Evidence

Originally posted by Eladar
But you looking back at your wasted life want to blame others for your own failures.

This too is the human condition.

It makes people become haters.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why do you assume there is a beginning? Why couldn't the universe always have existed?

You, after all, have set the precedent by claiming God to be eternal and outside the human concept of time.

See, I don't get this. I was taught in school that the 'Steady State Theory' was found to be flawed long ago and has no proof backing it up. Incredibly, though, it seems to have found a renaissance lately, and that's what I don't get.

Originally posted by 667joe
Everyone please remember that theists will give the correct answer if they know it, but, if they don't have the slightest idea, they give god the credit. Such an answer stifles intellectual curiosity. We would probably have cures for dementia and cancer and have colonized the planets by now except for the thousand years the Dark Ages set humanity back.

No, it is petty political squabbles over who is in charge and who, exactly, will benefit from these advances that stifle these advances. Basically, this is why 'we can't have nice things', like cures for cancer and finally getting off this planet that we're turning into a dustball.

Originally posted by Eladar
But you looking back at your wasted life want to blame others for your own failures.

You know, if you're just going to sit around and judge people, you can go back to where you came from. I understand that 'it's what you do' over there, but it doesn't fly so well over here, even though we have some who try real hard at it.

Originally posted by apathist
Well, religion includes things like rituals which are not philosophical. But claims about gods must involve metaphysics, right? Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Religion can be the basis for a good life, but so can other philosophies.

But philosophy is just religion for unbelievers. Anything to avoid the idea that 'someone else' is in charge.

Although I agree that some philosophies can be beneficial. I guess it boils down to 'whatever floats your boat'. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know, if you're just going to sit around and judge people, you can go back to where you came from. I understand that 'it's what you do' over there, but it doesn't fly so well over here, even though we have some who try real hard at it.

Why do you stalk me? Do you have some thing for me? Am I not showing you enough attention?

Originally posted by Suzianne to Eladar
You know, if you're just going to sit around and judge people....

My word, this is a bit rich coming from you, of all people. Blimey.

Originally posted by Suzianne
See, I don't get this. I was taught in school that the 'Steady State Theory' was found to be flawed long ago and has no proof backing it up. Incredibly, though, it seems to have found a renaissance lately, and that's what I don't get.

The idea of an eternal universe has never really gone away, seeing as it is a major tenant of Jainism. And with respect, dismissing it due to a lack of proof puts you in a glass house with a pocket full of stones.

Originally posted by Suzianne
See, I don't get this. I was taught in school that the 'Steady State Theory' was found to be flawed long ago and has no proof backing it up. Incredibly, though, it seems to have found a renaissance lately, and that's what I don't get.

The 'Steady State Theory' has not found a comeback in science. It may have done so in the Flat Earth Society.
However, the Big Bang Theory (which is not 'Steady State' ) does not say anything about whether or not the universe is eternal or had a beginning. All it says is the universe appears to have started very small. We do not know what happened before that or if there was a before.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But philosophy is just religion for unbelievers.

Could you give a definition for 'philosophy' that fits with your usage? In my experience philosophy applies to everyone believers and unbelievers alike. Theists especially would do well to study some philosophy as they frequently make obvious philosophical errors that could be avoided with a little education.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The idea of an eternal universe has never really gone away, seeing as it is a major tenant of Jainism. And with respect, dismissing it due to a lack of proof puts you in a glass house with a pocket full of stones.

Proof or evidence, what is it you are asking for? You have to have something proved to
you before you believe it? If its proven why believe?

I've submitted to you why I think the universe is "evidence" and I've been asking for some
other view, theory, belief, or notion that could reasonably explain it. If a creator is as
reasonable as the next story than it should not be rejected out of hand, or is your bias
such you will reject regardless?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Proof or evidence, what is it you are asking for? You have to have something proved to
you before you believe it? If its proven why believe?

I've submitted to you why I think the universe is "evidence" and I've been asking for some
other view, theory, belief, or notion that could reasonably explain it. If a creator is as
reasonable as the next story than it should not be rejected out of hand, or is your bias
such you will reject regardless?

It was Suzianne who dismissed the 'steady state theory' due to a lack of proof. Take it up with her.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It was Suzianne who dismissed the 'steady state theory' due to a lack of proof. Take it up with her.

Okay!

Originally posted by FMF
My word, this is a bit rich coming from you, of all people. Blimey.

As is this, from you.

Your caricature of me is false, but you know that. Building false narratives of people who disagree with you is 'what you do'.

Now go play in the road and leave me alone.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It was Suzianne who dismissed the 'steady state theory' due to a lack of proof. Take it up with her.

It's a flawed theory, rendered inadequate through observation. It's science.

God is not 'science'. I assume that's the connection you're making with the 'lack of proof' link.