Kalām cosmological argument

I don't have a problem with religions per se, after all, I did try two of them but I just can't wrap my head around there being a creator who appears to be neglectful and why we should believe in said creator.

edited 23rd Aug '11 11:29:24 AM by whaleofyournightmare

That is if the faith revolves around that idea at all. Some don't. Hell Buddhism more or less takes the "Fuck it why should we care how the world was made? Will that solve all your problems ever or actually have any practical benefit?" stance on God and where the universe comes from...

Though we have an "the universe bangs into being, expands, then spirals down into nothing before repeating this" theory about the universe. Still no word on whether or not it's eternal, if God made it, why it's here at all, and whether or not it even exists at all...

And even if on the extremely slim chance that god does exist he would almost have to be evil

I know how Buddhism operates, I was attracted to the idea of there being a creatorless religion but there was no where local to practice it . So I went to secular atheism instead and now believe that humans are both good and evil, and that they are responsible for said good and evil.

One does not need a wat to follow The Dhamma. One should find a teacher of some sort of course and thankfully you have this thing called the internet. There are more experienced Buddhists that you could find and talk to.

We have a thread on the fora for Buddhists actually.

edited 23rd Aug '11 11:40:24 AM by Aondeug

I live about 5 miles from this place but when you're 12, it might as well been 50000000000000 miles away.

Self-Thump.

This was kind of rude, looking back.

Edit: The point was that van shouldn't really be trying to argue anything about religion here, because 98% of the people here are atheists, and thus you won't really get multiple opinions.

Also, most of your arguments have been unsound, and I would respectfully suggest that you read up a little on the subject (edit: that is, logic) before trying to debate anything again.

P.S., is it just me, or do these topics always end up the same way? The same people make the same arguments, I hopelessly try to stand for religions I don't even believe and am ultimately far worse at it than any real religious person, and the buddhist guy always takes his third option (not implying anything bad about Buddhism, I have endless respect for the religion). Kind of funny, when you think about it. Or not.

edited 23rd Aug '11 7:35:45 PM by TheEarthSheep

That's not illogical. I'm minoring in philosophy. I made this topic partly to find other ways to debunk this argument that that's not really mentioned in the books

It always come down to the same problem.

Is science and logic forced to prove negatives?

And when the answer is no... well you can see where it goes from there.

Also, God is Paul Krugman (and Stevie Wonder)

edited 23rd Aug '11 8:00:33 PM by Baff

Cillian Murphy is god

If I could stand up for Christianity and other religions I would. Alas I don't know nearly enough about it to really defend it. All I can do really is defend the concept of religion itself with my knowledge about Buddhism...

I would say religion is a by product of many cognitive functions.

I once tasted Salvia and I had an intense (and frightening) expirience that could be described as religious. As a sort of epiphany. But then again... what I went trough was no different to that of a person going trough a stroke which is i.e my brain being disconected piece by pice with the added benefit of being temporary. So in the end religion is an illusion created by the cognitive functions of the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

edited 23rd Aug '11 8:42:03 PM by Baff

By that logic, so is happiness. And love.

I say we make a sport where philosophers recite their ideologies in the middle of coliseum filled with improvisational weapons, and whoever manages to describe their viewpoint the most, by word length (repetition counts) gets to be right.

I swear, it's like you're trying to make a witty, satirical remark.

Happiness and love are certainly byproducts of cognitive functions. I do not feel that this does not make them real however. Others will disagree with this and others still will say that all of life is an illusion (Hello Buddhism).

Now whether or not the gods and spirits we speak of are merely illusions (within in this thing we call reality that may or may not be an illusion) we create for ourselves because we have evolved with cognitive processes that lead to such thoughts is another question.

These things may or may not be real and we really don't have any evidence for or against them that I find to be convincing. I merely have my feelings at this moment in time.

I am hoping for the day we discover a sapient race of beings that lives longer than us. Then my definition of god (and Buddhism's) will be validated and accepted as fact as opposed to just being a feeling we have.

edited 23rd Aug '11 10:57:24 PM by Aondeug

Unless you're using a much broader definition of the word than usual, I'm...not sure we actually have any of those around here.

^ I know Eventua gets infuriated when anyone mentions evolution, and I think we've had a couple other people who agree with him. They just tend to get shouted down.

edited 24th Aug '11 12:07:49 AM by feotakahari

Indeed they are. In fact there is a disease where people are unable to feel love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypopituitarism

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

edited 24th Aug '11 5:37:24 AM by Baff

Measuring the Marigolds, are we?

Not really but you seem to just be denying facts out right

edited 24th Aug '11 11:31:32 AM by vanthebaron

Well, that wasn't addressed to you, so that would make sense.

And: What.

We are making valid points, you aren't even trying to debunk them

edited 24th Aug '11 12:24:11 PM by vanthebaron

Yes. And?

Well, you certainly haven't been, at least not since my last post of argument.

(EDIT: By this I mean, since I've last made a post arguing anything, all you've said is that Cillian Murphy is god. So you haven't been making valid points.)

Measuring the Marigolds is seen pretty much universally as a bad thing.

edited 24th Aug '11 12:34:03 PM by TheEarthSheep