You respond to this argument for God
Offline As most of you know, our mailbox is flooded. I've removed all spam and read a bunch of mail and still have 954 pieces of new mail. This includes orders, questions, people still submitting blasphemy challenge stuff, yada, yada...
Anyway I tend to notice the crazy emails, and so yesterday someone got my attention by acting like a complete asshole to me.
This is the first communication I noticed from him, or can find:
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: [General Question] Still can't answer me, eh?> Luposian sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.
>
> I have re-sent you the Email. I have CHALLENGED you to response (you are
> the leader of "Rational RESPONSE Squad", are you not?) and I even asked
> that you point me to whatever URL you had, for such response.
>
> While I would gladly prefer a one-to-one response from you (or other(s),
> if you're not up to the task), I will also accept going to a site where my
> challenge is accepted and answered.
>
> Don't make me have to resort to calling you a "Moooooo!"*
>
> *"Moooooooo!" is the sound that cows make. Therefore it could be
> considered a "cow word". If you can't figure out the wordplay... maybe
> you're NOT as smart as you pretend to be.
>
> Yes, I am resorting to "pushing and shoving", because I'd like to actually
> see if you (or some other atheist; but that'd be pretty funny if *you*
> have
> to call on a lackey to answer me) can actually respond to my challenge.
>
> Brushing me off as not worth your time only proves you can't respond, not
> that I didn't give a good enough argument. It's very easy to act superior
> by pushing away the challenge than to answer the challenge on a
> point-by-point basis.
>
> Go ahead... answer my Email. Take the time to actually disprove me.
> Wherever you prefer. I'm waiting...
>
> Luposian
>
This was my response:
MooooooooooooooooooooooGet real.
(yeah, I'm short on time, I need to make my ridicule short and sweet.)
He wrote back...
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [General Question] Still can't answer me, eh?> The big, bad atheist Brian Sapient can't even fight against a simple Email
> from a "nobody" Christian wuss like me! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>
> Guess it just goes to prove my God *IS* real, because you can't even give
> a "Rational Response" to my Email.
>
> And just think... the bible is "calling you out" worse than I am... the
> bible calls you a FOOL! Yes... a moronic, idiotic F O O L !
>
> I'm sure you know the verse, being that you were *once* a Christian (yeah,
> right... like I actually believe that).
>
> "The *FOOL* hath said in his heart... *THERE IS NO GOD*"
>
> Enjoy knowing that... I'm sure it is quite comforting.
>
> And, yes... you are SUCH a Cow Word. "Moooooooooooooooo!"
>
> Luposian
>
My response...
How bout pulling your head out of your ass and actually ask the question you
want to ask instead of whining like a 5 year old over it.Remove head from ass.
Now, you know whats really funny? For some reason my mail program put all of his other mail in my inbox but put this one in my junk mail box. Is software really becoming that intelligent?
FEEL FREE TO RESPOND, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME.
I'M SOLELY ON OPERATION SPREAD EAGLE.
I stopped reading at "Can something come from nothing" and realized he was about to make an argument that it can't, and would then argue his god existed forever. Considering I believe the matter that comprises our Universe is eternal, and I don't believe that it came from nothing, I became uninterested in his creationist retardation in the first sentence. Ok, so I made a bunch of assumptions on his piece, based solely on his past emails and his opening sentence. I would love for someone who actually reads his arguments to assess how close I was. Unlike the emailer, I want to be shown where I'm wrong... but I'd like to test my jedi powers.
If you want to get to the bottom basis of whether or not God exists, think about this:Can something come from nothing?
If "nothing" is there, how does nothing spontaneously create "something"?
Math is a science, is it not? Well, then...
What is 0+0?
What is 0+0+0?
What is 0+0+0+0?As you can easily tell, as long as you have nothing, adding more nothing still adds up to nothing. You must *ADD* (create) a 1 (something), to break the cycle of 0 (nothingness). But...
What is 1+0?
What is 1+0+0?
What is 1+0+0+0?Unless you *add* 1, you will never get BEYOND 1. Or 2 or 3 or 4, etc.
In order for "The Big Bang" theory to work, there must first be "something" (at least a 1) to "explode" from. Nothing (0) has *nothing* (0) to explode! Therefore, it's utterly impossible for "The Big Bang" to exist without matter (1), in the beginning. But 1 must also contain ALL the components necessary to continue ADDING 1 to that 1 and the 1 after it and the 1 after it and the 1 after it... ad infinitum. No scientist on earth will tell you the entire universe came from a single atom. It's absolutely impossible!
If, say for example, 1 could equal 100 at it's maximum expansion, that 1 must contain ninty-nine 1's INSIDE of it! But 1 can't contain ninety-nine 1's. That would make it 100, whether you acknowledged it or not.
Matter was *always* there? How do we know that? Were we there to see it? No. Because it happened so long ago, long before any of us ever existed. To say that it was "always there", is simply to "answer" the unanswerable, by forcing a value to it. A value we assigned to it. A value, also which, we can neither prove nor disprove was there, to begin with!
I believe the "big bang theory" is based on some sort of "cyclic universe expansion/collapse" concept. The Universe expands to a certain point and then starts collapsing, eventually reaching critical mass, and then exploding outward again... over and over endlessly.
But, if we are in the expansion phase ( I believe science has acknowledged that the universe is expanding currently), then how long before the universe starts collapsing again and then the cycle repeats?
And, if it does this over and over again (as, I believe, the theory goes), then which cycle are we in? The 1st or the 1,000,000th cycle? Have we lived once or a million times? And, at what point did it actually START for the 1st time? Because, if it's a repeating cycle, it must have a beginning. A cycle must first be started. A motorcycle engine doesn't "start" until it's inertia (science: "a body at rest tends to stay at rest") is overcome by kickstarting it (or an electric starter is employed)!
And... more importantly... did it begin as a totally condensed mass, which exploded outward, or a totally expanded galaxy, which began collapsing?
You see, you run into the "Chicken or the Egg" problem. Which was the beginning? Did the egg come first or the chicken that laid the egg? And, if the egg, then where was the chicken that incubated the egg, for it to hatch? And where did THAT chicken come from? If the chicken came first, then where was the egg that the chicken hatched out of and where is the chicken that incubated the egg? No matter which way you go, there is always something before it.
That's the way matter is. All matter has a beginning. All things that involve matter have a beginning. Everything in, on, and around earth had a beginning. Everything we see. Everything we know. There is NOTHING that we have any knowledge of, that didn't have a beginning at some point.
No matter which way you turn, you will always face "THE BEGINNING". And the bible conveniently tells us... "In the Beginning..."
Why? Because God isn't made up of matter. He is spirit. Spirit is not matter. Frankly, we don't know WHAT it is! And we never will, because we have no means to test or measure it, EXCEPT as it influences (interacts with) matter in our realm of existence!
Here's another bit for you...
We know that we can (as humans) "fairly accurately" predict the weather, correct? Why is that? Because we've seen certain *WEATHER PATTERNS* before. If you spend one day in Sierra Vista, AZ and you experience only ONE rainstorm during summer, can you predict what will happen the following day? No. If you tried, you would not be predicting, you would be GUESSING! A "guess" is based on chance or odds. A prediction is scientifically based on a pattern of events you have fairly consistent data from. A repeating set of circumstances. If you spent an entire summer, here in Sierra Vista, AZ, could you THEN predict (with a good amount of accuracy) what the following day, after one day's rainstorm, would be like? Yes! Because you now have a pattern to follow.
Having spent 10 years here, I can (with fair accuracy), from 10 years of weather pattern behavior, PREDICT that, if it starts raining at 12 noon, that it will *most likely* rain the following day at 12 noon also. The clouds will form from the same direction. As well, I have seen consistent evidence that, the harder it rains, the shorter the storm. If it pours like crazy, the storm will most likely "blow itself out" in a couple hours, at most. If it rains lightly or normally, it will usually last much longer.
Predictions, while scientific in nature, are not an ABSOLUTE science. We CAN be wrong, in our predictions. And I'm sure you are quite well aware how often our beloved weather forecasters are wrong...
Ok, we've explained something we know we can do. Now, let's take that information and apply it to a certain person in the bible.
Let's assume Jesus actually existed. I believe He did. You may or may not. I dunno. Let's assume everything the bible says happened to Him, actually did.
Now, let's go waaaay back, before Matthew, Luke, and John... before the Book of Acts and all those other books, including Revelation.
And a man is writing about what he believes he's hearing from God. Supposedly about the Son of God.... who, conveniently doesn't exist yet (as a man). And, for all intents and purposes, may NEVER exist. But he writes down what "God" tells him will happen. Every last detail.
Generations later, "Jesus" is born. And, amazingly enough, He is born WHERE it was written He would be born! And He is named Jesus/Emmanual. Years later, he is hailed as the Messiah, with palm branches and he rides a mule... EXACTLY as written, generations before. And he is arrested and beaten and crucified... EXACTLY as written! His raiment is parted and "lotted" EXACTLY as written. Finally, He dies and a soldier comes by and, seeing He's already dead, does NOT break His legs (but breaks the legs of the two thieves on either side of Him) but DOES poke a spear into his side, making blood and water gush out... EXACTLY as written would happen!
Now, even assuming Jesus Himself was doing everything, to the letter, to make Himself *LOOK* like the messiah to His followers, while He was alive, what are the odds that EVERYONE would do EVERYTHING it was written THEY would do, EXACTLY to the letter, as written? Why would the soldiers do EVERYTHING it was written they would do, knowing that it would simply confirm His Deity to His followers? They didn't BELIEVE He was the Christ! That's why they killed Him! Because they thought He was blaspheming God by saying He WAS God (Jesus said: "Before Abraham was... I AM." and other statements). They had no reason to do things that would CONFIRM his Deity. Yet they still DID.
How do you explain that? How can SCIENCE explain that? Sheer coincidence? Random chance? Numerical odds of probability? Come on, be serious!
And then, using the previous example above, how could someone... ANYONE... write about someone (or ANYONE) that doesn't yet exist, and write about things that will happen to them, if that person doesn't yet exist? Even assuming they were imagining they heard "God's voice", how could they possibly imagine up a person and invent the things that will happen to them, generations before they exist and then HAVE that person appear and those things HAPPEN to them, EXACTLY as written?
Can you explain that? Can SCIENCE explain that? I don't think so. I *REALLY* don't think so...
Why? Because PROPHECY is not based in science. It's foreknowledge of things that haven't happened yet. And that's something science CAN'T explain, because science can ONLY work with what is already KNOWN, not what isn't.
And, thus, concludes my own "scientific argument" as to the evidence of God's existence!
I look forward to your reply!
Latre!
Luposian
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Tell him to read these (by me) and go away:
The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument
The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God is Absurd
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
........are you serious?
I certainly hope he is not, as he is making an error in cosmology which was dumped in the science trash bin somewhere around 1970, after Hoyle was canned and right around when the Kaluza-Klein was developed.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Actually Brian does hold that our universe is eternal in some state, but he's not a steady-stater...
Anyway, I'd say that it was up to others to put up the cosmological arguments for the team, such as yourself. From Brian's perspective all that matters is that he knows how bad the theist arguments are...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Along with the 'oscilating universe' Theory that whoever wrote the e-mail was talking about.
Mutli-verse budding perhaps?
That's one way to make his view workable (and I think it's your view, right?) but I don't think it's Brian's, I think he just holds that the singularity was eternal or that the matter in our universe existed in some other form, eternally...
I personally lean towards something like a vacuum fluctuation and hyper inflation... but multiverse is incredibly interesting... funny how us humans can 'imagine' something bigger than ... well, 'a universe"
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yep.
This comment has been moved here.
Sapient went the exact route I figured he would... "matter has always existed". If you don't attach God to the eternal, you have to attach something! At least he's smart enough not to think that everything came from nothing! Whew!
But my argument that prophecy PROVES the existance of God, still stands.
Unless, of course, the future has already happened and we simply are reliving the past... in an eternal "causality loop". Destined to always know our future and that it will end, and then be forced to repeat it endlessly!
Eh... nah. I'd rather believe God exists and is in total control, than consider that scary concept!
Luposian,
Just so you know, the post where you argued against Deludedgod's post seemed to be arguing directly against his essay, so I moved it into that thread. Sorry for any confusion, but it gets damn confusing if you start arguing different threads just from links.
I know you're saying that prophecy is relevant to this post, but since it was pretty much directed at deludedgod, I thought it would be better for readers if they could easily see what you were arguing against.
Sorry for any confusion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I just reread this.
Dude, you have some catching up to do.
That idea has been dead for ages as well. But it used to hang around.
Several renowned physicists got thinking that perhaps an intelligent civilization could create a "physical God" or the ultimate information processor which could simulate all quantum brain states. In a sense, we could create a physical manifestation of "the mind of God"(This would still not hold any of the classical theist attributes of God, because I have shown through the laws of physics that this is impossible. But it is the closest we could get). This would only work in an oscillatory universe because the gravitational contraction would have such force and colossal heat energy that the gradient of unequal distribution would rise so steeply that the maximal level of information processing would exponentially rise.
However, new data about inflationary space due to observed Supernovae have all but debunked oscillatory universe theory, the Dark Energy is more than a match for gravity . It would all depend in Tipler's Omega point about the relative density of the universe, but new observational evidence have caused this mathematical relationship to collapse. It is conceded that given the observations, Omega cannot equal >1. The thermal gradient necessary to produce a maximally intelligent entity, which would probably be represented in a complete simulation of reality with quantum brain states in the machine, does not exist.
The graph is simple enough to understand:
If Omega is greater than one, then the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe will overpower the antigravitation of Dark energy, and crush itself back into a fiery pinprick, if Omega is precisely zero, the acceleration of the universe is also precisely zero which means that rate of expansion velocity is precisely constant, and if it is smaller than one, it will accelerate originally than begin to decelerate, and the same if it is precisely equal to one, just at a smaller rate.
The rate of acceleration constant of Hubble’s law:
Unless the density of the universe is zero (this has been debunked), the universe will accelerate or decelerate, hence Hubble’s law changes with time. The parameter of deceleration is
Q=-H-2(dH/dT+H2)
The observations of standard candle variables in 1998 have confirmed that q is negative, which means that the universe is accelerating in expansion.
And when we insert the parameter into the redshift, we get:
Zc/H0
Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and H0 is Hubble’s constant integrated into the Freidmann equation. It would be simpler if the deceleration parameter was zero (zero density Omega parameter), which would mean the age of the universe is simpler to calculate, but it is not. The Hubble Age of the universe is calculated by winding the clock backwards, to find out how long ago the moment of creation must have been for Hubble’s constant to be matched with Hubble’s constant. For a non-zero q parameter, this is given by:
1/H0, which, recalling that the constant based on our observations is 70km/s/MPs, is...hey! 14 billion years. At 71 km/s/MPs, it is 13.8 billion years. If the density parameter was zero, the constant would simply be the inverse of the age of the universe, since the graph is precisely linear, or H=1/t, which would give us 7x10^-11. Since the distance for small scale redshift is zc/H0, the distance to galaxies can be expressed by the wavelength of z multiplied by 13.8 billion light years, which, of course, would only work if the universe was indeed that old, since light is the stop on the speed of information in the universe. Hubble's law dictates that redhsift is directly proportional to distance by the simple formula v=HD, where v=the recessional velocity of the object from Earth, H is Hubble's constant and D is the distance this object is from us. To find the acceleration parameter by these empirical observations, then, we simply insert our data into the formula which gives us the acceleration rate, which is what we want to know. This is why, undoubtedly, if you were confused since I would surely get a ridiculous number by the formula H=1/t or vice-versa, we must remember to insert this into the acceleration formula, which converts it into a sensible number, and is given above. Considering that Omega is not zero, and that we now have empirical evidence for it being larger than one, it follows that it is accelerating, so q will be a negative value. As for the recessional veloctity, is simply differentiated by dH/dT (this is in the formula), which will give us our answer. And our answer is...
The universe is accelerating at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per Megaparsec (which means that for every megaparsec of distance, the speed increases by 71km/s)
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Ok, so you're going to go from the "fulfilled prophecies" about Jesus. First of all, read this article from John W. Loftus about the "prophecies" that Jesus "fulfilled". In case you don't know who he is, John W. Loftus is a former pastor who woke up and realized that the Bible isn't true. Keep in mind, though, that this is only if Jesus existed. Here is a good summary by Todangst and Rook about the historicity of Jesus as a person.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Really... I'd love to be able to appreciate all the high-end math and formulaic stuff, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
To me, all it does is put in a lot of mathematical, calculated mumbo-jumbo to "explain" things that don't need explaining in the first place!
Why can we not simply look at the stars and planets and appreciate the fact that, to date, OUR planet is the ONLY one that supports life? And wonder how that is, exactly.
Your reply only tries to explain the whole "expanding universe" thing, which was merely a small dot in my original topic. Even a wild tangent, if you will.
The main topic was how did everything get here. If EVERYTHING had a beginning (and everything around us did), where did it start from? The classic "Chicken & Egg" scanario. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
And if you want something to REALLY twiggle your brain, think about this:
If the Universe is expanding, then it must be expanding *within* something else (or something larger than the expanding universe). What is on the OTHER side of the expanding edge universe? Is that "outer void" infinitely large and can contain infinite expandition of our universe? Or is there a limit and thus, at some point, the universe must STOP expanding?
I just LOVE pondering the imponderables...
Afterall, it's easy to imagine God existing forever forward. But try to imagine God ALWAYS having existed, even without considering numerical "time".
Even without "time", doing something TAKES time. Even in the non-ness of time. What was God doing before he created the earth? What was he doing before he did that? And before that... and before that... and before that... and before that... and that... and that... and that...
You see, THAT'S why I think people refuse to believe in God, because everything we know and see and can comprehend (to say nothing of our own existance), had a beginning!
But God has ALWAYS been there. Since before time and BEFORE before time and before and before... and before!
We can comprehend infinity going forward, no problem, but it's inconceivable to comprehend infinity going backwards. It makes my brain hurt!
Yet, I chose to believe in God rather than not. Why? Because I have nothing to lose. If God exists, I win. If God DOESN'T exist, then none of this existance mattered anyways and I'll simply be laughing my head off (in my non-existance) at the irony of it all.
I'd rather live for a "'God that wasn't there", than to risk the alternative. I believe in "playing it safe". If God doesn't exist, will it really have mattered if I did everything *I* wanted to do or not? No. Because we'll all simply cease to exist. Our lives will have been utterly pointless. Everything we do/did won't matter one iota. Our existance will have been utterly pointless! Just a blip in time and then gone.
As a Christian, I have hope. Something not a whole lot of people have in this degrading world we live in. Because of the God I believe in, if EVERYTHING were to suddenly vanish... everyone I knew/loved, everything I owned, all the money I ever had... and I found myself in the gutter (or wherever), I would have Someone I can count on, in spite of it all.
Because my life is more than just the people and things in it. My life belongs to God!
I can face the worst this world can dish out, with a smile, because I know... it can't get any worse than death. And, in fact, the worse things get in this world get, the happier I get, because I know our redemption draweth nigh!
We Christians don't need to be like that Iranian nutjob and CAUSE massive wars to break out, to hasten the coming of our savior... we just need to wait til it happens on it's own!
Because the bible PREDICTED (by prophecy) that it would happen.
When people (even fellow Christians) tremble at the thought of all that's going on in the world today and the worries about war and how it will affect them and their lives, I say BRING IT ON!!!
God'll take me through or God'll take me out, but one way or another, I'm ready for this old sin-sopped, dripping with fear and uncertainty, world we live in, to get over and done with.
Y'all can "hope" and believe this world is gonna get better by whatever mechanations man can devise, but it ain't gonna work. It's going to get worse... a LOT worse... incomprehendably worse, before it gets better.
Fasten your seat belts and hang on, because this world is headed for a VERY bumpy ride... as for me (and a whole lot of others), we're getting off at the next stop. And the sooner it is, the better.
Latre!
Luposian
People can say what they want. Believe what they want. My argument was concerning prophecy. If things that haven't happened (and/or won't happen for years to come), are written about, and they happen EXACTLY as written, how can science explain that? I was using the life of Jesus as an example, not a point of discussion, as to whether He did or didn't exist.
I find people love to focus on the wrong point of a topic and attempt to derail things from there, than to actually confront the REAL point being made, which is a lot harder to handle.
BTW, what episode/scene does your sig come from? I'm pretty sure it's from I-III (not IV-VI), but i can't place the scene it's in.
My response?
So you are saying that because we don't know where the universe cam from then it must have been magic? I see well if you believe in magic then I guess thats ok pal. But I stopped believing in magic about the same time as I stopped believing in Father Christmas. I suggest you grow up. Magic is not for adults its for children.
Better than just bullshitting about what we "think" or "believe" happens. Don't fall victim to the "I don't understand it so either A) no one else does either, or B) it's just a bunch of meaningly prattle" fallacy. (There is a real name for that fallacy, but I can't remember it).
And how many of the other galaxies have you visited recently?
Exactly.
Who said there had to be an ultimate beginning? And if there was, who said it had to be a god? And if it was, who said it had to be your god?
Please don't make the Aquinas first cause argument. That would be a really bad idea.
You could also imagine other things having existed that way. Weird how people only seem to want to give that ability to whatever god they believe in.
That's assuming that there is/was a God, which I'm not inclined to believe.
Oh my science... he's still pursuing the first cause argument... BAD MONKEY!!! BAD!!!
What's so hard to comprehend? It's like infinity going forward, only it's in the opposite direction.
Is this Pascal's Wager we're getting? All kinds of easily defeated arguments here!
Actually, if God doesn't exist, then you've squandered your one and only life in subservience to a being that doesn't exist. Bummer.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it bothers me.
Unless, of course, you want to enjoy the experience while you're here. And unless, of course, you want to do something that benefits future generations. Just because the earth isn't going to be here forever isn't any reason to sit around waiting to die. I'm not going to "play it safe" just in case there is a god out there. If such a god exists and wants me to know it, then they can go for it. Until then, it's my life.
(Did I just quote Bon Jovi? Eeeh...)
As someone who doesn't believe in him, I would beg to differ. I'd probably say you had a comforting imaginary figure at best. But that's just me.
And for those of us who don't believe in God, that is a bullshit mentality, because people don't care about what's happening in the world because they're just waiting on a ticket out of here anyway somehow end up screwing it up for the rest of us. What about those of us who actually care what happens to the planet? What about those of us who believe this is the world we're stuck with?
Thanks for reiterating one of the reasons why this site was started.
See above.
Horoscopes are pretty cool, too. You should check them out.
*cringe*
*cringe*
*twitching*
Hold on. I need to break something.
*breaks something*
Thanks for waiting.
Just spewing enthusiasm about what you believe is not proof of what you believe. At least two of the attempts at arguments that you made were really old arguments that were defeated a long time ago (i.e. First Cause argument and Pascal's Wager).
Some of us realize that just being gung-ho and optimistic doesn't prove something is true. You'll have to do better than preach. I've heard all of this before.
Thanks for playing! Go to the back of the line and try again.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Is that the best answer you can come up with? MAGIC? Oh, for crying out loud... "Intelligent Design" (otherwise referred to as "created by God"
is NOT "Magic". For your information, "Magic" is man-made illusion. If you weren't aware of this little fact... MAN WASN'T AROUND WHEN THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTANCE! Therefore, "Magic" had nothing to do with it. So, to believe that "magic" had anything to do with it (or to think that *I* would think that), is beyond absurd.
Its not my answer. This is what theists are saying.
Yes it is.
How exactly did god create and design life?
What process did he use to create the universe?
You dont have clue do you. Its a mysterious unexplainable force that we just don't understand. In other words its done by magic.
Thats one type of magic I agree. I'm referring to the supernatural "magic" that you claim God can do. Unless of course yuo think he created the universe by slight of hand?
I agree. Magic is bullshit. So why do theists insist on using this as somekind of explanation.
We do not know how or why the universe came to be. There are theories yes but really there are many unknowns. What do we do in situations where we don't know the answer?
Do we admit we don;t know but try to find the answer?
Or
So we say ahhh well that means that god did it by magic.
This is exactly what you do think though. You may not like the term becasue it illustrates teh absurdity of the theist position. You can label magic as "gods divine power" if you like but no matter what you label it it amounts to the same thing. A completely unexplained supernatural force or process from a completely unexplained supernatural entity. Magic is as good a label as any I would say. And yes you are quite right it is made up by man as is God.
Aarrgghh. At least read the link for John W. Loftus. He basically answers your argument about the fulfilled prophecies. In fact, I'll post it here so it's easier for everyone to read. (Note to everyone - this is not my argument. I am not trying to plagarize, I am merely trying to show the inconsistencies in the argument from prophecies. This article is taken from a post by John W. Loftus on his blog - http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/100-challenge.html)
John W. Loftus:
As a pastor, I often made reference in my sermons to the “astounding prophecies of the Bible,” which I believed proved the deity of Christ and the divine inspiration of Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt. It was my sincere conviction that if an unbeliever examined, for example, the Messianic prophecies embedded in the Old Testament with an open mind, he would walk away a convert to Christ. How many prophecies are we talking about here? Well, that depends on who you ask. Jews for Jesus point to several dozen Messianic prophecies, while Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017.”
For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question. It was not until a Bible class earlier this year that serious doubts about the Messianic prophecies began to bubble to the surface. I was teaching through John's Gospel, verse by verse, when the class came to chapter 19 and verse 36 ("These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of his bones will be broken"
. Someone asked me about the original prophecy, so I followed my index finger to the handy-dandy cross reference and arrived at Psalm 34:20. Ah, here I would be able to show the class one of the "astounding" prophecies of Scripture that "proves beyond a doubt" that Jesus was the Christ. What I discovered was, shall we say, underwhelming:
19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
This is certainly an inspiring verse of Scripture, but you would have to be a fool to take it as a prophecy of the Messiah. I was left in the truly awkward position of explaining to the class why John took a verse like this and wrenched it so violently from its original context (something I've preached against for years). As we went along, I noticed other misquoted passages the Gospel writer applied to Jesus. I was quite embarrassed--not for myself, but for the apostle John! This got me to wondering--how many other claims of prophetic fulfillment are not just a little bit off, but way off?
Here's why this question is so important to evangelical Christianity: if the Messianic prophecies fail, the entire Christian foundation erodes away with it (see Deut. 18:22). The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) recognizes this: “How do you respond to someone's claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is, ‘Yes!’ One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy.”
Got that? Christians say that you can evaluate the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration by whether or not it accurately records actual instances of fulfilled prophecy. CARM continues: “If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future.”
So, does everyone understand the rules of the game? If we can find just one bogus prophecy—one instance where the Bible says something is going to happen a certain way and it doesn’t pan out—this is all a reasonable person needs to demonstrate the Bible is human, not divine, in origin. Put another way, if there were 100 Bible prophecies and 99 were shown to be right on the money, 1 wrong prophecy would be enough to spoil a 100% perfect record. If the Messianic prophecies are shady in any way, then the Bible is not the perfect product of a perfect God (as millions believe today). Perhaps most significant, without 100% accuracy of the Messianic passages, Jesus cannot be the One sent from heaven to redeem the world.
Now that we have our challenge, can we find one bogus prophecy? Well, here's where it gets tough: choosing just one! Let’s start in Matthew, who is prolific in his quotation Old Testament prophecies and his application of them to Jesus. Should we build our case on a passage like Matthew 2:23? It says of Jesus, “And he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.’” I'm sad to say that in my 20 years as a Christian, I never realized that Matthew makes reference to a prophecy that doesn’t even exist! Try as you may, you will nowhere find a place in the Old Testament where it unambiguously declares the Messiah would be a Nazarene.
How about the (in)famous example of Isaiah 7:14? Matthew uses this prophecy as the cornerstone of his Gospel, quoting Isaiah as saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child.” However, the word Matthew translates "virgin" would be more accurately translated “young woman.” The Jews had a very specific word for virgin (bethulah), but it was not the word Isaiah chose (ha-almah). Holy disappearing virgin, Batman! Further examination of the chapter reveals that the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 was to be a sign to Ahaz, a Judean king who lived centuries before Jesus was even born!
Or how about this one: Matthew’s claim that King Herod slaughtered “all the male children who were in Bethlehem and its vicinity, from two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16). Every Sunday school student knows this story (one Bible class lesson titles this episode, “Babies Give Their Lives for Jesus”). As a minister, I searched desperately to substantiate this story with the Jewish histories of Josephus or with any secular historian of that era--only to realize that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence behind it. To add insult to injury, Matthew (or whoever wrote under his name) would have us believe that this fanciful tale was also a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. He quotes Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.” Once again, a careful reading of the entire chapter in its context reveals that Jeremiah is talking about a situation far removed from Bethlehem, Herod, and the Magi. He is describing the struggles of the Israelites during the Babylonian Captivity. The few verses after verse 15 bear this out:
15 This is what the LORD says:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."
16 This is what the LORD says:
"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD.
"They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD.
"Your children will return to their own land.”
Clearly the Gospel writer was stretching it a bit (read: a lot)!
No doubt, I will hear from outraged Christians who cannot understand how a minister so in-tune with the Bible, from a conservative Christian denomination, can question these prophecies. Well, please understand that there are fair-minded, rational people out there who do have trouble with them. The man whose question sparked this search was not a skeptic, but a respected deacon of my church.
That having been said, I’m interested in what Christians perusing this forum see as so irrefutable about the so-called Messianic prophecies about Jesus. If the standard for prophecy is 100% accuracy—no misses—then (as Ricky Ricardo would say) "someone’s got some 'splaining to do!"
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
My short and sweet response:
O.K....
1. This thread proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I must be the resident dumbass of the RRS site. There is so much here that is *way* over my head, that I didn't even read all of the posts. So I'm just starting with the first few.
2. I *do* understand, at least in *very* broad terms what the phrase "steady state" refers to: the idea that the universe simply had no moment of coming into existence. I was even vaguely aware that this theory was no longer enjoying acceptance.
3. That said...could someone help me get at least a basic understanding of some of the concepts thrown around here, such as: Hoyle, Kaluza-Klein, multiverse budding, vacuum fluctuation, and hyper inflation?
4. I seem to vaguely remember "oscillating universe" having something to do with the universe eventually coming together in a destructive "Big Crunch," which would immediately lead to another "Big Bang," and hence, a new universe. Am I right about this, or am I way off track?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Conor
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII
"But it should!"--Me
No. I can read your writing and there are no spelling errors in your post = NOT A DUMBASS.
Don't get overwhelmed. There is plenty of time.
Don't feel bad. Every moment that I am logged in, I learn something new or see another way of examining what I already know.
No. steady state refers to the, now debunked, idea that the universe isn't/wasn't moving ergo it had no beginning and no end either.
Since we now have a baby picture of our side of the universe and we can observe its present state, no one can legitimately assert that the galaxies are 'fixed'.
Even a basic understanding of astrophysics takes a lot of time. Google is your friend. Four of your requested terms can be found while reading about 'm-theory'. Finding a site that fits your taste is easy. I got 81,200 hits. Ignore wikipedia and go to the ones with .edu at the end if possible. That's my advice.
Yep. Guess we'll know for sure in a hundred million years. lol.
Here is a thread talking about the quote function and how to do your signature:
Susan's tutorial
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
this thread has morphed, from god to science
, the very concept of "infinity" is surely the greatest achievement of human consciousness to date
, in the big picture, our earth is but a nearly invisible atomic speck of dust, not even a huge grain of sand. The giant cosmos we can now perceive is just more of the same smallness. We don't see shit .....
can ya dig it ... a dig a dig a dig it ! , heeeeeeee ....
maybe try LSD ? , ummm better not .... hey ask DG !
Atheism Books.
Why did this perfect prophecy of the coming of Jesus not mention the name 'Jesus'???
The only reference I could find to 'Emmanuel' in the New Testament is a back reference to that 'prophecy' - nowhere else does it seem that Jesus is referred to by that name.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Darth Josh:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. As for the solid state theory...well...you actually said what I meant to say. I had the right idea, I just wasn't communicating it very well. (Here's hoping that practice really will eventually make perfect....)
As for the rest...wow. There's a lot out there, and I know I don't understand it all yet, let alone having internalized it...but I took a little time to sit with the Theory of Everything for a bit, and I rather enjoyed it. (Hmmm...I wonder...is there any evidence for the idea that atheism makes you more intelligent?)
Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'm starting to love this website for its educational possibilities alone.
Conor
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII
"But it should!"--Me
How did God create and design life? Read Genesis. I prefer the KJV, but any version should do.
What process did He use? His words, obviously. God *said* let there be light and there was light (and many other things as well)... He spoke everything into existance. It's all right there in Genesis. John 1 is also a fun place to go.
Wanna know where prophecy mentions "Jesus" specifically? Matthew 1:21 and 1:25.
Was Jesus born yet? No. Was He even conceived yet? Probably not, in verse 1:21. Probably was, by 1:25. Remember, prophecy is the foretelling of events that haven't happened... EXACTLY as they SHALL happen. Prophecy is not "guessing", it's KNOWING.
shit anyone can do prophecy, it's a no brainer
, shall we fulfill armageddon ?
, did Rome really fall ?
, hey it's me Jesus, I've returned, why won't anyone listen to ME ???
, Oh yeah it's all prophesied ....
, I AM GOD, you need know ! but you refuse to believe ....
Atheism Books.
edit, double posted ? ....
hey, god thought it really important !
god works in amazing ways !
Indeed so God magicked the universe into existence with his magic words. Nice explanation! That really clears that one up... I'll go tell alll the comsmologists to stop wasting their time and money.
Of course you are aware that the Gospel of Matthew was written some 50 + years after Jesus was supposed to have died? I can do this prophessy to here goes
"In 1939 Germany will invade Poland and this will spark a world war"
There one Biblical style prophesy written after the event..... now grovel at my feet and so as I say for I am the word of God.
What on EARTH are you blathering on about? You're not making any sense. But, then again, atheists never do.
It's colloquially referred to as "cooking the books".
Do con artists get surprised when the ball isn't under the middle cup? No, because they already know where it is.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
sorry, wrong answer on my part
Matthew 1.21 and 1.25 are not prophecies and they do not even refer to an actual prophecy concerning Jesus. The author of Matthew either mutilated the meaning in Isaiah or was using a mistranslated version of it because it doesn't say anything about a virgin. Furthermore, the prophecy in Isaiah was supposed to have been fulfilled shortly after the prophecy because the birth of a child was supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz and his kingdom to provide reassurance to the king in the face of an upcoming war/battle. Please read the relevant Isaiah chapter and look at the Hebrew then read Matthew 1 and look at the Greek and you will know that I am correct.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!