Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 12, 2012 at 12:59am

Hey Arcaheopteryx,

 

He's playing "google games" and using TA. But, he's losing.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by cameron penney on January 14, 2012 at 12:23am

Just curious as to what the laws of probability of events like a virgin birth or say, walking on water. Angelo, your lack of reasoning or lack there of is really maing this agrument easy.

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 14, 2012 at 2:25am

Cameron - Speaking of virgin births, and we were, I'm curious too, about what Sigmund Freud might say about a boy who deflowered his own mother from the inside out --

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 11, 2012 at 12:56am

Hey Angelo,

I read your linked article and it didn't take long to dispatch it. I'll quote the relevant section with my reply here: 

When you get to thinking about it, it seems that there are only two basic sources of information about God, if such a being exists. They are the following:

We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or nature of the supernatural.

God may have entered the Universe and told us true things about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with him. This is called Revelation.

Both findings are logically invalid. The author has failed to adequately provide sufficient definition of the term “god” which, in most situations, would not be an issue. However, in the case of “gods”, an exact definition waxes totally dominant. We’ve already provided a proof for why. No one has successfully challenged this proof ... no one.

So, the statement:

“We can infer what might be true about [undefined]”

is false or, at best, undefined, and likewise

“[undefined] may have entered the Universe”

is false or, at best, undefined

Let me explain each of these.

There is no need to since everything that follows vis-à-vis a “god” is either false or undefined and the entire argument thus fails (the reader may care to note that the author continues discussing "god" without providing an adequate definition of that term).

- kk

P.S. are we nitpicking over definitions? No, because in this unique situation, this requirement for definition is absolute, a fact shown by the proof I've alredy posted.

Permalink Reply by James on January 11, 2012 at 10:19pm

No, i don't get the point. Why do you want to compare the bible to quran ?

The point is that you quoting the Bible to us expecting us to take your word for it, is the same as a Muslim quoting his text to you expecting you to unquestioningly take his word for it. I'm assuming that you don't take the Qur'an as literal fact, correct?

Its not about generality, but about you. I just wanted to see my intuition confirmed. And it was confirmed.

What is this? I don't even... YOU said that YOU aren't open to other views or being wrong. I explained many times that I am open to correction and shared that I already did change my mind once and you're insinuating that I'm the one not open?!? If believing that makes you sleep better at night, than have at it. I don't care what you think of me because I know that I'm open to correction, everyone who knows me knows that I'll admit when I'm wrong and I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm being true to myself, and you as well. If you don't believe me sir, then that's your problem. To me it looks like a case of you trying to project you close-mindedness on others (possibly subconsciously) so you can feel at ease with you position.

Well , you have brought up evolution into the game.

Thing is, when you say chance in the vain that you do with evolution, it shows that you don't really understand evolution. Mutations are blind chance, but evolution is not.

I don't know why people want to compare all the time science with the bible, with religion, with faith. When in fact both are different things.

In this case (and others) science say A happened, the Bible said B happened. Two different claims on the same thing. That's why they compare them, they want to figure out which argument it true. Time after time, science is found more reliable because it is evidence base, and religion is only faith based.

What sense do things make without' God, and without eternal life ? You feel liberated ? ah, see....despite all your explanations, you just admit " you feel liberated ". That has something to do with feeling. Thats not reason, thats emotion.......

Don't get me wrong, eternal life could be nice. Some sort of reincarnation could be very attractive to me. Thing is, I have no reason to believe that it is real. If wishful thinking made eternal life real, I'd also be a millionaire. As for things making sense, I see the world in a much wider view now, I've learned much and I could go on and on. Alas, it would be a waste to as you would either not understand or claim that I'm wrong and that nothing make sense without god. As for feeling 'liberated', that is a comparative to how life was then and now. When I was a believer, I felt nothing pushing me down or holding me back. I was a happy believer. But in retrospect I can see that the church was teaching that we are all born terrible sinners, that we are intrinsically flawed, that we are helpless without god, that only they have the answers and that there is no need to ever look elsewhere. I feel 'liberated' in regards that I can be unashamed at learning as much as I can, that I can look at other views, that when I dig down deep and get through a rough patch that it was me who pulled together that inner strength, I know that no one is perfect and that is okay and that no one has to burn forever for it. This feeling had nothing to do with me leaving the faith. I didn't even realize that feeling until some reflection some time later. But feeling  positive about the choice I made obviously doesn't preclude me from changing my mind again. The idea that people didn't believe once stuck me as unimaginable, that I was truly living the one truth and that we alone were saved. You could also say that I may have felt a form of liberation was waiting for me on the other side in Heaven. I felt the same confidence then, that I do now. The difference is that now I base it off real data and not a preacher or books say-so. True, I have a feeling of positive emotion about my choice, but it does not define my non-belief, it didn't make me stop believing, and it won't stop me from changing my mind if I find I was wrong this time or both times.

Ah, and previously, as christian, you did not have this freedom ?

In private I'm sure I could have, but questioning the cannon was servery frowned upon. To claim anything else would have be akin to social suicide.

What exactly leads you to think so ? that is the crucial question......

The answer to this is twofold. The first is probably the most repeated answer you've been giving on you initial question, and the second is the bits of knowledge we've compiled on the matters thus far.

with a little reasoning we can however find the best explanations. Some people however prefere not to search, to find answer, rather of this, prefere willful ignorance.

Agreed. However this doesn't have the conclusion you assume. I have no doubt that you search, just as we do. The difference is that you think you've found the answer. When you assert that you're not open to being wrong, confirmation bias can be very convincing. We've seen what you've provided and linked. The difference is that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. So in cases where the science is theoretical, I opine with an honest "I don't know". But if one is to sure of themselves and not open to alternatives like you admitted of yourself, false positives will come often.

Cheers!

Permalink Reply by Stutz on January 11, 2012 at 1:04am

What if I were to accept the apologetic arguments and agree that the universe can't come from nothing and must therefore have been created? How do we get from that point to "the Bible is true" and "the Christian God is real and Jesus is his son"? It seems to me that the creator god is just the start of the issue, and that all your work is still ahead of you. I think it's not at all difficult to demonstrate that the Christian God of the Bible does not exist, in much the same manner that it can be demonstrated that Zeus is a myth. We can go back and forth about a creative force underlying the universe, but it's almost a meaningless argument. It changes nothing about the known facts of physics, history, biology, or any other discipline. I can't prove that such a god doesn't exist, but I think it's safe to assume that a god which is indistinguishable from nothingness or from the universe itself is little more than wordplay.

Personally, I think it's most likely that prior to the big bang, something eternal existed that went "bang" -- some kind of physical entity or substance, the universe itself in a different form, but not anything supernatural. But that's just my own speculation.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 11, 2012 at 7:12am

 but I think it's safe to assume that a god which is indistinguishable from nothingness or from the universe itself is little more than wordplay.

so based on what do you think its safe to assume this ? 

some kind of physical entity or substance

according to the big bang theory, nothing physical existed beyond the big bang.

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 11, 2012 at 10:03am

And completely predictably, you refused to answer the actual question

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 11, 2012 at 11:10am

Michael/Angelo - RE: "according to the big bang theory, nothing physical existed beyond the big bang."

As predicted, you first responded to a question with a question. Further, your statement above clearly indicates that you know nothing of BB theory, other than the name, and the phrase, "God good - Big Bang bad!"

The BB theory makes no such assumption about what did or did not exist before the BB, it only predicts that since the singularity from which the BB emerged, compressed all of the space/time in this universe, and with it, all of the information it may or may not have contained, we can never know what did or did not exist "before," if in fact there WAS a "before."

You see, we normal people are not afraid to admit there are things we don't know, and wait for further evidence to surface to flesh out our knowledge, whereas you religious people are terrified to admit there's any missing knowledge in your philosophy, because it's all contained in a 3,000-year old book, written by men whose scientific knowledge was so sparse they didn't even know the earth was round. Virtual particles? Quantum fluctuations? F'getaboudit --!

But good deflecting, as usual.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Michel Ménard on January 11, 2012 at 7:58am

Just looking at a video comparing stars (suns) sizes and considering the immensity of the cosmos and the zillions of galaxies... Where is the "intelligence" in "creating" such waste of empty space and matter and energy? For me it is obvious : There is no "god" !

The way I see it, what people call "god" is just another word for nature/universe (with all it includes). It doesn't command or juge or condemn anything or anyone. The universe just is as it can be observed. Even if we don't have ALL the answers, we, as an intelligent species, have a pretty good idea how this universe came into existence. And one day we'll know those answers we lack at the present time.

I'm no scientist, but the more I learn about the inworkings of nature, the more I'm convinced there can't be such a thing as a "god", because everything our species has learned yet contradicts the idea itself. So I've come to the point that it is obvious to me : Magical invisible undetectable god like entities with ultra-quantum-powers only exist in movies, novels, tall tales, folklore... and between the ears of the deluded.

The knowledge I've aquired as of yet has explained all those inconsistencies and contradictions my ex faith challenged my inner logic with.

I think it would be impossible for me to revert back to faith/religion... not that I'm that knowledgable, but I already know too much to go back. I now require evidence!

So, there is no god... until proven otherwise.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 11, 2012 at 8:25am

Just looking at a video comparing stars (suns) sizes and considering the immensity of the cosmos and the zillions of galaxies... Where is the "intelligence" in "creating" such waste of empty space and matter and energy? For me it is obvious : There is no "god" !

and what makes you believe, nothing created all this ? why should that option be more rational and compelling ? 

Even if we don't have ALL the answers, we, as an intelligent species, have a pretty good idea how this universe came into existence.

and that idea is which, exactly ?

Permalink Reply by Michel Ménard on January 11, 2012 at 9:10am

Well, the "idea" of a  "big bang" ( I think scientists also call it "emergence phenomenon") seem... no,   is a more rational and compelling option than a magical invisible undetectable super being magically creating the universe.

I'm just an ordinary guy next door. Ask an astrophysician for the details on those "ideas".

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 64
• 65
• 66
• 67
• 68
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page