I think we are all missing the point. Pashley has managed to produce a stunning logical result. By accepting the axiom that all things that exist must have a cause, he has derived the result that god has no first cause. Therefore God does not exist!
Bravo, Pashley!
Surely not even a lemming-headed thumper could argue with your air-tight logical construction.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Holy bejeebers, Spiritus! You’re right! He’s succeeded where so many humanists have failed!
Forget Nietsche–Pat’s proven that God ain’t dead, He never even existed!
-andros-
<chuckles> Actually he’s demonstrated an old proof from epistemelogical philosophy: We don’t understand causation.
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
There is more intelligence in one frame of Scooby Doo Meets the Three Stooges than there is in all of your posts combined.
Sig Alert!
jab1:
Never having seen the motion picture in question, I am not in a position to confirm your assertion.
Having read many of Patrick’s posts, however, I am prepared to take your word for its validity.
Still, I found the post to be gratuitous.
What the hell, I ain’t a moderator, what do I care?
I find myself wondering if Patrick may be posting this stuff because he’s given up logic for Lent?
Hang in there, Patrick! Only three days to go!
Random question:
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Projector Emeritus, Grand Academy of Lagado
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
DrF:
Your Random question: is bloody brilliant! Do you mind if I adopt it?
Well, I’m going to, anyway, so you might as well give me your blessing.
Thanks in advance. 
I’d like to ask a question, if I may. What exactly is your motivation here, pashley? You gave us a statement, asked for arguments, and many of us were more than happy to oblige, but it appears that you were hoping for something else… What? Why would you ask a question that you don’t want to hear the answer to? Why would you ask a question the answer to which you already seem to know? I just don’t get it.
Also, if I may, I’d like to insert my own two cents worth. I came in here armed with my own arguments, but they have been done to death already. From all of this one thing becomes clear. What god is or is not is not provable by science, philosophy, and logic. We could argue all day, and still not get any closer to the answer. This is why we have faith. You obviously believe in the existence of a god, just as I do not believe in this. I do not look for proof of my beliefs, they are just something that I know to be true for some reason. I look at the world around me, and I see natural processes and forces shaping the world, but not the hand of a creator. You obviously see things differently. So, I guess this just goes back to my first question: Why look for proof here?
Unless you were just looking for a pulpit, in which case I have no further time for this.
Here lies Pierre de Fermat. Unfortunately, there is not enough room on this tombstone for a proper epitaph.
Hardcore said a lot:
It occurs to me that an ‘act of faith’ is employed by those who would offhandedly deny the concept of a creator based on ‘absence of evidence.’ There is no ‘evidence’ that the universe created itself, either. Now, you may say that the fact that the universe exists is proof, however, its existence does not exclude the possibility of intelligent design anymore that it proves ‘self-creation.’
::
Caliboomer pustulated:
“There is no ‘evidence’ that
the universe created itself, either.”
Receding galaxies
Red shift
Quantum mechanics
Big-bang echoes
cosmic rays
High energy particle physics
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
But then we’ve already been through these discussions with you, so you know these all represent evidence.
By the way, where’s your evidence? It seems you somehow neglected to post it during that last thread.
A man of faith, when he does not know, asserts his belief.
A man of science, when he does not know, admits his ignorance.
Did you make that up yourself or steal it? 'Cus I’m thinking of adopting it as one of my sigs, and I want to give credit where credit is due. Very nice.
Scylla:
Receding galaxies
Red shift
Quantum mechanics
Big-bang echoes
cosmic rays
High energy particle physics
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
[/quote]
OK. I’m willing to learn. How do these natural phenomena demonstrate that the universe created itself out of nothing?
::
CalifBoomer said:
Uh huh. That’d be new.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet that no matter what evidence he posts, you’ll try to rationalize it away and end up at the same point you are now.
Let’s watch and find out…
You are the only one worth responding to. The others don’t seem to want to read my posts concerning God not needing to be caused, nor do they accept that things cannot possibly come into being without being caused to come into being. Apparently, things just pop out of nowhere, for no reason. And they call my logic flawed.
Anyway, your question is, why did I even bother coming into a pit of atheists and spiritual cowards? Hmmmm, let me think about that…
Ok, I’m back. So, why do I do it? Well, when i first came here, I was looking to throw out an idea/belief/question and then discussingthe issue intelligently. What i received was insults, condescending tones, and belligerent rebuttals. The people i have cited above saw that I actually mentioned God, and since they are mostly an atheistic (which is baseless, by the way, as I have conclusively proven earlier) and spiritually cowardly group, I was beaten upon without mercy. Oh well.
This group is just a bunch of back slapping atheist/agnostics, and anyone with a different view is to be drummed out immediatley. They are not intrested in discussion, they are intrested in maintaining their views that there is no God, or there is no evidence of God. They call me an idiot, small-minded and worse. I’m the one that is small-minded? At least I am willing to entertain the notion that there might be something bigger than all of us (yes, even bigger then some of the egos around here). They will flatly deny it.
Let me say though that not everyone, including you, seems to be the way I’ve just described. Their are some folk on here that can discuss an issue, and not just summarily dismiss and trash a person. They are few and far between, but they are out there. But this is mostly an atheistic, liberal board.
Now, I’ll make room for all the insults that will follow…
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Pashley:
My heart bleeds for you.
CB:
Receding galaxies and red shift allow us to plot the time and place of the big bang.
Quantum mechanics describes how matter can come into and out of existence on its own without any causative agent.
Scientists can still hear radio echoes from the big-bang.
Cosmic rays are high energy particles. The thing is outside of particle accelerators there is no place with enough energy to create them. TH=hey are holdovers form shortly after the big-bang when the energy levels were high enough to bring them into existence.
Particle physicists are attempting to replicate conditions that occured during or shortly after the big-bang in the hopes of understanding what occured. The search for a predicted particle in particular, The Higgs-Bosun may indeed unlock some of the secrets of creation for us.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Damn! I leave for a while and miss out on all of the fun.
Pat:
It has nothing to do with not wanting to read what you post, Pat. You are trying to use logic to prove the being in whom you have faith. Doesn’t that strike you as a little, well, silly?
No, what you wanted was to be lauded as the carrier of The Truth ™. Problem is, you don’t have it.
Wanna take a stab at backing this up? Plus, more than a few of the folk who ripped into you are Christians. Or are they also “spiritually cowardly” simply because they do not agree with you?
Poly? You still around? I know that I saw Adam earlier. Monty is LDS. ~Tom is Catholic. Esprix is UU. Tell us again, Pat, how anyone with a different point of view is drummed out, please.
Waste
Flick Lives!
You are correct; I can’t prove God exists. However, I can use evidence and logic to show it is likely he exists. Faith doesn’t need to be blind. Science and logic can and do strengthen it.
You are the only one worth responding to. The others don’t seem to want to read my posts concerning God not needing to be caused, nor do they accept that things cannot possibly come into being without being caused to come into being. I’ve gone over it, and over it. Apparently, things just pop out of nowhere, for no reason. And they call my logic flawed.
Anyway, your question is, why did I even bother coming into a pit of atheists and spiritual cowards? Hmmmm, let me think about that…
Ok, I’m back. So, why do I do it? Well, when i first came here, I was looking to throw out an idea/belief/question and then discussingthe issue intelligently. What i received was insults, condescending tones, and belligerent rebuttals. The people i have cited above saw that I actually mentioned God, and since they are mostly an atheistic (which is baseless, by the way, as I have conclusively proven earlier) and spiritually cowardly group, I was beaten upon without mercy. Oh well.
This group is just a bunch of back slapping atheist/agnostics, and anyone with a different view is to be drummed out immediatley. They are not intrested in discussion, they are intrested in maintaining their views that there is no God, or there is no evidence of God. They call me an idiot, small-minded and worse. I’m the one that is small-minded? At least I am willing to entertain the notion that there might be something bigger than all of us (yes, even bigger then some of the egos around here). They will flatly deny it.
Let me say though that not everyone, including you, seems to be the way I’ve just described. Their are some folk on here that can discuss an issue, and not just summarily dismiss and trash a person. Your post i am responding to is evidence of this. They are few and far between, but they are out there. But this is mostly an atheistic, liberal board.
What I have learned on here has been worthwhile. Some people just don’t want to believe that there is a God, or if they do believe, they sure as heck don’t argue for it. Too bad.
I will make one more challenge: I would be willing to discuss/argue toe-to-toe with any one individual regarding any aspect of God/faith, whether that be evidence for God, Nature of God, Problem of Evil, and so forth. What I will not argue is “Prove God exists!” That is not possible. Evidence for, yes, proof, no.
Now, this person, whom this group will select, will be the only one to debate with me. If the moderator/administrator can control that, great. I don’t want fifty people in the ring; it’s unfair to me, and we lose track of the argument. I will even be generous enough to let that person provide the topic, and have the opening argument. There will have to be agreements about how many rebuttals can be submitted and so on; lest it go on forever.
Any takers?
Now, I’ll make room for all the insults that will follow…
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
pashley:
Addressing neuro-trash grrl, you said:
I find it odd that you disregard the value of my post when it warrants your attention. Do you simply elect not to respond to arguments which you cannot defeat? Are you not capable of conceding?
I read no posts submitted by you which adequately addressed this these issues.
Yes, I have done so, yet you don’t find it necessary to revise your argument.
So now I’m not intelligent?
Why is it, that when an opinion conflicts with yours, you deem it belligerent?
You should be more careful when asserting what you deem factual. Not all posters in this thread are atheists. Polycarp was a highly esteemed poster of religious orientation.
If I was not interested in discussion, I would not have posted in this thread. I do maintain that there is no god; however, this discussion is based on your assertion that there is proof of the existence of a god. I do not feel that your argument is justified; moreover, I suggest that if you wish to have a discussion you respond to posts and refrain from libelous remarks.
Nen, GLWasteful.
Just see my last post. Bring on your Goliath.