You know god exists, you just don't like it.
Offline THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING. IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED. HAVE AT IT...
How about an appeal to reason and common sense? The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here? You have no answer for that. Christianity does. I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one. Common sense and logic tells us this is the case. I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind. You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him.
You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name. You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God. How ironic. Allah does not exist. That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him. What for? He doesn't exist. Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others.
I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason. You know He exists. You just don't like it. Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods". But you don't. It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.
- Login to post comments
42
=
Go for it!
The fact that life and the universe exists is proof that life and the universe exists, nothing more. You could just as well, and incorrectly, conclude that life and the universe existing was proof that invisible pink unicorns existed. I got here because my parents had sex, as did you. How life first formed is a valid and still largely speculative question, but one thing for sure " God did it " holds no explanatory power whatsoever.
Again, " God did it " is not a valid answer in that it conveys no useful information.
We don't need evidence? So you convict criminals based on gut feelings? You buy used cars sight unseen based on just what the car salesman tells you? Sucker!
Common sense tells us that god talks through burning bushes, creates the universe from nothing despite on the same page saying that water existed, and tells us that eaten books taste like honey? The two things the Bible lacks is common sense and logic, especially when the creation myth was plagiarized from a much older pagan creation myth
I pity the delusional theistic morons that make up ridiculous metaphors to try to prove their irrational points. My life revolves around reality, but I really, really enjoy exposing dipshits for what they are. I gain pleasure from lighting a candle to expose the face of nonsense like yours to the world. I live to bitch slap the ignorant, because I believe that stupidity should be painful. In a perfect, created world, stupidity would be painful. But since cosmic justice does not exist, people like me have to make stupidity painful for idiots like you.
I didn't create this website. I haven't written any articles as yet about your invisible sky fairy. I have blasphemed its name, but only to piss nitwits like you off.
I'm an equal opportunity atheist in that I will attack every invisible sky fairy that delusional cretins wish to offer. I've bashed my fair share of Wiccans and Islamics. But the fact is that I live in the U.S. where a particular brand of delusional lie holds sway, Christianity. So it stands to reason, common sense, ya know... oh, on second thought you are probably too delusional to know.... anyhow, your particular lie holds sway here, and so I attack it the most because I am exposed to it the most, just as physicians here tend to attack influenza more than polio.
Well,....no. I just covered that in the post above, If you had given this any thought before posting, my reason would likely have occurred to you. But here is a thought... Maybe the reason that you want to defend your invisible sky fairy is because you know deep down that he doesn't exist! Hmmmmm!
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
This statement very nearly sums up what is wrong. Obviously this individual lacks a better understanding of process of reasoning, firstly because the process of reasoning would illustrate that there is no ontological knowledge of the god thing, secondly “common sense” is not necessarily based on reason. It is based on what people in common would agree on and that definitely excludes the necessity of reason.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Your suspicion is inaccurate.
No gods are proven to exist and therefore belief in any god is irrational. The Christian god is attacked more often on our site because more Christians visit our site. Over 90% of the theists that visit this site believe in the Christian god.
Now here's what I suspect... you've chosen this approach with your letter to us over an approach which shows you can prove that your god exists because... you can't prove he exists.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I could have sworn that most of our argumentation was against deists. And most of the argumentation that is not against deists is against each other. Hell, there was even a pantheist/polytheist we were bickering with earlier. As far as I can tell, this is an equal opportunity religious and political argument site.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Special pleading. What created your creator? Oh, nobody? Then why cannot the universe also just exist without the need of a creator? The creator hypothesis solves nothing. It simply adds another layer of unexplainable mumbo jumbo.
Nonsense. This is not an answer to the question at all. You might as well say, "well, the universe is here, and so obviously that means that it was created by the snot of a giant snizzlewit!" It answers nothing at all. You must first show why a creator is necessary for the universe to exist. You must then show that your creator does not need to be created. Philosophers shot this argument down (Aquinas' cosmological argument) hundreds of years ago. If you can refute the hundreds of philosophical papers on this, I will listen to you. Good luck with that.
This website is dedicated to the destruction of irrational ideas. Belief in Jesus Christ is one such idea. Christ may not have ever existed, and neither has God, but YOU exist, and people like YOU exist, and that is why we must talk about it. You said yourself, you talk to him, pray to him, talk about him, read his word and discuss him with others. You also lobby for our government to make policies related to this nonsense, and seek to convert ME and my family to your line of thinking. As long as religious people exist, we have no choice but to discuss the philosophical notion of god.
You must realize that it is possible to entertain an idea without accepting it, and to discredit ideas that we don't believe in without secretley believing in them.
This is simply not true. We attack the christian god because a great majority of people in the United States believe in him. The RRS is located in the USA, so the nearest irrational idea that we can target is Christianity. If the RRS was located in Iran, we would target Islam. If it was located in Thailand, we'd target Buddhism. If it was located in India, we'd target Hinduism.
A good number of American Atheists started out as Protestant or Catholic Christians, so Christianity is the most accessible religion to attack. We know about it. We've been indoctrinated into it already. You can't attack something that you don't really know about.
No. The only thing axiomatic about something existing is (suprise!) that it exists.
Well, the universe was spawned from the big bang; an expansion of what we presently know as space, time and energy from a single point (or 'singularity'), of whose properties and origins we are uncertain. I'd imagine at this point you'd want to argue that 'God' somehow made the singularity, but this is an absurd appeal as it doesn't answer any questions. How did God make it? How do we know God made it? Where did God come from? Etc.
Answer these questions and perhaps you'll be onto something you could argue in favor of.
You owe me your house, car and every penny in your bank account. You have until Friday to cough it all up, or you'll go to jail for the rest of your life.
Why didn't the above statement spur you to action? Isn't it possible that I'm correct? 'The rest of your life' is an awfully long time.
I want you to seriously think about that for a little while.
There is no evidence for God, and the concept is just plain ridiculous. However, I have no qualms about admitting that if god were real, such a situation would be dreadful.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
There are millions of possible explanations about how we all got here. Each of them is as good if not better then your own.
You don't talk about Allah because he doesn't exist, but your willing to talk about atheism. That’s very interesting.
My problem is more with religion then with belief in god. To be honest I don’t really care that much what people believe. It’s what people who believe in god do that disturbs me. Here is a list of things I want from religion in America(were I live).
1) Stay out of government. Government should be neutral.
2) Stop brain washing children. Stop scaring children with endless stories of hell. Give children at least some chance to make up there own mind.
3) Stop trying to subvert science with your mythology.
4) Stop harassing me and other people at school, at work, and wherever else you get the urge.
If Christianity did these four things I would no longer have a problem with them, and if pagans or other religions started to intrude into my life the way Christianity does then I would talk about them more. If you paid more attention to it you might be surprise just how invasive Christianity.
Edit:[I put to many space. The format was hard to read so I got rid of them]
You are right we don't have an answer for why things exist... Christianity does not have an answer it has an assertion. This is like saying since no one knows why "X" happened, its OK to make things up about it. As you clearly state in the following lines.
Our website is not about a god, but the about the people who seem to think it exists and those willing to question it. We write about the people who have those irrational beliefs. Would you not write about someone if they were influencing your government with their irrational beliefs or trampling on your rights?
I hate your god just as much as you hate its creator.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Ok, this proves nothing. Just because science admits that it does not, at this time, have all the answers does not mean that it is flawed in any way. If scientists went around saying that Darwin jerked off into a cup and that created the universe would you be satisfied? Its an explanation just as likely as your god when you look at it and it has the Science Stamp of Approval. Both assume that there is some entity that exists outside of the universe that can somehow and without any explanation as the why or how create something enormously and unfathomable by man complex. If I believed in Darwin sperm it is just as plausible as Allah or a giant bore or Yahweh creating the universe.
Fortunately for you science is much more dignified than that and actually seeks out the truth and does not just pull explanations out of a hat (or a collection of mythology) whenever there is something that cannot be explained. That is the scientific method and is the hallmark of our civilization.
The fact that life and this universe exists is proof of nothing more than it exists.
If 'something' preceded the Big Bang, it may have extended indefinitely back in Time, if Time existed in a meaningful sense prior to that event. No 'Creator' logically required.
If in some sense what we think of as 'reality' came into existence at that point, then presumably something initiated that event, presumably within the context of some other realm of existence. We could label that a 'Creator' if you like, but we have no evidence as to the actual attributes and nature of that 'Creator'. There is no evidence whatever that require it to be anything remotely resembling an all-powerful all-knowing being, in fact that would be logically problematic, since to be logically consistent, the existence of that being would require the existence of something even greater to 'create' it, and so on...
Assuming the 'creator' was some finite event, maybe little more than a modest 'burp' in the underlying fabric of existence, which would be consistent with the nature of basic reality we glimpse thru quantum phenomena.
As to why there is something rather than nothing, the only honest answer is that we don't know.
Quantum theory strongly demonstrates that "Common sense" is a poor guide to these ultimate questions.
Without evidence to base your premises on, logic and reason tells you nothing.
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
The problem with the word "created" is how it is used by theists vs how science adresses the unknown.
The theists uses the word "created" in an anthropromorphic sense as if that which is not human has human qualities such as thinking and conciousness and awareness.
Science DOES NOT have all the answers, but of what we do know is demonstrably observable as natural and not anthropromorphic. So the pollen of one flower floats through the wind and hits the pistle of another and thus another flower is "created", but that is a random process not a cognative one.
The only conclusion that is reasonable about what came before the "big bang" if anything, is that although we don't know, it can only be as uncognative as the result of it, merely an ongoing random process.
You cant expect apples that falls on the ground from gravity to produce a gass grill or snarfwidget.
God is not only a needless guess as far as to what came before, it is a dangerous assumption that it is thinking or human. It is merely a wishfull anthropromorphic answer born out of ignorance.
"What we don't know" does not constitute a giant super being of which the universe is merely an atom, much less a man in a white robe. Gods are nothing more than human inventions born out of ignorance.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Maybe. But I doubt it.
I have more proof that God does exist than you have that He doesn't exist. The universe speaks of a Creator without saying a word. You simply cannot have the existence of life, matter, space from absolutely nothing. Something or someone must have created it. I am not arguing for who that "someone" is. All I am saying is that that "someone" has to exist.
And please don't tell me, as others who have posted here have said, that the existence of the universe proves only that the universe exists because that is intellectual dishonesty. Because if we use this kind of failed logic then when you look at a building you cannot say at all, with any confidence or assurance, that a builder exists. Are you willing to say that? Are you willing to go there? Are you willing to say that the building you are sitting in did not have a builder unless someone provides proof for his/her existene? And please don't say, as others have said, that the universe always existed and therefore does not require a Creator because science has at least concluded that the universe had a begining.
Also, to make the statement "There is no such thing as God!" You would have to know everything. You would have to have all known, and yet to be known, information in the universe to be able to make a statemnt like that with any confidence or assurance.
Through all the posts on this forum up to this point, there has been little if nothing beyond Sapient and Magus's post that might bring progress and require further explanation from the source.
90% of the response has been opinion that could easily be reworded by me or any other "theist" to say the same about your point of view. Thus it would bring just as much progress and conclusion to the debate.
In other words, if you're going to so matter of factly deny the statement, you might as well present at least something like Sapient did where it requires further explanation of what was being said which in turn could make the source reconsider their views or further explain themselves. Otherwise, you make just as strong of a case against God as they did for God and we're back to the age old debate yet again.
FOR THOSE UNAWARE "DOC" IS THE O.P.
Not familiar with the laws of conservation of matter and energy, eh?
Through scientific testing we have seen hundreds of thousands of times that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. They simply change states. However we have never seen any sort of scientific test that "the universe speaks of a creator." In other words, you don't have more proof than I have. I actually have a scientific law to stand with me that leads one to believe that all of the energy and all of the matter that makes up our universe has existed for an eternity, and you have nothing, nada, zilch, a big gigantic whole of wishy washing nothingness.
conservation law
or law of conservation
In physics, the principle that certain quantities within an isolated system do not change over time. When a substance in an isolated system changes phase, the total amount of mass does not change. When energy is changed from one form to another in an isolated system, there is no change in the total amount of energy. When a transfer of momentum occurs in an isolated system, the total amount of momentum is conserved. The same is true for electric charge in a system: charge lost by one particle is gained by another. Conservation laws make it possible to predict the macroscopic behaviour of a system without having to consider the microscopic details of a physical process or chemical reaction.
conservation of energy
The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.
Well as you can see I didn't do that. I actually provided a scientific law to defend the fact that no god is needed, that matter and energy have always existed, and you've provided nothing but jibber jabber. But with that said, the existence of the universe proves the universe exists. That statement is not intellectually dishonest, in fact it's a very honest way to refer to it.
To some degree you are correct. However since I have been alive I have seen a great many buildings constructed by men. I also know of no other means in which buildings are currently constructed. And because of this I have a reasonable expectation that all buildings are built by men. Is it possible that somewhere there is a tribe of gorillas and chimps working together to construct simple buildings? Sure, however I have not seen such a thing, and have no reason to believe that anything but man creates buildings. With that said, if I actually needed to prove a building was created by a man for some reason, I could inspect permit records or investigate the reported builder. I could seek out the builder, speak with him/her and ask if they are in fact responsible for a buildings creation.
When I bought the building I am now sitting in I actually found out about the builder. I am even able to call him on the phone. I had an inspector come out and check his work, I could even tell you that the builder of my home did a very good job and would rate him at a fairly high competency level.
If you're speaking of the big bang as the beginning that's fine. And yes scientists generally consider that the beginning of our universe. However none of those scientists would tell you that the matter and energy that produced the big bang came into existence at that moment. In fact most would likely tell you that we have no reason to believe that the matter and energy that caused the big bang has done anything other than exist forever. Instead of cherrry picking the words that you feel fit your view of reality you should listen and read more closely.
Name one scientists who accepts the big bang and has some proof to show that it was at that moment that matter and energy came into existence for the first time(link me). My challenge should be easy considering your claim that science has concluded the universe had a beginning.
And to make the statement you did "I have more proof that God does exist than you have that He doesn't exist" you'll need a heap of scientific laws in your corner to overturn the actual science I have provided.
So have at it.
What laws of science have been tested thousands of times that prove that nothing existed before the big bang except for your god?
What laws of science disprove the laws of conservation of matter and energy?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Mr. S,
Don't you get tired of reading Comfort and Cameron's arguments over and over?
Exactly why the argument is weighed heavily to there being no god. If theists cannot demonstrate any evidence of such a thing, it pretty much indicates that the god idea is completely imaginary. Otherwise where did the belief of such a thing come from? There is documented evidence that people do have mental delusions. It is demonstrable that people imagine things that do not exist. And people LIE.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Especially when money can be made...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Translation
You know ASS GNOMES exists, tiny invisible gnomes that live in ass holes, you just don't like it.
How about an appeal to IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION AND LOGICAL FALLACIES? The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that ASS GNOMES exists or else how did we/it get here? It could not have always existed and it could not be something that I have not thought of, because I know everything and I am the most arrogant ASS GNOME worshiper that ever existed. You have no answer for that – do you? MUMBO JUMBO does. I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one. I JUST MAKE UP BULLSHIT AND PASS IT OFF AS FACTS JUST LIKE ALL OTHER IGNORANT RELIGIOUS MORONS. Common sense and logic tells us this is the case. I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind to my infinite knowledge. You believe that there is no such thing as ASS GNOMES but your whole life revolves around ASS GNOMES.
You spend all your time creating websites about ASS GNOMES, writing articles about ASS GNOMES, blaspheming the name of ASS GNOMES. You may spend the time saying and writing that ASS GNOMES doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by ASS GNOMES. How ironic. Other ASS GNOMES do not exist. That is why I do not bother talking or writing about other ASS GNOMES. What for? Other ASS GNOMES doesn't exist. Superman does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others.
I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the ASS GNOMES of MUMBO JUMBO and not other "ASS GNOMES" is for the same reason. You know that the ASS GNOMES of MUMBO JUMBO exists and that the other ASS GNOMES don’t exist. You just don't like it. Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "ASS GNOMES". But you don't. It is almost exclusively attacks against the ASS GNOMES of MUMBO JUMBO.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Don't actually fully understand what you read in scientific journals, eh?
The Laws of Physics that you cited are actually part of that proof of a Creator. The fact that those Laws of physics exist are proof of a Creator. They do not prove He doesn't exist as you suggest. But you are partly right. I don't have "more proof" that God exists; I have the exact same proof you do. You just choose to ignore that proof because it does not fit with your beliefs. The same physical laws are available to you and scientists but since you start off with the assumption "God does not exist" you and many scientists try to explain these physcial laws of the universe and the things they govern in a purely "natural", physical way. But it still begs the question, "How did it get here?". The only rational and reasonable answer is that someone created it. You don't need a scientific experiment that proves God exists because 1) it is not teastable because the Creator is not physical and is not bound by the laws of physics and 2) it is axiomatic; logic and reason affirms this truth. In fact, all scientific experiments in the known universe proves "the universe speaks of a Creator". We all start off with the same set of facts. You and many scientists interpret those facts in light of the belief that there is no God, therefore, the explanations given for what is observed is always going to be made with this in mind. This, however, falls short which is why the human imagination has to concoct things like evolution and that matter always existed. I and other scientists interpret those same facts with the knowledge that God exists and conclude accordingly.
The laws of physics prove that matter is not and cannot be eternal. Not the other way around as you stated.
I could cut and paste like you did but I won't. But I will refer you to the following link that provides the details to what I am talking about. Please read what is written in the following link: http://www.emjc3.com/OriginOfTheUniverseEastman.htm If you are truly interested in rationality and honest discussion you would read what is in it.
Besides, you still haven't answered the question: "What evidence do you have that God doesn't exists." You have nothing, nada, zilch, zip, a big imaginary everything.
Understood. But that doesn't negate that someone created the universe. The reason why it is easier for you to comprehend a building had a builder is through repeated observation and logic leading you to that conclusion. But the creation of the universe is not observable because it has already been created and none of us were there when it was created. But even if we were to find universes being created or formed and we could obseerve this and study it we would still need to answer the question "Who or what is creating or forming it?" because from what we currently know of the Laws of physics something cannot be created out of nothing.
And as far as being able to inspect permits or meet the builder all that would tell you is WHO the builder was and how he built the building. But would you really have to? Logically? Really? Logic would tell you that there must have been a builder even before you inspect permits or actually meet the builder. Even before you inspect permits or meet the builder you would know as fact that someone built that building. Are you saying that if you see a building you will not know as fact that a builder existed until you meet him or inspect permit records? Are you really willing to go there? If so, then you have abandoned all reason and ventured into the realm of irrationalty and might as well call yourself the Irrational Response Squad. But I think you would have problems with the government if you went around claiming to be the IRS.
Again this only tells you who the builder is, how well he built the building, what he looks like, what material he used to build the building and other additional information. But you already knew he existed before you obtained this additional information , right?
You are once again incorrect in your statements. There are many scientists that are willing to say that matter is not eternal, . Whether they agree with the big bang is a different issue. In fact there are many scientists who are challenging the Big Bang and claiming it is unscientific, such as physicist Neil Turok. As for cherry picking that is the pot calling the kettle black. Atheists are the kings of cherry picking. And you are the king cherry picker.
I cannot because your "challenge" is a fallacy. No one has any "proof" of when matter and energy came into existence. Just like you cannot name one scientist who accepts or doesn't accept the big Bang that has any "proof" matter is eternal. But to play your game, Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D professor of physics at University of Alabama stated that science has proven there is a beginning to the universe and there is no evidence that matter existed before this event.
And I do. You did not provide science but theory. All the laws of physics are in favor of a Creator. The laws of physics do not adhere to the theory of eternal matter but of an intelligent all powerful Creator bringing it all into existence.
Get ready for a logical proof for God... ... ... ... ... ... Nope guess not.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Get ready for empty words and empty rhetoric..............Yep! Thanks Spike.barnett
You capitalized "He" in your first sentence (you are the original poster right?). This usually refers to the Christian and at the very least the Abrahamic god. If that's not what you meant you are still argue that god is male which narrows down the number of gods by, I'm guessing, a little more than half.
I saw the building I'm in right now being built
Even still I know that all buildings were build by humans because there is evidence for almost every building I have seen having been built by humans. Just take the time to go track down the blue prints and build instructions for which ever building you're interested in. I'm sure construction companies keep accurate records of these things. By simple deduction I can assume that all buildings were built by humans, the same goes for watches, refrigerators, shoes, toasters, etc...
You see the way it works is, if all crows are observed to be black then it can be written as a fact that all crows are black. This fact will go undisputed until a non-black crow has been observed. Since we have never seen a universe being created then we can assume that which we can observe. Unfortunately for you we haven't observed a white-bearded man in the cosmic background preforming hocus pocus. Therefore, we can only assume, at this point, that the universe has either always existed or spontaneously came into existence. Arguing anything else, no matter how good of a debater you are, will always succumb to Occam's razor.
Unless the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject, your argument is fallacious.
For example, one could make the claim that "All roses are red." But if, by this person's own admission, s/he has not observed every rose in existence, then s/he will have not justified that claim.
-----------------------
As part of a “deductive” argument, the conclusion is a less universal effect of the premises. If one of the premises is particular, then it is necessary that the conclusion is particular (never universal). Inferring a universal from a particular is an unwarranted leap of reason. “All” is not necessarily contained in “some.”
http://tamayaologic.wordpress.com/category/categorical-syllogism/
If I see a building I pressume a builder built it.
If I see a builder who built a building I pressume he just exists... No wait...
Builders have parents right? It's not pressumptious to assume he must have come from somewhere right?
...So who are God's parents?
Also, when I see a mountainrange I don't pressume a builder built it.
I pressume it was formed through natural processes.
Are you really going to tell me you have to imagine a fairy-tale when you see a mountain range? Are you really willing to go there? Are you going to tell me to my face that you think the Islands of Japan were created by three drops of molten steel into the ocean? Or are you going to admit that you know natural processes happen, and that they explain all sorts of stuff in the universe, including the universe itself?
You know your God is a fairy-tale, you just don't like it...
Sorry...
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Really? You've evaluated every religion in existence and just know that the version of God and Christ taught by Paul (I've given up on the majority of Christians as they focus on that section alone) is correct?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Is this a joke? If so, I'll play along.
All I did was point out a rudimentary principle of basic logic, namely, that one cannot infer a universal from a particular-- or a multitude of particulars. It's common sense, actually.
What does that have to do with the belief that what Christianity teaches is true? In fact, did I even mention Christianity? Did I even say that I am a Christian?
Exactly what point were you trying to make?
You're the one that brought up having to examine every rose in existence. If one can't make that universal from a particular, why do you get a pass with religion?
If I mistook you for a theist, I apologize. When someone uses Ray Comfort's "absolute knowledge" argument as you did, it gives me pause.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I have no clue what you are talking about.
"All the teachings of Christianity are true" is not a statement whose justification requires some sort of analysis of every other religion in existence. If the bible states, "There is a pizza on the sidewalk", do I need to research every other religion in existence in order to know that there is a pizza on the sidewalk? Or would I fare much better simply looking at the sidewalk?
Or are you claiming that Christians are making the inference that all of the teachings of Christianity are true based on the supposed truth of some teachings? Certainly, I would agree that any Christian making that sort of inference is in over his or her head.
I am a theist. But I have no idea what the "absolute knowledge" argument even is. Is it an argument for the existence of God? Did I even mention God in my post?
God is the singularity. Thats the closest definition that we could have a chance of agreeing on. Space and time are undefined at the singularity. Just like anything over zero is undefined. But you can also think of it as infinite if you look at the limit as x goes to zero of 1/x. So we are talking about it as though it is something but it is not a thing. As God is also not a thing. The singularity exists in our minds but it did not ever exist in reality, the same way God does not exist in reality. But we can still talk about it.
I am going to take this as a serious question although I am probably giving you too much credit here. God does not have parents. He is God. He always was and always will be. He is not human but spirit, therefore, does not require parents.
Because mountain ranges aren't built they are created/formed.
And therein lies the issue. Because of your presupposition that God does not exist you explain the things you see by "natural processes" apart from God to conform to your beliefs rather than explaining those same natural processes in light of the fact that God created those natural processes to bring about the creation of this universe.
I do not imagine a fairy tale. I think logically about the world and the vastness of this universe and conclude accordingly. If you believe in evolution and that the universe and all the complex things contained in it were spontaneously formed out of nothing then you are the one imagining a fairy tale and believing lies. When did I say that Japan was created by three drops of molten steel in the ocean? Please stick to reality. Your delusions are creeping in to your comments.
A singularity is just a point in space-time (somewhat akin to how a black hole is just a point in space-time). So that's all that God is? If so, we are we calling it 'God'? We already have a name for it, and one that's more precise: A singularity.
Yes, it did exist. We have mathematical evidence that supports it, satellite heat data that supports it, an entire underlying scientific theory (the Big Bang theory) that supports it, etc. Now, we don't know the precise details because we can't look as far back as we'd like because whatever happened 'prior' to planck time is, essentially, unknowable to beings (like us) that can only percieve in 3 dimensions.
It's not similar at all. The singularity was part of reality, but was not contained in 3-dimensional space; God, on the other hand, is alleged to live in some 'other' reality entirely, not merely outside of traditional clock time. You can put God into whatever undetectable state is currently feasible (He used to live in the sky; once that wasn't so viable anymore, he got put into celestial bodies; now that we've figured-out he's not there either, he's some vague component of the Big Bang, somehow), but with no evidence to corroborate your testimony we're left at the Platonic level of attempting to use 'pure thought' to decipher the riddle of our origins.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
You're going to invoke a special pleading fallacy (which is all you can do for your God) and claim that you're using logic and Nikolaj is delusional? You've got brass ones.
What he said was both of the creation stories in Genesis are as valid as the story that Japan was created by three drops of molten steel in the ocean.
As for your claim that God uses natural processes, why add the complexity? The natural processes are amazing enough without needing an omnimax God that you can't even describe (let alone prove).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
This seems to be a correct admission on your part. Christians by and large do not apply imagination to the process in any original manner but are content to believe someone else's fiction.
This may also be true, but there is nothing in the admission to state that the conclusions drawn are as logical as the thought processes claimed to be employed, and therefore what the word "accordingly" actually means in this context. The rational person would use it to mean "according to the rules governing logic", and a huge element of those rules are predicated on the rather essential principle that anything which is deduced through logic is therefore testable and ultimately provable. Your deduction matches neither of these criteria.
This does not logically infer from the previous statement, and actually displays quite neatly the religious person's inclination to apply huge latitude to his own reasoning and none to his opponent's. In this case the condemnation hinges on the assumption that his opponent believes "the universe and all the complex things contained in it were spontaneously formed out of nothing". I am not aware of any physicist who would propose such a profoundly presumptive theory without first defining what "nothing" in the context of the statement means, or at least allowing it to serve as a part-definition along with "something else". It also displays the religious person's inability or unwillingness to contemplate the full implication of time itself being a product of universal physical processes.
But ultimately it's slander since it not only dismisses scientific theory as "lies" but it purposefully mis-states evolutionary theory in order to make it look like the christian fiction is a valid one in comparison. That works with people for whom scientifically proven data means nothing but is hopelessly transparent a subterfuge to the rest of us and - if the truth be known - tends to lessen the value of all else you are likely to utter after saying it. A person who employs untruths in levelling accusations of untruth cuts rather a pathetic figure, wouldn't you agree?
Incidentally - it is worth pointing out to you that evolution as a scientific theory addresses the process of adaptation in the living world. It does not address the creation of the universe. You seem to be a little confused over that distinction. It is quite feasible (though unlikely) for a person to understand and accept evolutionary theory but remain ignorant or unconvinced of theories within quantum physics (and extremely unlikely vice versa). Only creationists however show a marked tendency to conflate both areas of scientific theory and completely misunderstand both in the process. If you are an intelligent person this alone should raise some form of alarm in your mind. That it doesn't simply confirms that your intelligence has been compromised, and also acts as a marker for the rest of us the tenor of the mind behind your assertions.
You didn't - it was being used to illustrate another point.
But others might indeed lay claim to such a belief based on a contemplation of the physical world around them, the vastness of the universe, and the application of whatever logic they are capable of when forming the deduction. That does not make them right, as I am sure you will readily agree, but it differs in no way from your own assertions except marginally in the amount of scientifically proven fact employed in forming it as an assertion. So when you demand that others stick to reality, you should first contemplate those elements of reality which you yourself have discounted in order to prosecute your own theory. Unlike the scientific theory, which is based completely in reality and in which all conjecture must be subsequently proven to be adopted into the theory, yours relies simply on a received theory based on uninformed reasoning, however much informed you think your own might be.
To someone who values rationality over guesswork - that's a crucial difference!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
From Wikipedia:
"The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the pThe simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvatureast. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature."
So what I'm saying is we're always saying God can't have infinite properties and still be a thing. (I think Nigel said it last.) Which I agree with. But why can a singularity have infinite properties and still be a thing?
The singularity described never makes it further than hypothesis. Another theory, again mathematically feasible, is that the same singularity is infinitely regressive in all dimensions. Yet another states that it can be componental or fractal - that means that the entire universe in its most infintely regressed state is a part of or duplicate of another at its most infinitely expanded. Or indeed an infinite number of such universes.
Do you really want to draw a parallel between this hypothesis and the god hypothesis? Because then you have to admit that once god and infinity go hand in hand then there's no longer one of them, but an infinite number, all of whom most likely never existed except as a mathematical expression of the physical universe not at the beginning of time, but at the beginning of ending.
He's also getting extremely fat at the moment, just if you want to keep the parallel going. Oh, and he's due to die in and around the same time as he ends beginning.
Of course if you insist on ascribing human characteristics you spoil the whole thing. Then he's no longer capable of behaving infinitely - he's a thing, like the rest of us (except we actually exist). I think "figment" is the word.
Better - why not just give up all the god crap and become a physicist?
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I will take that as a complement.
Not true. The claims of the accounts of Genesis line up with scientific evidence and observation of the world around us. Japan being created by three drops of molten steel does not.
What is so complex? It is actually quite simple. The "complexity" is brought about by those who conjure up things like evolution and eternal matter and the Big Bang. That is the problem. Those who are unwilling to to go where the simple logical evidence leads them end up drowning in a drop of water because they have to start developing these complex schemes and theories to try to understand something that requires only simple logic even a child can understand.
As oppossed to you who are content to believe someone else's theories.
Well, it's nice when you can make things up to try to prove your point but it doesn't work. There are different types of deductive reasoning. An argument is valid when its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. If the premises are not true or the argument is not valid, the conclusion may or may not be true. Your statement may be correct if you are dealing with mathematical deduction. However, according to the rules that govern logic that which is deduced DOES NOT have to be "testable and ultimately provable" it just has to be true. Nice try.
Your statement is laughable. I see your tactics. If you have no valid argument you just simply attempt to change the definition of what is already known and has already been defined. You have to define what nothing is? You don't know what nothing is? Nothing, nada, zilch, nilo, zippo, zip, a lack of something, emptyness, etc. Your statements display the athiest's inability or unwillingness to conform to reality and to contemplate the full implication of that reality. As such, you define (i.e.-make it up) as you go.
First of all it is not slander. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community (legal terms). I have not spoken untruths about a person or individual. I did not know scientific theory was a person. Besides, I never stated or dismissed all sciencetific theory as lies. I never defined or describe evolution let alone "mis-state" it.
I would agree. You are begining to look quite pathetic to me. I am not refering to scientifically proven data but to the explanation of that data. There is a difference. You continue to try to twist what is being said . Please stick to the facts and actually discuss what has actually been said instead of twisting and contorting everything. Talk about lessening the value of what is uttered. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
Not confused at all. Again, you seem to lack in reading comprehension. I never cited evolution as proof of Creation of the universe. I only argued that believing in evolution was equivalent to believing a fairy tale.
Atheist show a marked tendency to be deceived by all kinds of irrational arguements and have demonstrated a willingness to go so far as to even question what is nothing to deny the existence of God. Atheists have proven to be blind to the truths of the world and unwilling to use basic logic and reason to understand the world around them and as such acts as a marker for the rest of us to reach out with love and reason to bring them out of their blindness and deception, with the help of God.
You do realize that scienctific theory doesn't actually prove anything, right? If you have participated in any basic science experiment all that is done in science is disprove the null hypothesis. It doesn't actually prove anything just disprove things. you realize this, right?
Again, a singularity is not - repeat, not - a 'thing'. It is a point in space-time.
Refer to Nordmann's detailed explanation as to why such a singularity is mathematically expressed as being infinite.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
We don't argue that matter is eternal. The half-life of a proton is 1032 years, for instance. Granted, this is much greater than the current age of the universe (about 1010 years, more-or-less). But it certainly isn't eternal.
As for the God "simplifying" anything, she doesn't. There is no epistemology to be built from the basic concept of an all-powerful God, and without an epistemology, there is no way to judge the validity of your knowledge, even your knowledge of God.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I nominate post #40 in this thread as the greatest projection I have seen since... hmm... tbh, I can't remember seeing a greater one.
YOU may not argue that matter is eternal but others on this blog have made such claims, including your god Mr. Sapient.
Accroding to you "there is no epistemolgy to be built from the basic concept of an all-powerful God" but that doesn't make it so. As often is the case with atheists, you throw around big words for which you do not completely understand the definition of. Epistemology is "the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth , belief, and justidfication." You see, despite your claims, you cannot have true epistemology apart from God. God surrounds the whole concept of epistemology. God is truth and the fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledge. And by the way, HE will not be mocked.
There IS a way to judge the validity of my knowledge in regards to God. However, the issue is many atheists aren't willing to go there which is why many stay in their ignorance when it comes to the knowledge of God and the truth. If ANYONE would humble themselves and understand that God exists because logically this universe and all that is in it cannot exist without some intelligent being creating it, and realize that lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery and murder are wrong, and that we have all violated these truths or Laws of God and that if God is good He must, by nature, punish those who sin and commit evil in His sight and they repent of their sins and honestly cry out to God to save them from his wrath and place their faith in Him then He will reveal Himself to them and they will KNOW the truth of God. But sadly many do not do this because of pride. For many people their pride is more important than seeking the truth. They prefer to think highly of themselves and their intellect and how smart and knowledgable they are yet can't create a simple, tiny grain of sand from nothing and scoff at the thought of God creating the universe. But God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble so they stay blinded in their ignorance. Now this is NOT, I repeat NOT, a personal attack on atheists as stupid. When I use ignorance I use it in the true sense of the word which means lack of knowledge not that you or anyone else is stupid. If you are willing to do this then you can judge for yourself the validity of my knowledge about God.
Ok, so are you saying that we need to throw away all of science? even the most basic prinicple? Gravity can't be a fact because even though we have observed its affect on Earth that doesn't mean it works the same way everywhere else. We have tested gravity and can say without a doubt that it works the way we think it does. But wait! We haven't gone to every celestial body to test this. Might as well throw the whole thing out, right? Might as well stop trying to discover the universe.
I have an idea for you. Next time your doctor gives you a prescription, don't take it. Even if it means dieing! Sure the drug might save lives but it hasn't been tested on EVERY HUMAN! Therefore we don't know if it will cure your diasese. Maybe in some humans it causes a slow and painful death. You'd better not try it you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?
Although I guess you could always rely on your god to heal you, that'll probably have quicker and better affects.
1. You neglected to comment on the fact that within the information that Nigel has offered, matter has existed since before the beginning of your universe.
2. I'm not just Nigels god, I'm the god of everyone who has ever joined this site. Don't short change me.
I'll try to come back to the previous post you made to me in the near future.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yeah that sounds good. Only not "most likely never existed". All of whom definitely cant have ever existed. Thats why we need some kind of model to apply to God. As we do singularities. The singularity is a mathematical / mental model of something that doesn't make sense in reality. But thats ok. Its the best we've got.
I think you are dodging your obligation to validate your claim. It does not matter if atheists are not willing to go "there" wherever that might be.
No one can be ignorant of something of which no knowledge exists. If you have knowledge of this thing you call god spill it out here for examination. If you claim this thing you call god is 'truth', you, then must provide proof. If you do not have proof, it cannot be truth.
It is logical that the universe exists without this thing you call god. You have 2 burdens of proof now; prove there is this god and prove it created the universe.
Moral sense appears to have evolutionary roots. Evolution is a known fact, but there is no evidence of this thing you call a god. So my bet is on biological morality.
I see that you are mired in an imaginary world of presuppositions.
There was never nothing.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
You say that there must have been a creator, doesn't that mean that the creator would have to have a creator? If there is a god how is it that you're so sure it's not allah?
Exactly. And as soon as you assume an all-powerful God, there is no way to have certain knowledge of anything, as God can meddle in anything, at any time. You can't even be sure we are actually having this conversation, as the universe might not exist; God may create the universe in her own good time, when she feels like it, and give you the memory of having this discussion, and you'd be none the wiser.
There's just no way to know. And so, the metaphysical presupposition of an all-powerful God cannot support an epistemology. At best, you can only hope that you correctly guess God's basic attributes; as there is no method of validation, even that endeavour is hopeless.
God's a ponce. There, I mocked her.
Oh, I know ignorance and stupidity are two different things. I appreciate that you make the distinction: many do not.
I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing here. So far you've not presented an epistemology to validate your knowledge of God. I know that you feel God exists. This is quite apparent.
What isn't so clear, though, is how you know this knowledge is correct. We have vast amounts of evidence that humans are great at self-delusion. We also have great evidence that intuition itself is often wrong. We have even greater evidence that humans like explanations, and when lacking explanations, will invent them. All of this points to one simple fact: we cannot trust intuition. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Intution too often leads us astray, down false roads and false knowledge. We can't trust everything that goes on in our heads and in our hearts. So, we validate these things we feel and these things we think against observation. That's all we can do.
The epistemology that is the foundation of science has proven both effective and reliable. So far, it is the only epistemology that can claim this. Rationalism is the practice of this epistemology, and leads to results that are objectively verifiable. That is the key: reduce the subjective, and you can compare the objective against observable reality.
What you are asking is to do exactly the opposite: to throw out the objective, and focus on the subjective. This may lead to insight into yourself (though probably not: we are great at self-delusion, after all), but cannot reliably lead to insight into reality.
As far as the opening my heart to God, or what-have-you: I have tried that. I've never really believed in God, as far as I recall. But I fell in love with a very devout woman, and we married. During the time we dated, and during our marriage, I tried very hard to be the man she wanted me to be. I was unable, because I never once felt a presence. I never once felt there was a God, and never once felt that she took a personal interest in me. I know I never really believed in God, but if I couldn't believe in God for the one I loved, how could I believe in God for... what reason, exactly?
Also, you ignore the many, many people here who once believed in God, but do so no longer. If God were real, and her presence had such a profound effect, nobody would turn their backs on her and deny her existence. Yet many do. Why is that?
Finally, if God were real, and God cared about what we thought of her, she would give everyone who believed in her at least similar thoughts about what she is. Instead, we have Buddhists (with no real God, for many of them), Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Deists, Pantheists, Panentheists, and on and on and on, each with a different concept of God. Even within Christianity there are major schisms, with the catholics and protestants going at it once in a while, and the pentacostals scared of Satan at every turn, while universal unitarians think there is no Satan, and so on. And so even those who draw their faith from the same book can't even agree on the most fundamental aspects of God!
This all adds up to one of two inescapable conclusions: either God doesn't exist, or she doesn't really care what people think about her. In either case, if everyone is using introspection to determine the qualities of God, it doesn't work, as they keep coming up with different qualities of God.
And so: there is no epistemology that can be built on the concept of an all-powerful God, and your knowledge of God has no method of validation.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers