"atheists have failed to account for the "first cause" argument for God's existence."

I am a former pentecostal turned...to anything but religion. I am very grateful for seeing the truth opened up to me (by an atheist).  I am trying to find my personal position. At present, I am assuredly agnostic, but leaning toward atheism altogether. I would love to hear what you all have to say regarding the quote/title of this thread. 


The title is an excerpt from an article, "'Helter Skelter' author challenges God in his new book". In context it reads:


" The faithful take a beating in Bugliosi's book, but he doesn't spare atheists either.

"When I hear theists and atheists pontificating on how they know God does or does not exist, I can only smile at the irrationality and, yes, vanity of the notion," he writes.

Bugliosi believes that atheists have failed to account for the "first cause" argument for God's existence - that someone or something created the universe. "We know from our human experience that nothing in existence can give itself existence because if it did, then it would have to have preceded itself, an impossibility," he writes. "


The whole article is here:

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/27/2830053/helter-skelter-author-... 


I look forward to your responses.






Views: 304

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know that the wearing of condoms is NOT a sin?
For they way they look at it, you are preventing the coming of a soul, and since sin is from what I understand the relm of religion, and from a religious point of view, it is a sin to not allow a soul a life, to them it is, but to you is is not. So as as long as you don't believe in religion you won't have to worry about any kind of sin, so what you "know" may only apply to you. But in that I will have to agree that you know, you best :)
I don't care how they look at it because they are wrong.  If someone truly thought 2 + 2 = apples , I would know they are wrong!   Don't get caught up in philosophical subjectivism.  It will disrupt your thinking :P
Philosophically speaking, that may be true for you, however for me it is my minds food, and I do not like to starve.
All you truly know is what YOU think you do, that holds water as long as the bucket it is in, is YOU, but as is shown by reality other than yours, your is not the only bucket, nor the only bit of water. So for you that is true, but for other than you it is not. :) would you like another bite of the apple?
An apple may taste differently to every person in the world, yet it would be the one and the same apple. How we experience the outside world does not effect the outside world directly. It influences us first, and then we influence the world. Then the world changes and sends us new sensory data repeat this ad infinitum. It is also true that for any individual who ingests deadly poison he will die. However, the poison may taste differently to every person and people may even be SURE they did not ingest poison, but even if they did they would die nevertheless. To claim that your subjective experience of the world is true would be inconsiderate, but it would simply be a very cowardly thing to claim that you cannot know anything about how the reality REALLY looks like. The reason is that our sensory organs and our brain are very similarly built so the sensory input, processing and output are very similar in most normal human beings. My apple is gred, yours is bleen; we`re eating the same apple so what does it matter?
Well, there is one thing I know for certain, and it's that epistemology annoys me more than any other subject of discussion.  Can't we just accept some things as reasonably justified facts without getting into a giant, mind-bending, neverending debate about how and if we actually have real knowledge? What's the point, really? Does it solve any of our societal problems? Does it make the world a better place? Does it actually contribute to anyone's understanding of how the universe works? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever other than to confuse, befuddle, and annoy? Not in my opinion.  
I like epistemology, but this is not it. The colleague`s commentary above mine shows his attitude of extreme skepticism, which is not a very reasonable position. But to be able to accept certain things without going into every detail, we must have some kind of proof and that is why I answered with the similarities in our sensory organs and the brain.

'why would we think that what holds for our experiences inside the universe holds for the universe ITSELF?' Very well said mate. I have been saying something of the sort by explaining that if time is contained within our universe (see theory of relativity and special relativity and such) then how can cause and effect exist. If there is no time, there is no before and after, throwing the whole need for a cause out the window.


Same argument, You say it much more succinctly though... 

In regards "who / what created god"? Maybe there's another god, it's not a trinity, it's a quadrolgy. There's the regular godly thing and then there's that gods bigger brother, the one that created the other god by magic. Still doesn't answer who or what created big brother god. I'm sure the god botherers would be over the moon with Two god things to worship. Twice as much worship, twice as much fun, twice as much wine and crackers and all for 20%!
I would think as far as the multi verse is concerned any thing is possible, stacked upon the improbable, right next to impossible, but underneath should of could of would of might. Now since perception is relative to the point of view. When the question is answered, the answered was already known by that which asked the question before it was asked, but not until it was.

Words of wade: Concerning the all of nothing.
I find your views intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don't know of what news letter you are referring to Lady Heather :)


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service