Devise a double blind experiment to prove that a God exists that can be duplicated then another that proves whatever qualities it has and I might believe.
Until that happens I contend there is no God a supreme being or creator of the universe and a set of qualities that we must follow.
We are a subset of the great apes and react in much the same ways. Omnivores who fight and kill for territory and who have a passion for power. The president of the United States is the alpha male in our culture or society and he gets there by showing his noise making is greater than any other.
You can argue against comparing homo sapiens with other great apes but what is is.
Yes, humans are not so great apes. Meanwhile if a period isn't a divinity, what about a colon? Would a semi-colon be a demi-god? ;-)
silly human....god does not quarry with our little experiments.....why he made vaginas small and tight and the universe vast and large...so.....that proves god is real.....yeah....it is indeed that simple for some.
Meh.
I can already hear the refutations of that. First among them, "God has nothing to prove to you!"
Quote from: widdershins on February 02, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
I can already hear the refutations of that. First among them, "God has nothing to prove to you!"
From my observations, this is obvious.
Therefore, he must exist? :confused3:
I agree with you sir but I just require evidence. Any solid evidence will do. Using the scientific method of course.
Seems this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnijust, omniscient, omnipric still hasn't gotten around to proving it's existence. For such a smart individual a shitty book dictated to desert goatherders was his best idea yet. What a gem.
Quote from: baddogma on February 02, 2017, 05:37:30 PM
What a gem.
(http://ubdavid.org/youth-world/countryheaven/graphics/4_gem.jpg)
You mean the Quran of course? It comes with its own hot sand ;-)
Quote from: Ro3bert on February 01, 2017, 08:35:37 PM
Devise a double blind experiment to prove that a God exists that can be duplicated then another that proves whatever qualities it has and I might believe.
Until that happens I contend there is no God a supreme being or creator of the universe and a set of qualities that we must follow.
We are a subset of the great apes and react in much the same ways. Omnivores who fight and kill for territory and who have a passion for power. The president of the United States is the alpha male in our culture or society and he gets there by showing his noise making is greater than any other.
You can argue against comparing homo sapiens with other great apes but what is is.
I'm just curious if you demand a double blind test for everything you have come to believe is true? Like the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 02, 2017, 11:30:37 PM
I'm just curious if you demand a double blind test for everything you have come to believe is true? Like the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces?
That's not a belief. That is the default position. Everything we can observe is explained by naturalistic forces. Your god, though, has yet to have been proven to have any impact on our universe at all.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I might not question it if you were to say a man shot an arrow into a target in the midst of dense fog.
If you were to say that a man shot an arrow around the world, the arrow stopped in midair, did a 90 degree turn, and pierced every tree for a mile, ending in a massive fireball, I'm likely to give that claim a little extra scrutiny.
(https://fenomenologiadelcattivo.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/yondu-i-guardiani-della-galassia.jpg)
But but ... in a recently posted (in this forum) Road Runner cartoon, a lightning bolt thrown by the Coyote, did something just like that, I saw it with my own eyes! ;-)
Proof? Science? Since when have we ever relied on these things in this life? The only thing we now need are 'alternative facts' as dictated by our beloved dicktaster in chief..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 03, 2017, 12:17:23 PM
Proof? Science? Since when have we ever relied on these things in this life? The only thing we now need are 'alternative facts' as dictated by our beloved dicktaster in chief..
You mean Lord Dampnut?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClwaBLYUoAAR08v.jpg)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 02, 2017, 11:30:37 PM
I'm just curious if you demand a double blind test for everything you have come to believe is true? Like the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces?
I think it's just for the claims regarding something they say created
THE WHOLE FUCKING UNIVERSE.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 02, 2017, 11:30:37 PM
I'm just curious if you demand a double blind test for everything you have come to believe is true? Like the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces?
No just proof of Gods existence.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 02, 2017, 11:42:00 PM
That's not a belief. That is the default position. Everything we can observe is explained by naturalistic forces. Your god, though, has yet to have been proven to have any impact on our universe at all.
We do observe naturalistic forces. We have yet to observe is what caused naturalistic forces to exist and that's the question at hand. What is the naturalistic explanation that explains how naturalistic forces came into existence?
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 08:41:09 PM
Yes, humans are not so great apes. Meanwhile if a period isn't a divinity, what about a colon? Would a semi-colon be a demi-god? ;-)
No one uses semi-colons; there is no point to them.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:56:28 PM
No one uses semi-colons; there is no point to them.
Two points actually, a period and a coma. Only women worry about the first, the second is a problem for anyone ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 01:45:14 PM
What is the naturalistic explanation that explains how naturalistic forces came into existence?
Turtles....turtles all the way down.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 01:45:14 PM
We do observe naturalistic forces. We have yet to observe is what caused naturalistic forces to exist and that's the question at hand. What is the naturalistic explanation that explains how naturalistic forces came into existence?
Why should we assume that naturalistic forces did not always exist? You're relying on assumptions.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 05, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
Why should we assume that naturalistic forces did not always exist? You're relying on assumptions.
Two main reasons. Big bang theory is still the prevailing theory of how the universe (as we now know it) came into existence. According to that theory the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite mass contained in a single point which would be nothing like the naturalistic forces we know of. The second reason depends on if you believe time always existed without beginning as part of naturalistic forces. If it did, we'd never cross an infinity to get to this time. If you believe time didn't always exist that would be a nature we have no familiarity with.
What's interesting to note is you attempt to get around the inherent weakness of naturalistic forces by imbuing them with supernatural attributes such as always having existed. That is a divine attribute isn't it?
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:03:49 PM
Turtles....turtles all the way down.
Sounds more like a declaration of faith. Anything known facts to back up that belief?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:36:24 PM
If you believe time didn't always exist that would be a nature we have no familiarity with. What's interesting to note is you attempt to get around the inherent weakness of naturalistic forces by imbuing them with supernatural attributes such as always having existed. That is a divine attribute isn't it?
I would disagree. Why is it a divine attribute?
To argue that time, infinity, or beginning is a divine attribute is convenient if one feels compelled to explain time or the absence of time, but explaining that which we don't understand is intellectually futile and intellectually dishonest.
Naturalistic forces may or may not have a weakness. A weakness as you describe it is little more that not being able to understand something, and it is not an inherent property of the force itself. This is due to our ignorance. There is no reason to believe that what we don't understand must be a divine attribute. All that we can say is that we don't understand. Any assumptions we can make are speculative, including speculations about divine attributes.
^^^What he said. So-called "divine attributes" aren't all that uncommon. Just look at any old white man, and you see a living divine attribute.
(http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/recently-added/july2008/big/Savaoph-God-the-Father-1885-96-XX-Victor-Mikhailovich-Vasnetsov.JPG)
There's nothing divine about the sideways eight. Besides, if the universe did have a beginning (and it appears it did), then the natural forces are not eternal anyway. They've always been because they were there from the start. History is likely finite.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:56:28 PM
No one uses semi-colons; there is no point to them.
It's a good thing too. Otherwise your gutts would be full of poop.
Quote from: fencerider on February 06, 2017, 11:26:00 PM
It's a good thing too. Otherwise your gutts would be full of poop.
But ...
=0 ... punctuation for colostomy bag ;-(
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:36:24 PM
Two main reasons. Big bang theory is still the prevailing theory of how the universe (as we now know it) came into existence. According to that theory the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite mass contained in a single point which would be nothing like the naturalistic forces we know of. The second reason depends on if you believe time always existed without beginning as part of naturalistic forces. If it did, we'd never cross an infinity to get to this time. If you believe time didn't always exist that would be a nature we have no familiarity with.
What's interesting to note is you attempt to get around the inherent weakness of naturalistic forces by imbuing them with supernatural attributes such as always having existed. That is a divine attribute isn't it?
I have heard this statement before, always spoken by someone who has no idea how ignorant it is, nor how at odds with their own beliefs it is.
First, the physical problem with it. If time were infinite, always having existed, always going to exist, and you say that, with infinite time before this point it is impossible to reach this point you are essentially saying that if time is infinite, nothing can ever happen. That's just stupid. With an infinity of time there is an infinity of time for things to happen in.
Second it begs the question, if God is infinite then how did he cross an infinity to get to the point of our creation?
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 06, 2017, 08:18:04 PM
^^^What he said. So-called "divine attributes" aren't all that uncommon. Just look at any old white man, and you see a living divine attribute.
(http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/recently-added/july2008/big/Savaoph-God-the-Father-1885-96-XX-Victor-Mikhailovich-Vasnetsov.JPG)
There's nothing divine about the sideways eight. Besides, if the universe did have a beginning (and it appears it did), then the natural forces are not eternal anyway. They've always been because they were there from the start. History is likely finite.
You and SGOS nailed it! And I'd add that just because this universe had a beginning does not have to mean the system that bore our universe is not infinite. If blackholes of another universe gave birth to this universe, then this universe most likely will give birth to another or others. This one is simply part of a system--or could be. And 'I don't know' does not ever equate to goddidit.
Humans in general, even mathematicians, have a hard time dealing with infinity. I find no empirical evidence that time is infinite in duration, in either direction. Go back in time and see ... or wait around long enough and see ... then lets talk ;-)
QuoteI would disagree. Why is it a divine attribute?
Divine or supernatural attributes are characteristics such as transcendence to the laws of physics and having always existed outside of time and so forth. Ascribing such characteristics to natural forces just redefines naturalism to mean anything.
Quote
To argue that time, infinity, or beginning is a divine attribute is convenient if one feels compelled to explain time or the absence of time, but explaining that which we don't understand is intellectually futile and intellectually dishonest.
Its intellectually dishonest to say its turtles (naturalistic forces) all the way down if its not known its true or even possible and offer no evidence in support of the claim. Remember the title of this thread is 'There is no God PERIOD'. That doesn't sound like someone uncertain of their claim.
QuoteNaturalistic forces may or may not have a weakness. A weakness as you describe it is little more that not being able to understand something, and it is not an inherent property of the force itself. This is due to our ignorance. There is no reason to believe that what we don't understand must be a divine attribute. All that we can say is that we don't understand. Any assumptions we can make are speculative, including speculations about divine attributes.
We do understand we live in a material time dependent universe that began to exist. We are familiar with the laws of physics in great depth. The theory among naturalists is that this is all there is was and ever will be but the laws of physics and naturalism we are familiar with doesn't account for its own existence. One theory is that the universe came into existence un-caused out of nothing a super natural magic act at best. The other is much like belief in God that was never created and always existed that naturalistic forces existed without beginning. Time however had to have a beginning, if it didn't we'd have to cross an infinitude of time to arrive at today's date.
QuoteFirst, the physical problem with it. If time were infinite, always having existed, always going to exist, and you say that, with infinite time before this point it is impossible to reach this point you are essentially saying that if time is infinite, nothing can ever happen. That's just stupid. With an infinity of time there is an infinity of time for things to happen in.
Second it begs the question, if God is infinite then how did he cross an infinity to get to the point of our creation?
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction. You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity. The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Any thing out side of time and physics doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I could claim anything out side of time and space and you couldn't prove me wrong. Supernatural just another word for magic. Natural explanations are the only explanations I accept. Anything else is tomfoolery.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction. You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity. The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Time isn't as linear as that. In space things are a bit more fluid. Time could be a circle. Or something that we can't even perceive with our minds just yet.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2017, 12:07:30 AM
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I might not question it if you were to say a man shot an arrow into a target in the midst of dense fog.
If you were to say that a man shot an arrow around the world, the arrow stopped in midair, did a 90 degree turn, and pierced every tree for a mile, ending in a massive fireball, I'm likely to give that claim a little extra scrutiny.
(https://fenomenologiadelcattivo.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/yondu-i-guardiani-della-galassia.jpg)
I wish people would stop saying that! Not extraordinary evidence just plain old regular evidence would work for me. But they can't even produce that.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction. You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity. The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Hold on a sec. First you claim that infinity is a divine attribute, then you say that God isn't infinite? Which is it? Is infinite a divine characteristic or not? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:16:11 PM
Time however had to have a beginning, if it didn't we'd have to cross an infinitude of time to arrive at today's date.
Sorry but our calendar has an arbitrary start date, with no connection to the actual start of universal time.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction. You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity. The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
For a materialist, there is nothing transcendent ... everything is immanent. Also you are engaged in the same kind of arguments about infinity, that Zeno of Elea tackled 2500 years ago.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 01:45:14 PM
We do observe naturalistic forces. We have yet to observe is what caused naturalistic forces to exist and that's the question at hand. What is the naturalistic explanation that explains how naturalistic forces came into existence?
1+1=2
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction. You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity. The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
"Always" is a semantic problem. Time "always" existed, because the word "always" necessitates time. There was no "before" time because that word indicates time as well. Time started when the "material" universe started. It may be infinite going forward, but not going back.
QuoteI don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
If God is only a transcendent designer, then how did he come to be?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I know its hard to imagine because our minds are more finite oriented. Try to imagine being inside a tube that extends from infinity back to infinity end. No amount of travel would get you closer to either end because there is no end in either direction.
Yeah, I get that. If you are trying to travel to the
ends, there aren't any.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
You wouldn't have a beginning to start at to get closer to any point down the pike. To get to any point down the pike you would have to cross an infinity.
This is where you go off track. You said to "imagine being inside a tube". I'm there. I see a point three inches away. I have to cross an infinity when I only want to go three inches? No, I have to cross three inches. It is not an infinity
to any point, it's an infinity in both directions. That doesn't mean I can't travel up and down the tube, measure my travel, piss in a spot, travel away and get back to the puddle. You are saying that because the tube extends for infinity in either direction the tube must be completely empty because, extending for an infinity, you can't imagine how you would arbitrarily pick a point in that tube. That's just not true.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
The problem is with the concept of time always having existed. For us to arrive at the time we are now, it had to have a beginning. If you still disagree I hope one of the resident atheists will stand up and admit they know what I'm speaking of.
That's a dick move. "If you don't agree with me then, because I'm right, perhaps someone not quite as smart as me, but still much smarter than you can explain it to you." Prove you're right and you can talk to me like that.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:26:42 PM
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Yes, I am aware your type describes God as being whatever is convenient for the particular day or conversation. I describe your description of God as being an irrelevant choice of words chosen, not for their accuracy at describing your deity, but for maximum undisprovableness.
Back to the conversation of infinite time, if you imagine it correctly you can break it down to a dichotomy without it being a false dichotomy. Either the universe has existed in some state for an infinity of time or it has not. If it has, time is infinite and there is not necessarily anything "outside of" our universe. I don't tend to think that is true and our current scientific understanding backs that.
If it is not true then, if our universe has not existed for an infinity of time in some state, then I don't
know. I can make claims that sound good. I can back them with scientific theory. But the truth is I don't know and I can't know because I cannot see outside of our universe, or detect it in any way. I would assume that it means something exists besides our known universe. That makes logical sense, within the rules of our universe. But that's where we run into a problem. Something outside of our universe would not be "within the rules of our universe". It is entirely possible that this "thing" actually has the same rules as our universe, that there are no rules of our universe, just bleed-through from the rules this "thing" has. It is possible that it has nothing whatsoever in our universe, the our universe the equivalent of a fleck of crud which broke off, utterly unlike the whole it departed from. It is possible there are many universes which actually make up this "thing", like cells in a body. All of this is speculation. In the end, what I
think is irrelevant. It won't ever change what
is. So it's only what I can prove which I can claim to have true knowledge of.
And that's where your problem lies. You're confusing what you "think" with what you "know". You believe your thought process to be infallible. You believe logical deduction can prove abstract thought about things we cannot gather evidence for. The reality is, if you can't physical gather data, you're just having a guess.
Quote from: doorknob on February 07, 2017, 11:28:34 PM
Any thing out side of time and physics doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I could claim anything out side of time and space and you couldn't prove me wrong. Supernatural just another word for magic. Natural explanations are the only explanations I accept. Anything else is tomfoolery.
What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for how the universe came into existence and what evidence do you offer in support of that explanation? By saying you won't accept anything but naturalistic explanations just says that your mind is closed on this matter.
Quote from: fencerider on February 06, 2017, 11:26:00 PM
It's a good thing too. Otherwise your gutts would be full of poop.
With a semi-colon, they're only half full.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 08, 2017, 05:56:42 AM
1+1=2
Another kibitz from Pythagoras, the ancient Greek hippie leader ...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:22:51 AM
What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for how the universe came into existence and what evidence do you offer in support of that explanation? By saying you won't accept anything but naturalistic explanations just says that your mind is closed on this matter.
Even a finite universe doesn't need anything outside itself to cause it. Outside of the universe, there is no time or space. In the outer world the universe is a point, and it never changes, from that perspective. Without temporal time, any notion of cause/effect is meaningless. What is outside the universe may be a-temporal aka eternal ... but then there is no cause/effect to reference to.
Now if you want to speak of atemporal logic, then that is the same as regular propositional logic (not predicate logic, where you have quantification aka All Of, Some Of, None Of). Of course this predicate logic might not be two valued, the law of excluded middle might not apply.
Resisting the urge to start a thread: There is no God FULL STOP.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 08, 2017, 03:04:06 PM
Resisting the urge to start a thread: There is no God FULL STOP.
Stop resisting.
Resistance is futile.
-The Borg
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:22:51 AM
What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for how the universe came into existence and what evidence do you offer in support of that explanation? By saying you won't accept anything but naturalistic explanations just says that your mind is closed on this matter.
god of the gaps. Just because I don't know doesn't mean you get to say god did it. My mind is closed? That's a hoot! How bout your mind is so open your brains fell right out onto the pavement.
I can't prove my mind is open to you. You can't see inside my head or know my thought processes with out asking me any more than I can say that you're mind is closed on this matter.
the most valuable and telling answer to this question will see where your mind set is.
"What would it take to make you believe there is no god?"
Quote from: SGOS on February 08, 2017, 05:01:46 PM
Resistance is futile.
-The Borg
Resistance is feral.
Resistance is necessary...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:16:11 PMRemember the title of this thread is 'There is no God PERIOD'. That doesn't sound like someone uncertain of their claim.
And judging by another thread's title here, we wish mass suicide upon all Christians too.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/c6YhpGxZH9hjq/giphy.gif)
You're the one claiming that the thing that caused the universe was intelligent and had a personality. It's much more likely that any "creator" was unintelligent, and just another natural system doing its thing. Unless you can solve the mind/body problem that has plagued theists for centuries, an intelligent being without a brain or physical body has never been demonstrated before, and likely does not exist.
The most likely reality is that there are an infinite number of universes, covering every possibility. We just so happen to live within one of an infinite number of life-supporting universes. An intelligent creator is not necessary to explain the universe or life. If anything, it just adds unnecessary complications.
Multiple universe theory and pre-Big Bang theory are untestable. These ideas came about, because Feynman is right, that anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics, doesn't. Also theories about what will happen a million or more years from now are untestable. If it is untestable, like theology, then it isn't science. But in spite of those limitations, there is still plenty of science to do.
To widdershins
QuoteThis is where you go off track. You said to "imagine being inside a tube". I'm there. I see a point three inches away. I have to cross an infinity when I only want to go three inches? No, I have to cross three inches. It is not an infinity to any point, it's an infinity in both directions. That doesn't mean I can't travel up and down the tube, measure my travel, piss in a spot, travel away and get back to the puddle. You are saying that because the tube extends for infinity in either direction the tube must be completely empty because, extending for an infinity, you can't imagine how you would arbitrarily pick a point in that tube. That's just not true.
I'm just not explaining it very well and I'm not talking about a point 3 inches away, I'm talking about arriving at this time in history. Most scientists believe the universe and time began about 13.5 billion years ago. Long time but wait long enough and 13.5 billion years will pass. What if it was 100 billion years ago...no problem wait a 100 billion years ago and here we are again writing to each other in the year 2017. What it if the universe began an infinitude ago? Notice I'm using the word began which doesn't really apply. If it 'began' an infinitude ago it would take an infinitude of time to reach this time in history. We would wait forever...
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe. Quote
Yes, I am aware your type describes God as being whatever is convenient for the particular day or conversation. I describe your description of God as being an irrelevant choice of words chosen, not for their accuracy at describing your deity, but for maximum undisprovableness.
Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?
Quote from: doorknob on February 08, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
god of the gaps. Just because I don't know doesn't mean you get to say god did it. My mind is closed? That's a hoot! How bout your mind is so open your brains fell right out onto the pavement.
I can't prove my mind is open to you. You can't see inside my head or know my thought processes with out asking me any more than I can say that you're mind is closed on this matter.
the most valuable and telling answer to this question will see where your mind set is.
"What would it take to make you believe there is no god?"
When you make a statement such as...
QuoteAny thing out side of time and physics doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I could claim anything out side of time and space and you couldn't prove me wrong. Supernatural just another word for magic. Natural explanations are the only explanations I accept. Anything else is tomfoolery.
That isn't I don't know statement it means you have concluded that only naturalistic explanations can explain anything and any other type of explanation is trickery. That is a knowledge claim.
I don't rely on a 'God of the gaps argument' I believe in the existence of God due to known existing irrefutable facts...
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
I would believe God didn't cause the universe and subsequently our existence if there was evidence that mindless naturalistic forces somehow came into without plan, intent or an engineering degree and caused a universe that produced something completely unlike itself to exist: Life and mind.
This one is already repeating his material.
"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"
I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro). And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either. You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition). To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)
Quote from: sdelsolray on February 09, 2017, 11:13:24 AM
This one is already repeating his material.
It was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 01:25:46 PMIt was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/j0a8Kr0uDKQec/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2017, 12:54:36 PM
"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"
I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro). And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either. You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition). To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)
Not according to definitions I have seen...
the state of excelling or surpassing or going beyond usual limits
a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experienceI would say humans are transcendent to the animal kingdom. As sentient beings capable of making autonomous decisions we are also transcendent to the naturalistic mechanistic forces that are alleged to have caused the universe sentient beings to exist.
Granted the hardware and software used to create virtual universes are themselves subject to the laws of physics. The virtual universes themselves are subject to the human gods that caused them to exist and dictate the laws of physics within those universes. I think that qualifies for transcendence...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
To widdershins
I'm just not explaining it very well and I'm not talking about a point 3 inches away, I'm talking about arriving at this time in history. Most scientists believe the universe and time began about 13.5 billion years ago. Long time but wait long enough and 13.5 billion years will pass. What if it was 100 billion years ago...no problem wait a 100 billion years ago and here we are again writing to each other in the year 2017. What it if the universe began an infinitude ago? Notice I'm using the word began which doesn't really apply. If it 'began' an infinitude ago it would take an infinitude of time to reach this time in history. We would wait forever...
Again, yes, I fully understand what you are saying. The problem with that way of thinking is that if it were true, NOTHING could EVER happen. There would be no events ever because you would have to wait an infinity of time to get to the point where they happened. But also EVERYTHING would have happened. With an infinity of time the chances become infinitely small that a given thing won't happen.
The problem is you're just saying, "This is the way it is" without giving any mechanism which would actually prevent anything from ever happening. I understand that there would be an infinity of time before this and an infinity of time after this. So yes, if you smoke a little weed and mull it over with your friends your idea does
sound very clever. But if it were true then an infinitely large amount of time would be functionally equivalent to an infinitely small amount of time in that nothing could ever happen. In an infinitely small amount of time, that makes sense. You are talking about "zero" time, so no time for anything to happen. If you have "14 billion years" of time then you have 14 billion years for things to happen and you get quite a bit more going on. If you have an infinity of time then you get infinitely more things happening. That's kind of how time works. So to say "X could not have happened because you would have to traverse an infinity of time to get to this point", yes, it
sounds smart if you don't give it too much thought, but it's just not.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?
Scientists and gods are dissimilar. Simulations and sentient beings are equally dissimilar. Like your little statement for why an infinity of time is impossible, this is not something you have evidence for. It's just something you got high and came up with one day. Reaching a conclusion because the evidence takes you to that conclusion is respectable. Reaching a conclusion simply because it supports other conclusions you've already reached is not.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 01:25:46 PM
It was suggested I was making a God in the gaps argument which is not true. I make a God of the facts argument.
Just not in any way you can demonstrate, aka "Says you".
Assuming there was an infinite amount of time before now, let's use something simple to represent it. The number 0 is the present. Negative numbers are the past. Positive numbers are the future. Infinity extends in both directions, so how did we get to 0? It doesn't matter. 0 is a fixed point on the infinite line. Infinity doesn't change that the 0 exists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
I don't describe God as infinite, I describe God as transcendent. This would be analogous to a scientist who causes a virtual universe to exist, the scientist is transcendent to the virtual universe.
Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?
No, the scientist is 'not' transcendent to anything that scientist creates. He may create a virtual universe, but that universe is still subject to all the physical laws of our universe. The scientist is not creating anything new, only trying to make as close as possible an exact copy of our universe. There is no such thing as a 'transcendent' creation in this universe--there never has been and there never will be.
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2017, 12:54:36 PM
"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"
I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro). And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either. You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition). To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)
ich kann sie nicht verstehen.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
Not according to definitions I have seen...
the state of excelling or surpassing or going beyond usual limits
a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience
I would say humans are transcendent to the animal kingdom. As sentient beings capable of making autonomous decisions we are also transcendent to the naturalistic mechanistic forces that are alleged to have caused the universe sentient beings to exist.
Granted the hardware and software used to create virtual universes are themselves subject to the laws of physics. The virtual universes themselves are subject to the human gods that caused them to exist and dictate the laws of physics within those universes. I think that qualifies for transcendence...
You are making a play on the ambiguity of English. That is a fallacy in itself. Stick to poetry, you suck at physics ;-) I happen to agree that people are demigods, just not for the reason you list. But you can't make a scientific argument for it ... because it is transcendent, and science is only for immanence, not transcendence.
See, to do a lot of things, you have to have a "human in the loop" somewhere. Sometimes you can substitute other critters, a horse for a rickshaw guy. But all robots are machines. All computers merely execute the algorithms that are input to them (even if there is subsequent runtime input). There is no god in the machine ... it was a god who made the machine, and keeps it working. Bow down and worship your IT staff, puny humans!
AI is always fake ... but the human is better hidden these days ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 09, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
...What it if the universe began an infinitude ago? Notice I'm using the word began which doesn't really apply. If it 'began' an infinitude ago it would take an infinitude of time to reach this time in history. We would wait forever...
You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 09, 2017, 09:35:11 PM
You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.
Hell, I don't even believe time is infinite and I STILL don't believe in his God, so you bring up a very good point.
I've always wondered if Jesus is not God, then why do non-believers go so much out of their way to try and convince others it's not true? If something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences. And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!
You wonder why people would try to tell other people something isn't true if that thing isn't true? That's basically what you're saying here.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PM
I've always wondered if Jesus is not God, then why do non-believers go so much out of their way to try and convince others it's not true? If something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences. And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!
Self-evident? Like that the Bible full of historical errors and contradictions? Like obviously evil nature of God, described by the Bible? You underestimate the power of brainwashing. Surround someone with people who make some ridiculous claim, and they will fight to the death to defend that ridiculous claim.
Jesus' existence is not self-evident. There are absolutely no contemporaries who wrote about him. The best you can provide are the writings of a
Christian who wasn't even born until Jesus supposedly died.
If something is so obvious that it's staring you directly in the face, then your first reaction is to look away. What a strange creature you are.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PM
I've always wondered if Jesus is not God, then why do non-believers go so much out of their way to try and convince others it's not true? If something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences. And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!
Atheists ... and Jews, are not evangelical. We are not interested in what others believe. However, what others believe, does effect society, and government ... (abortion and gay behavior for example). However, there is a different case. In 20th century communist societies, as part of the secular totalitarianism, they were interested in forcing anyone inside their countries, or the whole world, into thinking as they do. This was because of their totalitarianism, not because of their atheism.
Quote from: FinalSomnia on February 10, 2017, 12:29:25 PM
You wonder why people would try to tell other people something isn't true if that thing isn't true? That's basically what you're saying here.
You came here with a small chip on your shoulder ... you are the (ahem) evangelist. Don't project.
Blackleaf,
You should do some deep introspection about why the phrase: "Jesus is God", irks you so much. If Jesus isn't historical, then why does the thought of him make you so hysterical?
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:35:38 PM
If something is so obvious that it's staring you directly in the face, then your first reaction is to look away. What a strange creature you are.
Sounds like the reaction of a theist when faced with the evidence that Jesus likely never existed.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:35:38 PM
If something is so obvious that it's staring you directly in the face, then your first reaction is to look away. What a strange creature you are.
Blacklead probably has many more years at the religion question than you do ;-)
For me, theism is obvious. But then I am a Jewish mystic. I experience G-d all the time, just not in a way that you might think. So G-d for me, is as obvious as my right hand ... that all humans are "images of G-d" aka demigods. But I can't prove that, proof isn't the right approach. So when atheists demand proof ... you are basically stepping into their ambush.
I have known Blackleaf now for 20 months ... you have known him for only 5 minutes. Check your ego first ;-)
Baruch,
If Blackleaf has many more years at the religious question than I do, then does that make him more accountable if I'm right and he's wrong. Your reasoning is ridiculous and not logical at all.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:42:46 PM
Blackleaf,
You should do some deep introspection about why the phrase: "Jesus is God", irks you so much. If Jesus isn't historical, then why does the thought of him make you so hysterical?
You think you have me pegged, don't you? You are so incredibly wrong, and you came to your "conclusion" so quickly, it's laughable. You change the subject to avoid discussing things that are inconvenient for you to think about. You make blanket statements about people you don't know. You're nothing but a fly; a minor annoyance.
I was a Christian for 25 years of my life, and was fully devoted to my faith from age 18-25. I was leader of the tech group in the youth service, I was a singer in the band, I volunteered for vacation Bible school, I led Bible studies and wrote skits for others to perform, I participated in more outreach events than I could count. I'm willing to bet all you've done for your faith is pester atheists on the internet, and you're not even very good at that.
Blackleaf,
If you claim to have been a Christian (believing that Jesus is God!) for 25 years of your life, then you are definitely accountable for your backsliding! Not to mention, you are also accountable for all those you drag down with you!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:50:09 PM
Baruch,
If Blackleaf has many more years at the religious question than I do, then does that make him more accountable if I'm right and he's wrong. Your reasoning is ridiculous and not logical at all.
You are speaking of accountable as in afterlife theology? Why do you judge anyone, if you are a Christian? You should keep introspection to yourself, to your own prayer life. I recommend a good prayer life (I am a theist). First of all, like most people, you misunderstand what reasoning and logic are .. please go learn. The atheists here would agree that I am ridiculous ... but that is part of my charm, why they keep me as a pet theist ... bark, bark ...
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:56:30 PM
Blackleaf,
If you claim to have been a Christian (believing that Jesus is God!) for 25 years of your life, then you are definitely accountable for your backsliding! Not to mention, you are also accountable for all those you drag down with you!
(http://p.fod4.com/p/media/877ebc4f55/lHXWok2MQk66MDCPdFCM_Whose%20Line%20Is%20It.gif)
Typical reaction from a person in denial.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Typical reaction from a person in denial.
Typical reaction of a reactionary. If the kitchen is too hot, time to get out. But being me, I would say, being a Christian is OK, provided you continue to become a better Christian (channeling Gandhi).
Baruch,
You have no logical inclinations; Try harder.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Typical reaction from a person in denial.
You bore me. Go back to failing your philosophy class.
Blackleaf,
Go back to your backsliding. Your time is limited and you still have a long way to go!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 01:10:18 PM
Blackleaf,
Go back to your backsliding. Your time is limited and you still have a long way to go!
(http://i.imgur.com/A56GCtS.gif)
Blackleaf,
You're not a baby Christian anymore, so you have no excuse for acting childish. Actually, you have no excuse for anything anymore!
I was expecting some logical thinkers on this site, but all I've seen this far is God-haters. Hope that changes.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 01:19:06 PM
Blackleaf,
You're not a baby Christian anymore, so you have no excuse for acting childish. Actually, you have no excuse for anything anymore!
When you start saying intelligent things, I'll respond in kind. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not wasting my brain cells on someone with the intellectual capacity of a goldfish with Alzheimer's.
Blackleaf,
I'm willing to bet you think the same exact thing about God. The most interesting thing, however, is that God lets you do it!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PM
And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!
Wow. And I thought
I was a defeatist. :D
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PMIf something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences.
Yeah, right. Self-delusion rules in the religious world.
Nematode,
You thought, therefore you are!
Gawdzilla,
Try making that into a tautology so it has thoughtful meaning or insight, such as: If someone is right, then they may be delusional, but if someone is wrong, then they are not delusional. Nope, not good logic at all.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 01:54:47 PM
Nematode,
You thought, therefore you are!
Thinking is easy and cheap.
I prefer: I do, therefore I am ;)
Mr. Obvious,
You got it! God has it designed to make us toil (doing "things") in the context of our own free-will so we can know whether we are accomplishing whatever God intends us to accomplish. Otherwise, our choice to love God or to hate God would be meaningless because we would have no actions to be judged on, if in fact, we will be eventually judged. Good insight.
I love it when idiotic, brainwashed Christians incapable of logical thinking come here and treat us like we're the idiotic, brainwashed people who can't think for ourselves. It's like arguing with children.
Believing in God is difficult, but wanting to believe in God makes it easier, while not wanting to believe in God makes it impossible. Simple, huh?
Blackleaf,
Where does idiocy or brainwashing play any part in my last statement? Slip-sliding away?
If a born-again Christian backslides, was he/she really born-again in the first place? Yes, but they were not actually "saved". So what does being born-again mean? Being a born-again Christian implies you've had an experience, which was wrought and designed by the Holy Spirit, that overwhelms you and compels you to decide whether or not Jesus is God. It's a very personal experience where evidence from both sides is presented, and how you decide determines if you are "saved" or not. Simple, huh?
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:45:32 PM
If a born-again Christian backslides, was he/she really born-again in the first place? Yes, but they were not actually "saved". So what does being born-again mean? Being a born-again Christian implies you've had an experience, which was wrought and designed by the Holy Spirit, that overwhelms you and compels you to decide whether or not Jesus is God. It's a very personal experience where evidence from both sides is presented, and how you decide determines if you are "saved" or not. Simple, huh?
Yes. Simple. And that is precisely the problem. People are not simple. The Bible says that faith is proven by works, and my works were plenty. I was more of a born-again Christian than you ever will be, but my personal experiences forced me to see the truth. You're nothing but a brainwashed sheep, too stupid to see outside your own bubble.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2017, 12:41:17 PM
You came here with a small chip on your shoulder ... you are the (ahem) evangelist. Don't project.
I'm a long time member of this forum and not an evangelist at all. I think you might have misquoted.
Blackleaf,
Ask yourself at what point you turned from a sheep into a wolf. That's a personal question only you can honestly answer. Perhaps God is waiting for your answer too. As for myself, I pray that I can keep the mentality of a lowly sheep, because my tendencies compel me to be a wolf, even though I know better.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:26:02 PM
I've always wondered if Jesus is not God, then why do non-believers go so much out of their way to try and convince others it's not true? If something is "truly" false, then any human would know it to be self-evident through their own experiences. And trying to compel others to believe something contrary to what God may have instilled in them to believe (which is a very private experience!) is a losing battle!
I've wondered if jesus was real--and if god is real. As it turns out, neither is real. Or put another way, both are fictions developed by men to fool others into giving them money, and power. Is that plain enough for you?
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:01:56 PM
Gawdzilla,
Try making that into a tautology so it has thoughtful meaning or insight, such as: If someone is right, then they may be delusional, but if someone is wrong, then they are not delusional. Nope, not good logic at all.
It's good as it stands. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.
Oh, wait, God doesn't like it, so it's wrong! Funny how God hates the same things you do.
Mike,
I'm trying to logically derive insight from what you wrote, but are you implying you don't believe in Jesus or God because other people already have or receive more money and power than you? The only thing that proves is that you care more about yourself than others. How about concentrating more on all the good things God has freely bestowed on you through grace alone, and of which you surely don't deserve. None of us deserve anything good; Everything we have is a free gift that we either appreciate or greedily desire for more.
Gawdzilla (love the name!),
You're like a lot of people I know who think everything is about them; It's not all about you. This world and everything in it is the sum-total of everything God is currently doing to bring rationally-thinking people to Him. But don't ever assume that just because you think your thinking rationally (which you may or may not be!) that you won't be judged. If you have the ability to rationally ponder God, then you are accountable no matter how much you don't want it to be true.
Belief in God is the most personal thing you can ever try to explain, but God commands and appreciates that you try. Lack of belief in God usually is more public in nature that for some reason must be communicated, but God tolerates and forgives people who try.
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2017, 12:54:36 PM
"Is a scientist who creates a virtual universe transcendent to that universe or do I just call her transcendent for disprovable sake?"
I already gave an example of transcendent elsewhere (see Intro). And I didn't mean transcendental numbers either. You are using a theology word to define something scientific ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
When I write software and execute it ... I am not transcending it ... the software and I are in the same universe (by definition). To transcend means to be outside the universe ... where there is no time, no space and no cause/effect (which are properties of this universe, not attributes more general than the universe)
The phrase "outside the universe" is nonsensical if there
is no outside the universe, as seems to be the case as nearly as we can measure it so far. The precision of the Planck measurements of the flatness of the universe aren't
perfectly precise, but it's like perfectly flat. If so, it's infinite in spatial extent, and so can have no "outside."
Just because two English words can be shoved together in the same sentence doesn't mean they make any sense together in the same sentence.
But
The Princess Bride rocks!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:56:30 PM
Blackleaf,
If you claim to have been a Christian (believing that Jesus is God!) for 25 years of your life, then you are definitely accountable for your backsliding! Not to mention, you are also accountable for all those you drag down with you!
Oh no, Blackleaf! You better watch out or you'll get thrown into...some...worse Hell? I guess I'm not really getting the point here. If Hell is as bad as it gets and we're already going to Hell, what the fuck do we care what we're "accountable" for? Whether I'm simply an unbeliever who keeps his mouth shut, an unbeliever who takes a thousand people with me or fucking Hitler, it's the same place, so...who fucking cares what I'm accountable for? One thing or a trillion, it's all the same in the end, assuming fairies are real and love means "light you on fire for not believing".
By the way, Gonad, I hope you enjoyed your time here because it's looking like it's almost over. Once you go from trying to have a conversation to being a prick and purposely trying to piss someone off as you are with Blackleaf, historically that has been right about the end of the dickhead's stay here.
Once saved, always saved? Or not?
Rom 8:35
QuoteWho shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Romans 8:38-39
Quote
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
Mike,
I'm trying to logically derive insight from what you wrote, but are you implying you don't believe in Jesus or God because other people already have or receive more money and power than you? The only thing that proves is that you care more about yourself than others. How about concentrating more on all the good things God has freely bestowed on you through grace alone, and of which you surely don't deserve. None of us deserve anything good; Everything we have is a free gift that we either appreciate or greedily desire for more.
I will try to be plain. God does not exist nor ever existed. The concept is manmade; for many reasons. The proof is the total and complete lack of evidence of the existence of any god. And I mean that to include the one you believe in and all the other gods people believe in. There has never been a single shred of any evidence to prove that a god exists. The natural order of the universe is godless; nothing in nature that demonstrates the need for nor the actual existence of any god; that is the default setting. God (all of them) is clearly a fiction created from man's needs--whether of the fear of death, the need to control others, the need to know the unknowable, superstition, or any other reason. God is no more, nor less, real than the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyan or any other fairy tail of myth or legend.
Can you provide me with any proof of any god?
Definitely a lot of God-haters abounding on this site. Mike, at least you presented something close to logical that I can respond to. What I find interesting is that you offered as proof that you don't believe God exists because: "The proof is the total and complete lack of evidence of the existence of any god...". That's similar to asserting that something is definitely true (God does exist) because you don't have any definite evidence that it's false (God does not exist). Don't you see any flaw in reasoning like that? I still hold to the rule that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by using physical evidence alone. However, if you can ponder the existence of God, you are still accountable because I assure you that God will give you enough evidence (that only YOU will know is evidence!) where you can't stand before God and claim He hasn't given you enough evidence to believe in Him. God has all the angles covered and that's evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where the rich man pleaded to have someone return from the grave to warn his family of the impending perils awaiting them. The response was they have Moses and the prophets to believe. You may think answers about the existence of God will eventually come from advances in technology or the scientific method, but they won't. You will always have Moses and the prophets to believe. However, you're even more accountable to believe than either Lazarus or the rich man, because God did send somebody back from the grave to warn you, and you are doing everything in your power to not believe it!
Unbeliever,
I believe that if a person says they were "saved" and then backslides, then they were never saved in the first place. So yes, if a person is truly saved, then they are saved forever because they will have the fortitude to hold to their beliefs regardless of any future false ideological onslaught or ridicule they may have to endure. See my post about the difference between being "born-again" and being "saved" from the wrath of God to come. Jesus only said you must be born-again to be saved or to see the kingdom of God, but he didn't claim one always resulted in the other. I'm curious if Nicodemus ever took the hint seriously; I hope so.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:33:01 PM
Unbeliever,
I believe that if a person says they were "saved" and then backslides, then they were never saved in the first place. So yes, if a person is truly saved, then they are saved forever because they will have the fortitude to hold to their beliefs regardless of any future false ideological onslaught or ridicule they may have to endure. See my post about the difference between being "born-again" and being "saved" from the wrath of God to come. Jesus only said you must be born-again to be saved or to see the kingdom of God, but he didn't claim one always resulted in the other. I'm curious if Nicodemus ever took the hint seriously; I hope so.
You are a puritan, aka Donatist aka a Priscillian ... which is a heretic, so you are going to burn in Hell. Sorry, no cheat codes or extra lives for you. Game Over!
Quote from: FinalSomnia on February 10, 2017, 02:58:47 PM
I'm a long time member of this forum and not an evangelist at all. I think you might have misquoted.
Perhaps. My counterpost was directed to Godis.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 01:54:47 PM
Nematode,
You thought, therefore you are!
Nematode is his status ... Mr Obvious is his nick name ... what could be more obvious? Sorry, you seem his opposite, you are oblivious ;-(
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 10, 2017, 01:50:52 PM
Wow. And I thought I was a defeatist. :D
It is a Jedi mind trick .. un-evangelism!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:12:18 PM
Definitely a lot of God-haters abounding on this site. Mike, at least you presented something close to logical that I can respond to. What I find interesting is that you offered as proof that you don't believe God exists because: "The proof is the total and complete lack of evidence of the existence of any god...". That's similar to asserting that something is definitely true (God does exist) because you don't have any definite evidence that it's false (God does not exist). Don't you see any flaw in reasoning like that? I still hold to the rule that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by using physical evidence alone. However, if you can ponder the existence of God, you are still accountable because I assure you that God will give you enough evidence (that only YOU will know is evidence!) where you can't stand before God and claim He hasn't given you enough evidence to believe in Him. God has all the angles covered and that's evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where the rich man pleaded to have someone return from the grave to warn his family of the impending perils awaiting them. The response was they have Moses and the prophets to believe. You may think answers about the existence of God will eventually come from advances in technology or the scientific method, but they won't. You will always have Moses and the prophets to believe. However, you're even more accountable to believe than either Lazarus or the rich man, because God did send somebody back from the grave to warn you, and you are doing everything in your power to not believe it!
I know G-d personally, and She is a bitch! Go become a Catholic priest, then at least you might be a worthy opponent. And yes, I would call the Virgin Mary ... a bitch, for cheating on her fiancé.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:12:18 PM
Definitely a lot of God-haters abounding on this site. Mike, at least you presented something close to logical that I can respond to. What I find interesting is that you offered as proof that you don't believe God exists because: "The proof is the total and complete lack of evidence of the existence of any god...". That's similar to asserting that something is definitely true (God does exist) because you don't have any definite evidence that it's false (God does not exist). Don't you see any flaw in reasoning like that? I still hold to the rule that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by using physical evidence alone. However, if you can ponder the existence of God, you are still accountable because I assure you that God will give you enough evidence (that only YOU will know is evidence!) where you can't stand before God and claim He hasn't given you enough evidence to believe in Him. God has all the angles covered and that's evident in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where the rich man pleaded to have someone return from the grave to warn his family of the impending perils awaiting them. The response was they have Moses and the prophets to believe. You may think answers about the existence of God will eventually come from advances in technology or the scientific method, but they won't. You will always have Moses and the prophets to believe. However, you're even more accountable to believe than either Lazarus or the rich man, because God did send somebody back from the grave to warn you, and you are doing everything in your power to not believe it!
Don't you realize you are posting on an atheist site????
You are laboring under a false assumption. You assume a god exists--and not just any god, buy your god and your god alone. I suggest to you that I don't make any assumptions at all. If there is a 'creator' of this universe then he/she/it will make its presence known. When that happens I'll make the appropriate changes to my thinking. Until some sort of proof makes itself known then I will continue to think god (all of them) are fictions; as are the Tooth Fairy and King Arthur. I don't hate god; I don't hate a fiction, as there is nothing to hate. What I hate are religious people who tell me what I can and cannot think or do; who pass laws to regulate my life as they believe their fictional god wants me to. I hate the religious hierarchy that keeps people in chains and tries to make rules that regulate my life according to their theist fictions.
Also, understand, the bible is not authoritative in any way, shape or form. It is also fictional--all written and crafted by men. Using the bible to prove your fiction is redundant--both your god and the bible is a fiction.
Widdershins,
Do you get points on this site for name-calling? In any case, I firmly believe Heaven will be Hell for an unbeliever, and you're not even close to being in Hell yet! Just imagine if you are reduced to spirit only and that your spirit only senses the absence or presence of God. If would be the ultimate gnashing of teeth or the pain of a burning fire to know you will never ever know God or be in His presence! Naw, this isn't the Hell you're messing with.
Mike,
I was only pointing out your continued false reasoning, not mine. Too bad you can't see the difference.
God-haters are generally known for their inability to enter into a fully logical debate or discussion, and it's mostly because their own self-righteousness tends to get in the way of any progress.
BTW, I learned in my college debate class that if I can get an opponent cussing or calling me names, then I automatically win. It's an absolute massacre after that point!
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 12:56:30 PM
Blackleaf,
If you claim to have been a Christian (believing that Jesus is God!) for 25 years of your life, then you are definitely accountable for your backsliding! Not to mention, you are also accountable for all those you drag down with you!
The preaching begins.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 10, 2017, 02:07:18 PM
Thinking is easy and cheap.
I prefer: I do, therefore I am ;)
“To be is to doâ€â€"Aristotle
“To do is to beâ€â€"Kant
“Do be do be doâ€â€"Sinatra
I prefer Sinatra.
Mr. "I Am the Source of Logic" speaks:
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
...God has it designed to make us toil (doing "things")
...
Mere assertion fallacy.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
...we can know whether we are accomplishing whatever God intends us to accomplish.
...
Mere assertion with a side order of projection.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
...
Otherwise, our choice to love God or to hate God would be meaningless because we would have no actions to be judged on
...
False dichotomy fallacy with a non-sequitur finish.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
...
we will be eventually judged.
...
Mere assertion.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:58:01 PM
Widdershins,
Do you get points on this site for name-calling? In any case, I firmly believe Heaven will be Hell for an unbeliever, and you're not even close to being in Hell yet! Just imagine if you are reduced to spirit only and that your spirit only senses the absence or presence of God. If would be the ultimate gnashing of teeth or the pain of a burning fire to know you will never ever know God or be in His presence! Naw, this isn't the Hell you're messing with.
This one is begging for Purgatory.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 07:14:44 PM
BTW, I learned in my college debate class that if I can get an opponent cussing or calling me names, then I automatically win. It's an absolute massacre after that point!
You learned? I highly doubt that. You know another reason people might cuss at you? Because you're an insufferable, dimwitted asshole. Sorry to break it to you, but we're not insulting you because you're winning.
sdelsolray,
Ah, finally someone who thinks they can define "fallacy". Okay, let's hear it, please!
Blackleaf,
I kinda figured you're insulting me because you're losing. I get that alot.
sdelsolray,
I'm fully aware that your fallacious argument is deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is, so to counteract any positive benefit that may be derived from it, I think I'll just ignore it.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 08:07:20 PM
sdelsolray,
Ah, finally someone who thinks they can define "fallacy". Okay, let's hear it, please!
I simply and already identified informal logical fallacies that you employed. They were defined long before you or I were born. If you want to "hear" them, read my earlier post out loud, preferably in front of a mirror with your eyes focused on your mouth.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 08:18:54 PM
sdelsolray,
I'm fully aware that your fallacious argument is deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is, so to counteract any positive benefit that may be derived from it, I think I'll just ignore it.
I have made no argument, just observations. Perhaps you could take the time to learn the difference.
I strongly suspect you are quite good at ignoring any portion of reality that conflicts with your "personal experience" (your words) world view. Compartmentalization is a common technique humans use. Cognitive dissonance only appears after the individual begins to realize the contradictions between and among the mental and emotional compartments they have created. You're not there yet. Don't be discouraged, you can work towards resolution.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 07:00:35 PM
Mike,
I was only pointing out your continued false reasoning, not mine. Too bad you can't see the difference.
Oh, I see the difference. I do reason. You don't.
And so far you have offered not a single shred of evidence for your fictional god. And of course you can't...............none exists.
[ author=widdershins link=topic=11269.msg1165572#msg1165572 date=1486680243]
QuoteAgain, yes, I fully understand what you are saying. The problem with that way of thinking is that if it were true, NOTHING could EVER happen. There would be no events ever because you would have to wait an infinity of time to get to the point where they happened. But also EVERYTHING would have happened. With an infinity of time the chances become infinitely small that a given thing won't happen.
I only recall saying if time stretched to eternity backwards, we'd never reach 2017 because we'd have to cross an infinity to arrive at this time, not the things couldn't be done. If the universe existed eternally it would have suffered heat death long ago.
Its questionable about whether an actual infinity of anything exists as illustrated by Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.
The idea is a hotel that can accommodate an infinity of guests. Suppose its completely booked but one new guest arrives. If everyone in room one on moves one room down a new guest can be accommodated but the # of guests is still the same infinity. If an infinity of new guests arrive they can still be accommodated by just shifting everyone in odd numbered rooms into even number rooms thus freeing all the odd number. Yet the number of guests doesn't change. Even if all the odd numbers guests leave the number doesn't change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
QuoteScientists and gods are dissimilar. Simulations and sentient beings are equally dissimilar. Like your little statement for why an infinity of time is impossible, this is not something you have evidence for. It's just something you got high and came up with one day.
If I told you a personal agent caused the universe to exist and had complete control of the laws of physics you would agree that is God? If scientist cause virtual universe to exist and have complete control of the laws of physics therein... are they not the gods of those universes?
QuoteReaching a conclusion because the evidence takes you to that conclusion is respectable. Reaching a conclusion simply because it supports other conclusions you've already reached is not.
I have submitted facts in support of my conclusions...
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2017, 07:19:33 PM
You are making a play on the ambiguity of English. That is a fallacy in itself. Stick to poetry, you suck at physics ;-) I happen to agree that people are demigods, just not for the reason you list. But you can't make a scientific argument for it ... because it is transcendent, and science is only for immanence, not transcendence.
See, to do a lot of things, you have to have a "human in the loop" somewhere. Sometimes you can substitute other critters, a horse for a rickshaw guy. But all robots are machines. All computers merely execute the algorithms that are input to them (even if there is subsequent runtime input). There is no god in the machine ... it was a god who made the machine, and keeps it working. Bow down and worship your IT staff, puny humans!
AI is always fake ... but the human is better hidden these days ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk
I haven't been attempting to make a scientific argument for anything I have discussed. A scientific fact is one level of proof, there is also evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (but some uncertainty can exist) in a criminal case then there is the mere preponderance of evidence as required in a civil suit in a court of law. I'm shooting for a mere preponderance that something is more likely true than not. I don't claim the existence of God is a scientific fact, or is a claim beyond reasonable doubt. I do claim a preponderance (more than not) of evidence supports it.
And I still claim (eggs and arguments not withstanding) scientists creating virtual universes is a working model of theism. By the way...I am an IT Specialist...
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 09, 2017, 09:35:11 PM
You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.
You tell me why it supports naturalism and I will tell you why it supports theism...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 10, 2017, 09:52:56 PMAnd I still claim (eggs and arguments not withstanding) scientists creating virtual universes is a working model of theism. By the way...I am an IT Specialist...
I feel 30% less career pride now, thanks.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 10, 2017, 09:52:56 PM
By the way...I am an IT Specialist...
That explains it. lol
Who is God? Ask a novelist, and they'll say he's like a writer, and history is his work of art.
Ask a mechanic, and they'll say he is like an engineer who fine-tuned the universe.
Ask an artist, and they'll say that God is like a painter, and they'll say that the beauty of creation is his work.
So you believe that the universe is merely a simulation? I've seen that idea floating around before. I would not call the creator of this simulation a "god," though. If someone created this world as a simulation, they are likely not very different from us. It may be possible that we could do the same ourselves, once technology has advanced enough.
sdelsolray,
You try to confuse the issues and try to prove how smart you are by throwing words out related to psychology (cognitive dissonance, projection, compartmentalization, etc.). Yawning excessively. You sound like a second semester college psychology student. Did you even make it that far? Next you'll be trying to make clinical diagnoses that you're no where near being qualified to do. Not fooled by your ignorance.
a demi-god with a semi-colon... interesting concept
Godis "when something is so obvious it is starring you in the face, your first reaction is to turn away" I was probably turning away because it was time to go home or to go somewhere else. The idea that something is so obvious it is starring you in the face is more interesting. I didn't see nothin, or maybe I should say "Whatchu talkin about Willis?". Maybe I'm a little dense Godis. What is this obvious thing you are talking about? It sure isn't obvious to me. Sure the evidence of god is just pourin out like flower petals at a wedding. Finding evidence of god is more like the treasure hunters' expedition on Snake Island.
so maybe your god is real, but I'm not wasting time looking for a god that doesnt spend anytime being obvious
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 10, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
You tell me why it[a beginning to time] supports naturalism and I will tell you why it supports theism...
Going backwards infinitely, seems to me to be an irrational premise. Something along the lines of "God is outside of space-time." It's just fantasy shit. Like all natural things, the universe has a beginning.
For obvious reasons, the prime mover, may forever remain lost to pre-history. So, do you see this void in our current knowledge as a convenient little cubby-hole, to hide your invisible God in?
Thank God for mathematical and physical constants that we don't fully understand or mostly take for granted (pi, natural logarithm, c, Planck constant, Bohr magneton and radius, Boltzmann constant, gas constants, etc.). You want proof of order and design? Look at them first because without them, there would be no discussion.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 03:39:09 PM
Gawdzilla (love the name!),
You're like a lot of people I know who think everything is about them; It's not all about you.
Bullshit.
Quote from: fencerider on February 06, 2017, 11:26:00 PM
It's a good thing too. Otherwise your gutts would be full of poop.
Only semi-poop. ;)
Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:46:27 AM
sdelsolray,
You try to confuse the issues and try to prove how smart you are by throwing words out related to psychology (cognitive dissonance, projection, compartmentalization, etc.). Yawning excessively. You sound like a second semester college psychology student. Did you even make it that far? Next you'll be trying to make clinical diagnoses that you're no where near being qualified to do. Not fooled by your ignorance.
Not fooled by yours at all. In fact, you ignorance is so profound that it moves over into the stupid column. Ignorance can be fixed--stupidity cannot.
Calls everyone else ignorant. Offers no facts to support his assertions. Surely, this is the work of a true genius. All must bow down to his superior intellect.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2017, 10:02:12 AM
Calls everyone else ignorant. Offers no facts to support his assertions. Surely, this is the work of a true genius. All must bow down to his superior intellect.
And he just has to BOHICA.
Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:46:27 AM
sdelsolray,
You try to confuse the issues and try to prove how smart you are by throwing words out related to psychology (cognitive dissonance, projection, compartmentalization, etc.). Yawning excessively. You sound like a second semester college psychology student. Did you even make it that far? Next you'll be trying to make clinical diagnoses that you're no where near being qualified to do. Not fooled by your ignorance.
Sure thing, Sparky.
Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 12:46:27 AMYou sound like a second semester college psychology student.
I can picture you as "pre-seminary school", meaning you're still going to Sunday School.
Evangelicals should pass the gom jabbar test of Mother Superior ... before they enter Fight Club:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKQMWZHiQVQ
Reminds me of when I spilled concentrated sulphuric acid on my hand, in HS chemistry class ;-(
Quote from: Godis on February 11, 2017, 06:25:27 AM
Thank God for mathematical and physical constants that we don't fully understand or mostly take for granted (pi, natural logarithm, c, Planck constant, Bohr magneton and radius, Boltzmann constant, gas constants, etc.). You want proof of order and design? Look at them first because without them, there would be no discussion.
What a novel idea! Order proves design! Your intellect is so superior, Kahn, I don't know what I was thinking before! But please tell me, oh teacher of mathematics, what you would expect to see if there was no designer?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 02:09:14 PM
What a novel idea! Order proves design! Your intellect is so superior, Kahn, I don't know what I was thinking before! But please tell me, oh teacher of mathematics, what you would expect to see if there was no designer?
The chaos of statisticians ;-)
I don't know about a design but as for a godlike plan there appears to be none.
Quote from: Godis on February 10, 2017, 06:58:01 PM
Widdershins,
Do you get points on this site for name-calling? In any case, I firmly believe Heaven will be Hell for an unbeliever, and you're not even close to being in Hell yet! Just imagine if you are reduced to spirit only and that your spirit only senses the absence or presence of God. If would be the ultimate gnashing of teeth or the pain of a burning fire to know you will never ever know God or be in His presence! Naw, this isn't the Hell you're messing with.
I've heard people say, as you seem to be saying, that hell is merely
a separation from God, but according to Psalm 139:7-8, no such separation from God is possible, not even in hell:
QuoteWhither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 10, 2017, 10:27:35 PM
That explains it. lol
Who is God? Ask a novelist, and they'll say he's like a writer, and history is his work of art.
Ask a mechanic, and they'll say he is like an engineer who fine-tuned the universe.
Ask an artist, and they'll say that God is like a painter, and they'll say that the beauty of creation is his work.
So you believe that the universe is merely a simulation? I've seen that idea floating around before. I would not call the creator of this simulation a "god," though. If someone created this world as a simulation, they are likely not very different from us. It may be possible that we could do the same ourselves, once technology has advanced enough.
No I don't believe the world is merely a simulation however I do think its a created reality as opposed to another plane of existence which could be described as real reality. Correct me if wrong at this time the consensus among scientists is that the universe and time came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. At the very least (if true) time and the laws of physics as we know them didn't always exist but began to exist in its present form. The available evidence suggests the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite density and temperature.
SingularitySee also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. How closely models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity is debatedâ€"certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.If true the singularity isn't anything we are familiar with and not subject to any known laws of physics. It defies the laws we do know of. I don't know of any evidence that forces we are familiar with are capable of causing a universe to exist. Doesn't this seem to contradict the notion its natural forces all the way down? My belief in theism is due to known facts.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 03:58:49 AM
Going backwards infinitely, seems to me to be an irrational premise. Something along the lines of "God is outside of space-time." It's just fantasy shit. Like all natural things, the universe has a beginning.
For obvious reasons, the prime mover, may forever remain lost to pre-history. So, do you see this void in our current knowledge as a convenient little cubby-hole, to hide your invisible God in?
No because I don't point to that void in our knowledge instead I list 6 known irrefutable facts to support my belief in theism. I don't want to repast them as I've already been accused of using the same material. However, if the universe did begin to exist either it was caused to exist (by something by necessity outside the laws of physics we are familiar with) or it came into existence un-caused out of nothing which sounds like a miracle event.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
No I don't believe the world is merely a simulation however I do think its a created reality as opposed to another plane of existence which could be described as real reality. Correct me if wrong at this time the consensus among scientists is that the universe and time came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. At the very least (if true) time and the laws of physics as we know them didn't always exist but began to exist in its present form. The available evidence suggests the universe emerged from a singularity of infinite density and temperature.
Singularity
See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. How closely models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity is debatedâ€"certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.
You're treading into a topic I have little knowledge of, so I'll just take your word for it.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 07:31:18 PMIf true the singularity isn't anything we are familiar with and not subject to any known laws of physics. It defies the laws we do know of. I don't know of any evidence that forces we are familiar with are capable of causing a universe to exist. Doesn't this seem to contradict the notion its natural forces all the way down? My belief in theism is due to known facts.
No. It doesn't contradict anything. If I tell you that there is pizza in the fridge, but I don't tell you about the mayonnaise, does that contradict what I told you? As science has advanced over the years, the need for gods to explain things has shrunk, and the trend will continue. The lack of knowledge we have now does not contradict what we already know.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 07:46:22 PM
No because I don't point to that void in our knowledge instead I list 6 known irrefutable facts to support my belief in theism. I don't want to repast them as I've already been accused of using the same material. However, if the universe did begin to exist either it was caused to exist (by something by necessity outside the laws of physics we are familiar with) or it came into existence un-caused out of nothing which sounds like a miracle event.
You know too much physics of the popular kind, and not enough metaphysics of the sophisticated kind. You are trapped in the common meanings of a popular usage, when specialized jargon is required. Cause/effect is one example. And you have no idea what a miracle is (nor do the atheists here).
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 10:49:07 PM
You know too much physics of the popular kind, and not enough metaphysics of the sophisticated kind. You are trapped in the common meanings of a popular usage, when specialized jargon is required. Cause/effect is one example. And you have no idea what a miracle is (nor do the atheists here).
This is a popular coffee house discussion board...
Explain how I can communicate effectively without using common meanings of words? Wouldn't everyone be confused if I used words with my own meaning attached to them?
I assume if I quoted the dictionary definition of the word miracle you would say that's not what it really means? I tell you what, take some time to create a dictionary of common words so we know what they really mean according to you. In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.
Alas, dictionaries both reveal and conceal meaning. You have to have experience of X, to know what X means. For example "Fishing" ... if you never have fished, then you really don't understand what the world means. You can know, by looking it up in a dictionary .. but knowledge is weak compared to understanding.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 12:32:27 PM
This is a popular coffee house discussion board...
Explain how I can communicate effectively without using common meanings of words? Wouldn't everyone be confused if I used words with my own meaning attached to them?
I assume if I quoted the dictionary definition of the word miracle you would say that's not what it really means? I tell you what, take some time to create a dictionary of common words so we know what they really mean according to you. In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.
You should probably avoid arguing with Baruch, at least until you have your "sea-legs" under you.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 12:32:27 PM
In the mean time I'll continue to attach common meanings to words in blissful ignorance of what they really mean.
Actually what you really mean is 'willful' ignorance not blissful. But in your case, both meanings apply.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2017, 09:25:57 PM
You're treading into a topic I have little knowledge of, so I'll just take your word for it.
No. It doesn't contradict anything. If I tell you that there is pizza in the fridge, but I don't tell you about the mayonnaise, does that contradict what I told you? As science has advanced over the years, the need for gods to explain things has shrunk, and the trend will continue. The lack of knowledge we have now does not contradict what we already know.
If the existence of a phenomena is unlike anything we know of and the known laws of physics don't apply to it yet you say it doesn't contradict the belief its natural forces all the way down then your position is data and evidence proof. This coincides with my belief that the difference between the natural and the supernatural (according to naturalists) is a moving goal post. The supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 12, 2017, 02:02:50 PM
You should probably avoid arguing with Baruch, at least until you have your "sea-legs" under you.
Or a good, strong cup of coffee.
Preferably Irished up.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 03:16:00 PM
If the existence of a phenomena is unlike anything we know of and the known laws of physics don't apply to it yet you say it doesn't contradict the belief its natural forces all the way down then your position is data and evidence proof. This coincides with my belief that the difference between the natural and the supernatural (according to naturalists) is a moving goal post. The supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means.
It's natural if it doesn't require gods, angels, ghosts, or other spirits to explain it. What qualifies as supernatural is a moving goal post because we keep finding natural explanations for things once assumed to be supernatural.
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 01:32:43 PM
Alas, dictionaries both reveal and conceal meaning. You have to have experience of X, to know what X means. For example "Fishing" ... if you never have fished, then you really don't understand what the world means. You can know, by looking it up in a dictionary .. but knowledge is weak compared to understanding.
I think most on this board do enough talking past each without adding to the difficulty by suggesting we should look for some alternative shaded meaning to words. In this regard we're all talking beyond personal experience anyway when it comes to being familiar with how a universe came into existence, what a singularity is, how life began to exist. Except Baruch who I suspect was there at the time... :kiddingme:
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 02:38:20 PM
Actually what you really mean is 'willful' ignorance not blissful. But in your case, both meanings apply.
That depends I will take 'willful' to mean you think I'm brilliant and ignorance to mean you think I'm really clever...Thanks for the compliments.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 03:21:53 PM
It's natural if it doesn't require gods, angels, ghosts, or other spirits to explain it. What qualifies as supernatural is a moving goal post because we keep finding natural explanations for things once assumed to be supernatural.
In this case we're talking about God. Suppose what theists believe is God is actually a scientist(s) in another plane of existence that caused our universe to exist...would that be naturalistic? That just pushes the envelope back a notch we'd still wonder what caused the scientist to exist.
The evidence you offer is in the form of an argument. The argument is as science continues to broaden its scope it continues to find naturalistic explanations (for clarity's sake what I mean by naturalistic explanations) are ones in which no purpose, intent or design caused what we observe. This leads some to believe if and when we can peel back further we will continue to find naturalistic explanations for whatever else there is to discover.
In my opinion this is a poor argument because in known examples the same evidence doesn't lead to the same conclusion that we owe our existence to unguided mechanistic forces that didn't intend to cause or create anything that was created. For instance a car or a laptop can be explained by an appeal to the known laws of physics. We know such things were caused and created by design yet everything about them including their function can be described by naturalistic forces. If your evidence holds true this should have led to finding its 'turtles' all the way down and cars and laptops were created unintentionally by mechanistic forces. In fact however it isn't naturalistic forces all the way down it was caused by sentient beings. You're argument is classical circular reasoning. The evidence its naturalistic forces all the way down only holds water if in fact its true its naturalistic forces all the way down. Nonetheless I don't believe in theism due to what we don't know. I infer it from what we do know...
Do theist think of god as a person, or localized entity, or an energy field spread out through out the universe?
If god is a non-sentient being or an energy field, then there is no reason to have god in our consideration; other than an observation that maybe the universe came out of god.
If theist think of god as a person, i.e. a creator or a supreme being that doesnt fit any description of religion there are still basic questions to ask.
In the case of a supreme being we have to ask if this particular being created the universe. We have to ask how this particular being got the title of supreme being. and we have to ask what does this supreme being have to do with us.
In the case of a creator we have to ask other questions. Did the act of creation kill the creator? Did the creator die at some later date? Does the creator want the position of a superior or supreme being? and of course we still have to ask what does this have to do with us.
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
Do theist think of god as a person, or localized entity, or an energy field spread out through out the universe?
If god is a non-sentient being or an energy field, then there is no reason to have god in our consideration; other than an observation that maybe the universe came out of god.
If theist think of god as a person, i.e. a creator or a supreme being that doesnt fit any description of religion there are still basic questions to ask.
In the case of a supreme being we have to ask if this particular being created the universe. We have to ask how this particular being got the title of supreme being. and we have to ask what does this supreme being have to do with us.
In the case of a creator we have to ask other questions. Did the act of creation kill the creator? Did the creator die at some later date? Does the creator want the position of a superior or supreme being? and of course we still have to ask what does this have to do with us.
I believe we owe our existence to a sentient being who caused the universe and humans (possibly other beings) to exist. I'm not attempting to answer what God is like, how God came into existence or whether people were inspired by God to write have a message from God. Those are theological questions and I'm not a theologian.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
Those are theological questions and I'm not a theologian.
The irony is that even theologians cannot seem to agree on the status of god; the only difference between a religious theologian and a secular theologian is that one uses a bias to make the overwhelming claim that god does exist whereas the other uses the evidence currently available to properly assert that god appears entirely mythological in nature.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
I believe we owe our existence to a sentient being who caused the universe and humans (possibly other beings) to exist. I'm not attempting to answer what God is like
So a basic belief in a creator and the rest is open to question... Unfortunately most of those questions won't be answered in our life time
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 10:49:07 PM
You know too much physics of the popular kind, and not enough metaphysics of the sophisticated kind. You are trapped in the common meanings of a popular usage, when specialized jargon is required. Cause/effect is one example. And you have no idea what a miracle is (nor do the atheists here).
We do know psycho-babble when we see it.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 12, 2017, 02:02:50 PM
You should probably avoid arguing with Baruch, at least until you have your "sea-legs" under you.
Aye matey! It takes a mighty typhoon to shiver me timbers. Arrrh!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 03:16:00 PM
If the existence of a phenomena is unlike anything we know of and the known laws of physics don't apply to it yet you say it doesn't contradict the belief its natural forces all the way down then your position is data and evidence proof. This coincides with my belief that the difference between the natural and the supernatural (according to naturalists) is a moving goal post. The supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means.
Correct, that is the usual definition of natural/supernatural as defined by naturalists. But they are biased. I don't share their definitions in general, or in this case, specifically. My G-d is not god of the Gaps, or other teen girl clothing outlets.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 03:24:01 PM
I think most on this board do enough talking past each without adding to the difficulty by suggesting we should look for some alternative shaded meaning to words. In this regard we're all talking beyond personal experience anyway when it comes to being familiar with how a universe came into existence, what a singularity is, how life began to exist. Except Baruch who I suspect was there at the time... :kiddingme:
In the case of being one with eternity, then yes, I "was there". But so was everyone else. Some understand eternity, some do not.
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
Do theist think of god as a person, or localized entity, or an energy field spread out through out the universe?
If god is a non-sentient being or an energy field, then there is no reason to have god in our consideration; other than an observation that maybe the universe came out of god.
If theist think of god as a person, i.e. a creator or a supreme being that doesnt fit any description of religion there are still basic questions to ask.
In the case of a supreme being we have to ask if this particular being created the universe. We have to ask how this particular being got the title of supreme being. and we have to ask what does this supreme being have to do with us.
In the case of a creator we have to ask other questions. Did the act of creation kill the creator? Did the creator die at some later date? Does the creator want the position of a superior or supreme being? and of course we still have to ask what does this have to do with us.
Part of the Hindu origins of Christianity. In the Vedas, the primordial man, Parusha, is dismembered to create the universe the first time. In Babylonia, this was the dismemberment of the primordial demoness, Tiamat. Jesus has to be killed, to usher in a new aeon, a new creation, and is a new Adam, new Moses etc ... he dies at the vernal equinox, ushering in the age of Pisces ... just as we will be leaving the age of Pisces for the age of Aquarius. The pop band celebrated a little early ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE
Mythology is interesting, certainly. However, that is all it is.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 12, 2017, 06:11:00 PM
We do know psycho-babble when we see it.
Yes, some Bible thumpers are psycho. Drunk Sufis.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:41:54 PM
Mythology is interesting, certainly. However, that is all it is.
Mythology is our hopes and dreams .. discount that if you dare.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 03:27:15 PM
That depends I will take 'willful' to mean you think I'm brilliant and ignorance to mean you think I'm really clever...Thanks for the compliments.
You are more than welcome. I am quite sure you are a grand and glorious person. But you seem to dislike thinking and go the much easier route of belief and faith. Willfully ignorant; and blissful about it as well.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 04:10:39 PM
In this case we're talking about God. Suppose what theists believe is God is actually a scientist(s) in another plane of existence that caused our universe to exist...would that be naturalistic? That just pushes the envelope back a notch we'd still wonder what caused the scientist to exist.
If it took divine intervention to create the world, then creation was not naturalistic. But I'm not sure if your scientist qualifies as a god. If the world was created by someone like us, he used the materials and laws of his world to design ours. That would make our world designed, but it wouldn't be supernatural either.
Even if this scientist creator were real, it would only raise more questions. Where did he come from? Was he designed too? If so, who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer? Eventually, you have to get to a point where the designer came from nowhere. Well, if a designer could come from nowhere, why not our universe? God is just an unnecessary middle man.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 04:10:39 PMThe evidence you offer is in the form of an argument. The argument is as science continues to broaden its scope it continues to find naturalistic explanations (for clarity's sake what I mean by naturalistic explanations) are ones in which no purpose, intent or design caused what we observe. This leads some to believe if and when we can peel back further we will continue to find naturalistic explanations for whatever else there is to discover.
In my opinion this is a poor argument because in known examples the same evidence doesn't lead to the same conclusion that we owe our existence to unguided mechanistic forces that didn't intend to cause or create anything that was created. For instance a car or a laptop can be explained by an appeal to the known laws of physics. We know such things were caused and created by design yet everything about them including their function can be described by naturalistic forces. If your evidence holds true this should have led to finding its 'turtles' all the way down and cars and laptops were created unintentionally by mechanistic forces. In fact however it isn't naturalistic forces all the way down it was caused by sentient beings. You're argument is classical circular reasoning. The evidence its naturalistic forces all the way down only holds water if in fact its true its naturalistic forces all the way down. Nonetheless I don't believe in theism due to what we don't know. I infer it from what we do know...
A watch does not grow on trees because it requires something to intentionally make it. It's not natural, but it was made with materials that came from nature. If your reasoning is that the universe is the same way, I don't see any evidence to support that claim. "We exist" is not evidence. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Galaxies vary in size, but they generally contain hundreds of billions of stars. That's a whole lot of chances for life to appear by chance somewhere in the universe. And keep in mind, the known universe keeps growing. Every time the number of galaxies in the known universe expands, the need for divine intervention to explain life becomes smaller and smaller. And this is just from our universe. Who knows how many other universes might exist?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 07:46:22 PM
No because I don't point to that void in our knowledge instead I list 6 known irrefutable facts to support my belief in theism. I don't want to repast them as I've already been accused of using the same material. However, if the universe did begin to exist either it was caused to exist (by something by necessity outside the laws of physics we are familiar with) or it came into existence un-caused out of nothing which sounds like a miracle event.
Theists always ignore the possibility that it is something undeistic that we don't know about. Yet. Why do they assume that anything we don't yet know is deisitic? Once, lightning was considered deistic. Now it isn't.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 05:05:12 AM
Theists always ignore the possibility that it is something undeistic that we don't know about. Yet. Why do they assume that anything we don't yet know is deisitic? Once, lightning was considered deistic. Now it isn't.
Wait..............wait..............lightening isn't from Thor??????? Prove it!!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:59:54 AM
Wait..............wait..............lightening isn't from Thor??????? Prove it!!!
You doubt the Avengers? But ... but ... I saw it on a big screen!
which came first? the idea of deity or the idea of ether?
Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 12:02:31 AM
which came first? the idea of deity or the idea of ether?
When I was a kid, the doctor still put people to sleep with ether. Turns out, that was the same gas that made the priestess of Delphi, get a high ;-) So blame Apollo.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:59:54 AM
Wait..............wait..............lightening isn't from Thor??????? Prove it!!!
Mike, let me break this to you gently... Yes, Thor exists, but we have to keep it a "secret". .. Odin told me to tell you that. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:58:45 AM
Mike, let me break this to you gently... Yes, Thor exists, but we have to keep it a "secret". .. Odin told me to tell you that. ;)
Blasphemer! Obviously Loki told you to do that ;-) The Hulk will come to you and show you what a puny god your god is!
Quote from: fencerider on February 14, 2017, 12:02:31 AM
which came first? the idea of deity or the idea of ether?
You mean it had to be ether one or the other?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 04:39:40 PM
You mean it had to be ether one or the other?
maybe it was phlogiston
I sure hope there's no God period. Can you imagine one of God's periods? It's like if the biblical creation story meets The Grudge with a little bit of Lovecraft mixed in for good measure.
(http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wtf_is_this_the_worst_artwork_ever_period.png)
My view of deity isn't like a sky daddy, it is Kali Ma, the Horrible Mother.
Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 10:00:10 AM
Blasphemer! Obviously Loki told you to do that ;-) The Hulk will come to you and show you what a puny god your god is!
It's kind of funny you said that, because Hulk is supposed to appear in the upcoming movie,
Thor Ragnarok. Also of interest, "Ragnarok" is an actual Norse word, that means "death of all gods."
Here's to Ragnarok.
(http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wtf_is_this_the_worst_artwork_ever_period.png)
That is the funniest commercial-art I've ever seen!
Is that a tampon canister?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 16, 2017, 12:51:34 AM
I sure hope there's no God period. Can you imagine one of God's periods? It's like if the biblical creation story meets The Grudge with a little bit of Lovecraft mixed in for good measure.
(http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wtf_is_this_the_worst_artwork_ever_period.png)
Even with my sick mind, that tin took me by surprise! :)
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 16, 2017, 06:41:33 AM
(http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wtf_is_this_the_worst_artwork_ever_period.png)
That is the funniest commercial-art I've ever seen!
Is that a tampon canister?
No idea. I just did a Google search for "worst period ever" and picked the result closest to what I'd envisioned.
I love that tin Where can I get one?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 16, 2017, 09:47:05 AM
No idea. I just did a Google search for "worst period ever" and picked the result closest to what I'd envisioned.
All you men, are coming back as women, just sayin'
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 16, 2017, 06:38:42 AM
It's kind of funny you said that, because Hulk is supposed to appear in the upcoming movie, Thor Ragnarok. Also of interest, "Ragnarok" is an actual Norse word, that means "death of all gods."
Here's to Ragnarok.
You just want to get some Valkyrie ass, or for her to get your ass ;-)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 16, 2017, 12:51:34 AM
I sure hope there's no God period. Can you imagine one of God's periods?
I give you 1 point for originality, and 2 points for actually saying what I was thinking. All hail Gaia!!!
I agree, there is a comma missing in the original post title.
Quote from: fencerider on February 17, 2017, 12:27:14 AM
I give you 1 point for originality, and 2 points for actually saying what I was thinking. All hail Gaia!!!
That assumes any true deity would have gender and physicality. Which, allowing for the unlikely possibility of a deity at all, seems rather limiting.
There may be no God period, but there was a God fart:
(https://www.namepros.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi1228.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee454%2FBikhiyal%2Fbig-bang1_zpsb10028fd.jpg&hash=942aaa2ea7e65b3d668db23a5960cd4b)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 05:23:37 PM
There may be no God period, but there was a God fart:
"That's funny right there. I dont care who you are, thats funny right there"So you're saying the dude doesnt show up cause he got embarrassed.
Nah, he's just off farting out some other universes...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Nah, he's just off farting out some other universes...
Welcome to Lurianic Kabbalah. G-d is a clumsy scientist, who dropped the proto-universe onto a hard floor, shattering it into countless pieces. The goal of the Kabbalist is to re-assemble it. G-d doesn't clean up after himself, we do ;-)
author=Blackleaf link=topic=11269.msg1166188#msg1166188 date=1486946161]
QuoteIf it took divine intervention to create the world, then creation was not naturalistic. But I'm not sure if your scientist qualifies as a god. If the world was created by someone like us, he used the materials and laws of his world to design ours. That would make our world designed, but it wouldn't be supernatural either.
The difference is really subtle in either event the main thrust of theism would be true, we would owe our existence to a Creator that is transcendent to our universe.
QuoteEven if this scientist creator were real, it would only raise more questions. Where did he come from? Was he designed too? If so, who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer? Eventually, you have to get to a point where the designer came from nowhere. Well, if a designer could come from nowhere, why not our universe? God is just an unnecessary middle man.
I agree it would only push the envelope one step back. I don't deny its possible the universe could have sprung into existence un-caused out of nothing but that would seem like invoking a magic trick to explain the universe and it still offers no explanation why a life permitting universe obtained. The belief it was intentionally designed and created does provide a reason even if it was from a scientist from another universe.
QuoteA watch does not grow on trees because it requires something to intentionally make it. It's not natural, but it was made with materials that came from nature. If your reasoning is that the universe is the same way, I don't see any evidence to support that claim. "We exist" is not evidence. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. Galaxies vary in size, but they generally contain hundreds of billions of stars. That's a whole lot of chances for life to appear by chance somewhere in the universe. And keep in mind, the known universe keeps growing. Every time the number of galaxies in the known universe expands, the need for divine intervention to explain life becomes smaller and smaller. And this is just from our universe. Who knows how many other universes might exist?
My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons. Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 18, 2017, 06:41:25 PM
author=Blackleaf link=topic=11269.msg1166188#msg1166188 date=1486946161]
My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons. Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.
Wow, the arguements are stunning in their simplicty.
What I think you don't understand is that any deity is simply one added and unnecessary step in the the formation of the universe. What seems to bother you most is how mere pre-atoms and then later atoms can cause the existence of beings such as we.
A lot can happen in 13 billion years. Or do you doubt the 13 billion years too?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 18, 2017, 06:41:25 PMIts also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun.
With the exception of UVA/UVB rays and skin cancer, the magnetic "force field" does a stupendous job.
Also, what are the odds that life would emerge on a geologically active world?
QuoteAlso very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons.
Wow, it's so strange that a puddle would fit its hole. I'm blown away. [/deadpan monotone]
QuoteBear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists
You don't say.
Quoteto believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance.
That or the null hypothesis of the divine magic explanation. Meh, same thing.
QuoteThere are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together.
Both of which are theoretical, so don't get too overeager and claim that God fine-tuned them. You might get burned.
QuoteMany of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain.
*yawn* Anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle).
QuoteI can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.
Don't flatter yourself, scientists don't need that stuff to counter Goddidit. The Greeks managed it with only a basic education and a toga. It's not really that hard.
Besides, multiple universes is the logical next step from our acknowledgement of a multitude of galaxies where previously we thought it was just the one. This multiverse idea might not pan out, but it's a way more plausible idea (and more worthy of consideration) than a cosmic sorcerer.
When there is any evidence of a multi-universe, I'll consider it. Until then, this one is sufficiently odd and unknown.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 18, 2017, 06:41:25 PM...
My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons. Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm.
You keep peddling fine tuning/argument from design assertions. Got anything else?
My reasoning is due to a preponderance of evidence I've listed elsewhere. Our existence isn't dependent on just there being lots of planets. Several laws of physics are necessary just for the existence of stars. Also the physics of supernova's which create matter that later becomes planets is needed. Scientists consider water to be essential to any life (even alien life) so a method of drenching a planet with water is needed also. Its also very fortunate (providential?) that there is a magnetic force field around the earth that protects us from the sun. Also very handy to have a large moon that stabilizes the earth so it maintains a 23 degree angle allowing for the seasons. Bear in mind, naturalistic forces don't care if life exists, water exists magnetic poles exist, stars exist to believe in naturalism is to believe we owe our existence to happenstance. There are a host of other conditions such as black matter and black energy for galaxies to stay together. Many of these conditions are in an extremely high degree of tolerance in order for a life creating and life supporting conditions to obtain. I can understand why many scientists are floating the notion this is one of many or even an infinitude of universes its the ultimate time and chance paradigm. Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:30:30 AM
Wow, the arguements are stunning in their simplicty.
What I think you don't understand is that any deity is simply one added and unnecessary step in the the formation of the universe. What seems to bother you most is how mere pre-atoms and then later atoms can cause the existence of beings such as we.
A lot can happen in 13 billion years. Or do you doubt the 13 billion years too?
My argument may have been simplistic but I offered known facts that comport with my contention. You in return offer an article of faith, you declare a deity is an unnecessary step without offering any facts or even an argument to support that contention. Please explain how you
know a deity isn't necessary? What naturalistic method are you proposing that would obviate the need for a Creator? I agree a lot can happen in 13 billion years but only with the laws of physics we are familiar with.
Ockham's Razor, use it or grow a beard ;-)
Also empirical evidence that is contemporary, rather than speculations of what might have happened 13 billion years ago, are much more persuasive.
Quoteauthor=Hydra009 link=topic=11269.msg1167254#msg1167254 date=1487491474]
With the exception of UVA/UVB rays and skin cancer, the magnetic "force field" does a stupendous job.
Solar wind generated from the Sun is harmful to humans so the magnetic field is very providential. However, the solar wind generated by the Sun blows away cosmic rays that would be harmful to humans yet another in an endless serious of lucky breaks for us.
QuoteWow, it's so strange that a puddle would fit its hole. I'm blown away. [/deadpan monotone]
Not strange at all since water has properties that allow it to take on the shape of a hole.
Quote
That or the null hypothesis of the divine magic explanation. Meh, same thing.
If the universe was intentionally designed for the purpose of causing life its no more magical than when engineers design and create a laptop to function as it does. Its not magical when engineers design and produce a laptop it is? It would be magical if naturalistic forces minus plan or intent caused laptops to exist wouldn't it? The magic comes in when we attribute the existence of the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and the existence of life to naturalistic forces that didn't plan or care if any of these things came about yet caused the conditions for sentient life to emerge, something utterly unlike the source it is alleged to have come from.
QuoteBesides, multiple universes is the logical next step from our acknowledgement of a multitude of galaxies where previously we thought it was just the one. This multiverse idea might not pan out, but it's a way more plausible idea (and more worthy of consideration) than a cosmic sorcerer.
The multiple universe hypothesis is interesting. Scientists realize the odds of one universe obtaining a myriad of exacting conditions to cause sentient life to exist is so astronomically small (apart from it was intentionally designed to do so) that the only explanation that allows for Naturedidit is an infinitude of universes with different characteristics and we exist in the one that did have life permitting characteristics. That look like a theory chasing a philosophical belief rather than facts leading to a conclusion.
Quote from: sdelsolray on February 19, 2017, 11:32:16 AM
You keep peddling fine tuning/argument from design assertions. Got anything else?
Yes I'm very skeptical of the naturedidit without plan or intent argument to be little more than wishful thinking.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 04:33:07 PM
Yes I'm very skeptical of the naturedidit without plan or intent argument to be little more than wishful thinking.
You project well.
Life can exist where conditions permit it, and doesn't where conditions don't. Where life CAN exist, there may be varying degrees of complexity. Any life, or intelligent life, is not is not required by any conditions. It may or may not happen. That it exists here if somewhere between possible and good luck.
An identical planet around an identical star might not support life. Or it might have move advanced life ib the past, present, or future.
There just aren't any rules for that.
But one thing I have no doubt of, no deities are involved...
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 06:37:58 PM
G-d doesn't clean up after himself, we do ;-)
Not for long, we won't. After we make a really big mess of the world there won't be anyone around to clean it up.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 04:48:17 PM
Not for long, we won't. After we make a really big mess of the world there won't be anyone around to clean it up.
So per Spinoza's main concern, human ethics, what should humans do? Watch the ants? Aesop would definitely answer yes, and not watch the grasshoppers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX_qRwVXWYQ
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 01:20:42 PM
Please explain how you know a deity isn't necessary? What naturalistic method are you proposing that would obviate the need for a Creator?
Your claim is that a deity exists and we must disprove it. No, YOU claim that one exists and it is up you to prove that one does.
No ancient person suddenly woke up and said in surprise that there is no deity, no one having ever thought of the idea before. Instead, some one got the idea of a deity and proclaimed it. From that point on, it was the responsibility of THAT person to provide proof of the new idea.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:50:27 AM
Your claim is that a deity exists and we must disprove it. No, YOU claim that one exists and it is up you to prove that one does.
No ancient person suddenly woke up and said in surprise that there is no deity, no one having ever thought of the idea before. Instead, some one got the idea of a deity and proclaimed it. From that point on, it was the responsibility of THAT person to provide proof of the new idea.
Proof lies at the end of a gun - misquoting Mao. Or in olden times, with Constantine, at the end of a spear. They weren't having nice discussions!
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 05:59:51 AM
Proof lies at the end of a gun - misquoting Mao. Or in olden times, with Constantine, at the end of a spear. They weren't having nice discussions!
And that matters to logic how?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 10:57:39 AM
And that matters to logic how?
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ... Oscar Wilde.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:24:54 PM
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ... Oscar Wilde.
And that was just another argument by assertion.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 06:05:36 PM
And that was just another argument by assertion.
A gay assertion ... are you bigoted? ;-)
WTF? Why even bring that into the discussion? Why would you be so stupid as to even ask me such a question, merely based on my post? Do you ever do anything other than play devil's advocate?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:00:06 PM
WTF? Why even bring that into the discussion? Why would you be so stupid as to even ask me such a question, merely based on my post? Do you ever do anything other than play devil's advocate?
My god is the Devil (the one and only) so of course I am playing (see Brahman's wet dreams) and a devil's advocate.
Perhaps you don't know that Oscar Wilde was a flaming gay man ;-)
Yes, I knew that without you having to enlighten me on the subject, but what does his gayness or otherwise have to do with my post?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:04:12 PM
Yes, I knew that without you having to enlighten me on the subject, but what does his gayness or otherwise have to do with my post?
I ;-) at the idea, not assertion, that you are homophobic .. but I have no reason to believe you are .. it is just apropo to the vocabulary and person being quoted.
So, everyone who's gay, and mentioned, you have to go straight to their gayness instead of just dealing with whatever's been said?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:24:29 PM
So, everyone who's gay, and mentioned, you have to go straight to their gayness instead of just dealing with whatever's been said?
Oscar is much more famous, and Earnest too.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:24:29 PM
So, everyone who's gay, and mentioned, you have to go straight to their gayness instead of just dealing with whatever's been said?
And his argument is equally invalid to non-gays...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:09:42 AM
And his argument is equally invalid to non-gays...
I am not arguing ... I already know what I know. There isn't any point, hence ... this is therapy. Thanks again for playing. Maybe you will do better on the next bear fur scratch game.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:26:27 PM
I am not arguing ... I already know what I know. There isn't any point, hence ... this is therapy. Thanks again for playing. Maybe you will do better on the next bear fur scratch game.
I'll try. The game intrigues and the hound is afoot... A shot rang out; the maid screamed. A ship passed in the night. The moon grows dark...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:48:02 PM
I'll try. The game intrigues and the hound is afoot... A shot rang out; the maid screamed. A ship passed in the night. The moon grows dark...
It was the bear in the library, with the candle stick ;-)