Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    08 Mar '18 04:02
    If you believe that the universe couldn't have been created without a designer, why do you not apply that same logic to God?
  2. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 04:51
    Originally posted by @vivify
    If you believe that the universe couldn't have been created without a designer, why do you not apply that same logic to God?
    The evidence seems to suggest that the universe is not eternal and hence requires a cause. God by definition would be the uncaused first cause of the universe. If you believe God can't be eternal, why don't you apply the same logic to the universe?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 04:55
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    The evidence seems to suggest that the universe is not eternal and hence requires a cause. God by definition would be the uncaused first cause of the universe. If you believe God can't be eternal, why don't you apply the same logic to the universe?
    You seem to be asserting that God is the uncaused first cause of the universe because God is, by definition, the uncaused first cause of the universe.
  4. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:14
    Originally posted by @fmf
    You seem to be asserting that God is the uncaused first cause of the universe because God is, by definition, the uncaused first cause of the universe.
    God being the uncaused first cause of the universe is a self-evident proposition. To me at least.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:21
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    God being the uncaused first cause of the universe is a self-evident proposition. To me at least.
    Is your assertion that it is "self-evident", in and of itself, the evidence you have that your god figure is the uncaused first cause of the universe?
  6. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:24
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Is your assertion that it is "self-evident", in and of itself, the evidence you have that your god figure is the uncaused first cause of the universe?
    Have you ever heard of a presupposition?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:26
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Have you ever heard of a presupposition?
    You have sidestepped my question with an evasive counter-question.
  8. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:29 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Is your assertion that it is "self-evident", in and of itself, the evidence you have that your god figure is the uncaused first cause of the universe?
    No. It is a philosophical presupposition. If you don't know what that is look it up. How do you believe the universe came in existence?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:34
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    No. It is a philosophical presupposition. If you don't know what that is look it up.
    To assert your personal opinion that something - by which I mean something that you have admitted you cannot prove is true in that past - is simply "self-evident" and then base other conjecture upon it is not something you can claim is "objective". Or do you accept you are being subjective about this?
  10. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:35
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    How do you believe the universe came in existence?
    My answer to this is the same as it was the previous two or three times it cropped up and we discussed it in 2016 and 2017.
  11. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:35
    Originally posted by @fmf
    To assert your personal opinion that something - by which I mean something that you have admitted you cannot prove is true in that past - is simply "self-evident" and then base other conjecture upon it is not something you can claim is "objective". Or do you accept you are being subjective about this?
    I'll answer your questions once you go back and answer my questions that you have ignored.
  12. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:39
    Originally posted by @fmf
    My answer to this is the same as it was the previous two or three times it cropped up and we discussed it in 2016 and 2017.
    Which is?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:40
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Which is?
    The same answer as it was before.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    08 Mar '18 05:43
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    I'll answer your questions once you go back and answer my questions that you have ignored.
    Don't worry about it then. My questions contained a clear point, and the point is made.
  15. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    08 Mar '18 05:45
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The same answer as it was before.
    Would you agree that you also make assumptions that you cannot prove?