Original Sin?

Quote: Dalex64

Putting aside your assumption that the universe is contingent on something else, and the assumption that the something else could have only been an all powerful eternal entity,

It is not an assumption. Material things are contingent in that they don't contain the reason for their existence in themselves. Ask yourself if the universe could not have existed and I think you will see that it is most definitely a contingent reality dependent on something else.

Quote:

I see no logical way to link the all powerful being you think is necessary with any of the gods that anyone has ever believed in, including your own.

I have said as much. Human reason and logic can get us only to the point where we realize that there must be some all-powerful, eternal, non-contingent, being/entity/force/God.

Quote:

Skipping to the conclusion here because of too many words, summary is "everyone claims everybody else is wrong"

The inescapable conclusion that I reach is all religions were created solely by people with no "divine inspiration" whatsoever.

This is just as Evenbob would say is the starting point. If you are content to just remain here with an altar to an "unknown God" or some type of Deist philosophy that is up to you. I would say though that the next and much more difficult step is to examine the different claims of religions to see if any are historically verifiable, philosophically consistent, and beneficial to the understanding of who humanity is and what our purpose is. This is hard work and it means making a claim of truth based on faith. it is to say that while other religions and 99% of humanity rightly realizes there is some "higher power" the essence or nature of this God is such. The other religions are wrong because of this reason or that.

Quote: FrGamble

examine the different claims of religions to see if any are historically verifiable, philosophically consistent, and beneficial to the understanding of who humanity is and what our purpose is.

This was Joseph Campbell's life's work, he
taught classes on it at Sarah Lawrence for
40 years. He concluded there is no god,
no evidence of a god.

No religion is historically verifiable, how
silly. Religion is never based on facts, it's
based on emotion and philosophical ideas.

This appears at the end of Power of Myth,
by Campbell. He tell's the story of meeting
a Catholic bishop:

Priest: “Are you a priest?”
Campbell: “No, Father.”
Priest: “Are you a Catholic?”
Campbell: “I was.”
Priest: “Do you believe in a personal god?”
Campbell: “No, Father.”

"The fact that a Catholic Father asked, “Do you believe in a personal god?” meant to me that he also recognized the possibility of an impersonal god, namely, a transcendent ground or energy in itself. The idea of Buddha consciousness is of an immanent, luminous consciousness that informs all things and all lives. We unthinkingly live by fragments of that consciousness, fragments of that energy. But the religious way of life is to live not in terms of the self-interested intentions of this particular body at this particular time but in terms of the insight of that larger consciousness."

Religious types interpret the larger universal
consciousness to be a god, when it is most
certainly not. The larger consciousness has
always been and always will be, and we're part
of it and it's part of us. We love to make up
games, like personal gods that care about us,
it makes us feel important. Our self centered
natures make us only see the trees and not
the forest.

Quote: FrGamble

It is not an assumption. Material things are contingent in that they don't contain the reason for their existence in themselves. Ask yourself if the universe could not have existed and I think you will see that it is most definitely a contingent reality dependent on something else.

"Material things are contingent" is an assumption.

The cause of material things in this reality is unknown.

The biggest flaw, though, is coming up with an impossible explaination and claiming that it must be true.

Quote:

This is just as Evenbob would say is the starting point. If you are content to just remain here with an altar to an "unknown God" or some type of Deist philosophy that is up to you. I would say though that the next and much more difficult step is to examine the different claims of religions to see if any are historically verifiable, philosophically consistent, and beneficial to the understanding of who humanity is and what our purpose is. This is hard work and it means making a claim of truth based on faith. it is to say that while other religions and 99% of humanity rightly realizes there is some "higher power" the essence or nature of this God is such. The other religions are wrong because of this reason or that.

I have posted numerous articles pointing out what is or is not historically verifiable, and posted many things about the philosophical inconsistencies.

Benefits to understanding ourselves, and the number of people who believe in a higher power are irrelevant in determining the actual factual truth. You again trot out the same logical fallacies.

Quote: FrGamble

The Universe.

You know, if you sent me the proof for that, I could write it up, ship it to Stockholm, and get us a Nobel Prize in Physics.

How about it? we'd split it 90-10. I get 90% you get 10%. After all, you don't think much of money.

Quote: Dalex64

"Material things are contingent" is an assumption.

Not according to the definition of contingency. Material things did not create themselves and they depend on other things to make up their existence. This is not an assumption.

Quote:

The biggest flaw, though, is coming up with an impossible explaination and claiming that it must be true.

You are assuming that it is an impossible explanation because you can't grasp that it is the only explanation. Try to come up with another explanation for the existence of contingent material things and you will quickly discover through the process of elimination that the only explanation is the one human beings have know since the very beginning.

Quote:

I have posted numerous articles pointing out what is or is not historically verifiable, and posted many things about the philosophical inconsistencies.

None of which proves or means that my religion is wrong or false. You are proposing here a logical fallacy. Because some part is not verifiable or incorrect the whole system must be wrong.

Quote:

Benefits to understanding ourselves, and the number of people who believe in a higher power are irrelevant in determining the actual factual truth. You again trot out the same logical fallacies.

What is crazy is that you would think these things irrelevant?!? As I've said ad nauseum they do not prove it is true but only form evidence that is relevant to an honest search for truth and another reason, weak or strong as it may be, why it is reasonable to make a judgement for belief. Need I again point out that atheism has zero weak or strong relevant or reasonable ideas to support it.

Quote: FrGamble

Not according to the definition of contingency.

You do know a definition is not proof.

Quote:

Material things did not create themselves and they depend on other things to make up their existence. This is not an assumption.

You're right it's not an assumption, it's two assumptions: 1) matter needs a creator, 2) matter cannot create itself.

I could pile on a third one: 3) the creator has to be conscious, split into three parts that are/are not the same person, and it has to reflect the sensibilities, prejudices and mores of pre-iron age desert primitives.

Quote: Nareed

You're right it's not an assumption, it's two assumptions: 1) matter needs a creator, 2) matter cannot create itself.

Neither of these are assumptions, they are fact. Logical and observable realities.

Quote:

I could pile on a third one: 3) the creator has to be conscious, split into three parts that are/are not the same person, and it has to reflect the sensibilities, prejudices and mores of pre-iron age desert primitives.

This is not an assumption either. This is a reasonable belief based on many types of evidence.

Quote: FrGamble

Neither of these are assumptions, they are fact.

Stephen Hawking disagrees:

The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.

Quote: FrGamble

Neither of these are assumptions, they are fact. Logical and observable realities.

Fine. Show me your proof and we'll submit it to the Nobel Committee. It has to be worth a Prize in something. I think it's worth a bit over a million USD by now. Think what you could do with 9% of it!

Quote:

This is not an assumption either. This is a reasonable belief based on many types of evidence.

What's reasonable about an all-powerful deity stuck with prejudices from 2,500 years ago?

Quote: Evenbob

Stephen Hawking disagrees:

The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.

Stephen Hawking doesn't understand the nature of an eternal non-contingent being without a beginning or end. God is outside of time.