Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 16, 2010 at 10:20am

Since I deny what? What you firmly believe? You want to believe there's a god, so you cherry pick information to support your delusional purposes. I want truth and sought it no matter what it implied. I never thought I'd find God lacking, but he is lacking... except when you peer inside the mind of a theist.

And the reality is... we could go on debating and trying to reason each other out of our conclusions, but you cannot produce your god. You cannot pray hard enough to get him to reveal himself to anyone on this site. Your little speck of mustard seed-sized faith cannot move the mountain of our reason. Your god doesn't cure disease; he doesn't intervene when people suffer; he doesn't discriminate for success in favor of the "righteous". Amputees never grow their limbs back no matter how fervently they pray. Children starve to death everyday despite their desperate pleas and corrupt billionaires live fat and happy until their last dying day. And all that can be explained because there is no god intervening; it's all due to chance that some people are successful and some people fail (and sometimes their motivation plays a part).

You're the one making the claim: There is a god. I don't have to disprove his existence... especially when one of his attributes, conveniently, is invisibility. Produce your imaginary god in a meaningful way! I don't want to hear your fuzzy math anymore, or your pseudo-science woo philosophizing. Where is he?! In your heart? Please. Go tell your fairy tales to a group of more gullible people.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 16, 2010 at 11:58am

Since I deny what? What you firmly believe? You want to believe there's a god, so you cherry pick information to support your delusional purposes.

so far you have not presented ANY argument that makes me change, and believe differently.

And the reality is... we could go on debating and trying to reason each other out of our conclusions, but you cannot produce your god. You cannot pray hard enough to get him to reveal himself to anyone on this site.

Would only his revelation make you think differently ? then i guess, you will never come to believe in God, since God cannot be proven.

You're the one making the claim: There is a god. I don't have to disprove his existence... especially when one of his attributes, conveniently, is invisibility.

In fact, i am not asking you to prove, or to disprove anything. Its enough, that you come up with a better explanation for our existence. Do you have any to share with me ?

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 16, 2010 at 12:53pm

Again, you're the one making the claim. The Burden of Proof is on you to produce this god you claims exists. I don't have to convince you; you have to convince me.

If your god cannot be proven, then what the hell are we debating about? What use is this god to me if he's completely unverifiable? What use is he to you? You like the warm-fuzzies you get when you think of him? I don't need to "feel good" about reality for it to be real.

You are asking for a better explanation and I don't have to give you an explanation at all... although better explanations have been given. You started this discussion thread; you're making the claim... but then you admit it cannot be proven. That's a useless stance to take! It's actually quite self-defeating and absurd!

Philosophy, though interesting, is not proof... in any case, ever. I could just as easily say this entire world is a product of my own imagination and a dream. You cannot prove that it isn't and, in my mind, you do not have a better explanation. However, I could probably prove it were my own dream (if it were my dream) if I had the power to alter this reality. But what use is proving myself to a figment of my imagination? Seems a little redundant. The point remains... philosophy is not an explanation, it is brainstorming. And your brainstorms are more like light showers.

Please study the theory of argumentation.

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 16, 2010 at 1:09pm

" 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' " – Douglas Adams

Permalink Reply by Reggie on August 15, 2010 at 8:10pm

Well effing said.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 15, 2010 at 11:40pm

You are living an unexamined life and you are at risk of dying that way. What a waste.

So what is the reason of your life ?

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 16, 2010 at 12:04am

Good point! I'm sure he has an answer for you. He probably came up with a reason for himself, like everyone else.

There is no one all-encompassing reason for life. You chose Christian mythology. I choose education, pleasure, family, art... my reason for living is to try to enjoy my life while I'm breathing. I'd like to make a lasting impression, too, but I haven't quite decided how. I'm working on some ideas. If I die and I'm forgotten, no biggie. In a few million years, we'll all have been forgotten. There may not be any minds to perceive at all! Oh well. C'est la vie! No need to get all depressed just because there's no ready-made reason to live. Just LIVE, and enjoy it while you can.

Permalink Reply by Wesley on August 15, 2010 at 11:21am

The Hindu cosmological model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology#Hindu is much closer to what we actually see than the christian model. It takes into account the great age of the present universe and reflects some of our newest cosmological models. Take Paul Steinhardts and Neil Turoks cyclic model for instance. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_cyclic_universe/

If they turn out to be correct are you willing to switch to a belief system that reflects (or at the very least isn't at complete odds) with the accepted cosmological model? If not, why?

If you honestly believe in intelligent design and are sincere in your search for truth then you should, at least in theory, be willing to switch belief systems if the evidence points toward doing so.

If you can't or aren't willing..then you might need to do some more self-introspection about what an honest search truly means. Are you honestly searching for THE TRUTH or just trying to protect a particular brand of 'the truth'?

Don't worry, I'm not promoting the hindu cosmological model.....I'm just saying that it might be a closer fit or at least less at odds with the current scientific model than those that proclaim a six thousand year old universe, a fixed earth which everything circles around in a heavenly firmament, in which stars can fall to the earth, in which waters are locked beyond the heavenly firmament, in which the SUN can stop in the sky, .................. All things which our observations have proven to be false.

God is lying to someone... He's either lying in the various scriptures and sacred writings of the different religions of the world, or he's lying to the geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc. OR all those writing are man-made and so is god.

So again,,, if you honestly believe in an intelligent designer then why not follow the cosmological model that is closest to what we observe?

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on August 15, 2010 at 12:52pm

The only thing that pisses me off more than a young earth creationist is a young earth geocentric creationist.

Are you honestly searching for THE TRUTH or just trying to protect a particular brand of 'the truth'?
Religion isn't interested in the truth. It's only interested in self-preservation. To many Christians, "truth" only comes from one book, the Bible, and anything and everything that has anything to do with being a human being is a bad thing.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 15, 2010 at 2:43pm

the ciclic universe is not closest of what we observe. The Big Bang theory is.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/a-c...

pg.76 a case for a creator

in order for the universe to oscillate, it has to contract at some point. For this to happen, the universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then, with increasing rapidity, contract it into a big crunch. But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contract, even when you include not only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well.
"Recent tests, run by five different laboratories in 1998, calculated a ninety-five-percent certainty that the universe will not contract, but that it will expand forever. In fact, in a completely unexpected development, the studies indicated that the expansion is not decelerating, but it's actually accelerating. This really puts the nails in the coffin for the Oscillating Model.
"And one more problem: even if physics allowed the universe to contract, scientific studies have shown that entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next. This would have the effect of each expansion getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Now, trace that backwards in time and what do you get? They get smaller and smaller and smaller, until you finally come to the smallest cycle-and then the beginning of the universe. So Joseph Silk, in his book The Big Bang, estimates that even if the universe were oscillating, it could not have gone through more than a hundred previous oscillations prior to today."37
All of this did, indeed, seem to doom this theory.

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on August 15, 2010 at 3:09pm

the ciclic universe is not closest of what we observe. The Big Bang theory is. Yes the Big Bang Theory IS what we have. But it may just be one part of a self-contained system. The key word here is OBSERVE. We can't observe beyond the Big Bang because all the laws of physics stem from the Big Bang. And we can only approach the Big Bang but never find its exact happening, just like we can never find the last digit of pi. But we have other ways of measuring the math to determine other forces at work. For example, we're starting to realize that the idea of multiple dimensions above the third and fourth make the math of physics more probable. We DO have proof that the Big Bang happened. However, YOU'RE the one trying to invent an answer by trying to shove God into the Big Bang.

But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contract, even when you include not only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well. Who said the universe is contracting? Who said dark matter is proof of a creator god?

Permalink Reply by Wesley on August 15, 2010 at 10:36pm

This just proves you haven't read Steinhardts new paradigm on the cyclic theory.. Steinhardt is hard to dismiss as it is he is one of the authors of our current big bang inflationary theory.

Go read it then get back to me.. until then you are arguing a strawman.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_index.html

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• Next ›
• Page