to your belief and I'm just voicing my opinion.

You could also use the argument that if the universe is infinite then there are infinite possibilities therefore a higher power has to exist.

60 statements that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it IS possible to divide by zero...

Undefined questions result in undefined answers...

Simply definings your logic so that your answer has but one conclusion... Is science as it was practiced before Gallieo...

While the Cosmological Argument doesn't explicitly call for an intelligent creator, it does come close.

Impersonal forces act immediately. If you start a fire in your fireplace, it doesn't wait for awhile until it is ready to burn the wood.

Personal forces can decide how and when to act.

If the first cause were an impersonal force, it would have created the universe immediately upon it's creation. Since the universe isn't infinite in age, the impersonal force couldn't be infinite in age. The first cause must be infinite in age, so the first cause cannot be an impersonal force. Therefore we know that the first cause is a personal force, an entity that can think and act.

This still doesn't logically prove that the first cause was the God of the Bible, but it has brought us a bit closer to that conclusion.

But then it could have been any God, and not necessarily the God of the bible. If you want to apply logic, you have to apply all the logic.

Spidey you are saying that my "pure guesswork" assertion about your argument requires that i logically prove you are wrong. that is not the case. you are the one making a claim without proof. the burden of proof is on you to prove that the cause of the universe was a personal infinite force. I don't have to argue diddly squat to categorically disprove it because that is impossible as i do not know and NO ONE DOES.

If i made the claim right now that i am a millionaire, i would have to be the one to prove it, you would not be able to categorically disprove it. The person making the claim MUST provide more than a guess to assert that claim as fact. To say that the cause of the universe must be infinite and personal you are expecting us to simply accept that guess because you said so.

well when i say "us" i mean me . I can't speak for my fellow minglers. perhaps they are seeing the logical proof and i am not...

and if you were not trying to prove an ID... i'm sorry, what were we talking about again??

Oh goodness forget it

i have studying to do...

Did you miss the bolded sentence?

There are several logical arguments, which work as planks leading eventually to the God of the Bible. I have offered logical arguments to support a belief that the universe was caused and that the cause was an intelligent being, that's it.

I'm very disappointed that I have been forced to repeat myself so much. I think people should slow down a bit on their desire to respond and let the posts sink in first.

The logical arguments have been presented and have yet to be refuted. Feel free to do so. But in logic, unless you can refute a statement, you are expected to accept it. If you don't, it's the same as saying "I'm right because I say so!". So it's up to you to refute my logical arguments.

Where the hell are these "planks" that will lead us logically to the god of the bible? You need to start producing those, son.

The evidence is right there!!!!! Can't you see it!!!


------------------) . (--------------

I repeat: your argument is not logical.

16
ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Oh no. That is too funny. I was just about to copy and paste that one. I mean I understand the basics but I dont fully comprehend how it could be attributed specifically to the Christian god even if you chose to follow the logic. He claims there are other arguments that lead to that conclusion.

look i've repeated the fact that your argument is not logical about 3 times already... and it is not progressing beyond the point of

Me:"your argument is not logical, it is a guess"
You: "you have to refute my [non-existent] logic"

At this point i leave you to it. Good day sir.

Holy crap...this made it to ten pages????


And it is equally as silly 10 pages on as it was in the OP....

Oh my, you guys need to cool down. Calling me "son"? Mocking the arguments instead of trying to refute? It's okay, everyone is blessed in different ways. Enjoy your weeked.

Oh no don't worry, i am not offended, I see where you going with. Yeah some might view it as a cop out as it were. Everything is a personal choice i think when you get down to it. I was just stating that one could logically and with reason choose to believe in something regardless of substantial proof. Your right that in a sense by using that arguement I am also saying that i don't believe in something. When it comes to me personally, I am a philosophical Taoist. I choose not adhere myself to any religion or its deity. I even offered what is closer to my actual beliefs and precepts in another thread, i'll post it below becuase it will mesh with this threads flow and give you a better idea where i am coming from and where i am going with this thread.

Who or what said that there had to be a creator or creators? Why do we constantly try to give a form of personality, an ego or human like quality to something in order to give ourselves a sense of security that this is all planned out and everything is really under someone else's control? What is wrong with accepting that there is choas in the universe? Does everything need a reason or plan? When do we realize that the plan maybe is that there is no plan? My parents came to me when i was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes because it was part of "God's" plan. My father even tryed to convince me that "God" was punishing me for something i had done or would later do. It didn't take me long to realize that was a load of bull. I personally don't need some form of reassurance to convince myself that things are under control. I find more peace in accepting who and what i am is not because of somebody's grand scheme but because it just is. I can handle that and that is all i need to deal with what i can not explain or understand completely. Let me put it another way. Stories seem to work best so i will go that route. There once was a zen master who was preparing to pass on. He looked through his pupils to see who was best suited to take his place as head of the temple. He narrowed his options down to two. One was a very bright and intelligent leader. The other was a devoted monk of many years and acted as the temple's cook. The master decided to test them with a simple koan to determine who would succeed him. He has them bring a table in and place a glass half filled with water on it. He then had them enter individually to test them. He had the intelligent leader come in first. He pointed at the glass and said what is this? The pupil took a few minutes to ponder the koan. He then turned to the master and said," It is that which is before us in this existence and we must acknowledge it and try to understand it." The master released him and had the cook come in. He then posed the same koan to him. The cook looked at the glass only a second. He then grasped it, drank the water and threw the glass out of the temple. As he turned to leave he told the master," That is it." and left. Now i leave you all with a koan of your own. Who did the master choose to succeed him and why?

Now some might be a bit preplexed as i could argue for belief in a higher power yet turn around and question the nesscity of a "creator". Really there is no conflict in my mind when it comes to this. My thinking is if there is a source from which all things came that it most likely be of something beyond a human nature or equivalence. I choose to think that this source as it were would be something that goes beyond what religion uses a way to associate humanity with the divine. A source that for lack of better words that connects all things, resonates through them, is what represents the absolutes truths in the universe and yet is devoid of any mind,ego,or personality of its own. Lao-tzu put it best when he was trying to describe what i am trying to a feel i am still coming up short. He said," I call it the Tao because i do not know what to call it in words that would encompass what it is completely." I choose to think that that this source, Tao for lack of a word which would suffice. Its not fear of the unknown that compells my thinking. Rather it is a realization of which i know human concepts and words will only fail to bring about that realization for another unless they experience it themselves. It drives me to question everything, embrace the unknown and the fact i don't understand and know much about it and everything else in the universe. I know i have throughly confused most people but I get a tranquil calm from simply just being and knowing that it will change.