02 Mar 06
The point I was making is that there is no logic behind saying there is no God. What is the first cause of all things? How did the particles which supposedly exploded during the Big Bang get there in the first place? What caused them to explode? If humans have been around for 2 million years how come there are still only 6.5 billion of us instead of 1x10^15? If there was no real God people wouldn't make so many fakes, nobody would be taken in by forged banknotes if real banknotes did not exist. Nobody would be taken in by Allah, Brahman or Buddah if God did not exist.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionWe are at an impasse.
but I accept that my view is in itself a belief, a faith if you like. It must be since I can't consider the notion of a supernature, just as you can't consider the notion of there being none.
Not just yet.
Are you aware of all the evidence available? That is, you state your belief does not allow for anything outside of the physical state. Have you exhausted its evidence?
If so, what of that which (potentially) lies outside of the physical state?
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeWoh, slow down.
The point I was making is that there is no logic behind saying there is no God. What is the first cause of all things? How did the particles which supposedly exploded during the Big Bang get there in the first place? What caused them to explode? If humans have been around for 2 million years how come there are still only 6.5 billion of us instead ...[text shortened]... tes did not exist. Nobody would be taken in by Allah, Brahman or Buddah if God did not exist.,
As to the big bang, there are a number of issues here. Firstly, one modern thought is the multiverse, which posits an infinite regression of universes forming inside others - there being no need for a first cause. Secondly, there are virtual particle pairs which allow for a sort of something from nothing situation. Thirdly, most modern big bang chronologies allow for particles to develop out of the enormous energies of the initial expansion of the universe.
But, like much of science, these things are still being debated and analysed and researched and conjectured about.
Don't see much conjecture in religious circles - God is, the bible is literal truth, that's it.
The argument about humans overpopulating the world is ridiculous and shouldn't need much explanation in the 21st century, but let me remind you anyway of the sheer difficulty of life for most of those 2 million years. Living here and now, especially those of us in developed nations, don't get much of a notion of the 'life is tough' principle. Modern medicine, improved social conditions, education, technological innovation, all these and many others have made our lives pretty easy. (Although, that's to trivialise many things which still kill us.) Early humans didn't have it so good. Getting born was tough enough, let alone surviving disease, predators and all of the other things likely to kill them.
I'm not sure how to take your last point other than to roll around on the floor laughing ....
... okay. That was actually quite enjoyable.
Now, where were we?
Ah yes.
People wouldn't make so many fakes if there was no real one?
Are you serious?
That just about takes the proze for the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I have to congratulate you on that.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo we are still at an impasse.
[b]We are at an impasse.
Not just yet.
Are you aware of all the evidence available? That is, you state your belief does not allow for anything outside of the physical state. Have you exhausted its evidence?
If so, what of that which (potentially) lies outside of the physical state?[/b]
That's the point of my belief. It will accept nothing outside the natural state.
Like yours accepts it easily.
After all, let's face it - it's not about evidence in the end - just what will satisfy our beliefs, what will reinforce our beliefs.
I suppose there might be evidence that could break my faith - it would have to be a life changing event, since it would completely shift my world view. I guess the kind of thing that 'born agains' claim to have been through. But I'm not expecting anything like that soon. In fact, I think my belief would preclude me from ever having such an experience. It's that strong.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionAman,
Woh, slow down.
As to the big bang, there are a number of issues here. Firstly, one modern thought is the multiverse, which posits an infinite regression of universes forming inside others - there being no need for a first cause. Secondly, there are virtual particle pairs which allow for a sort of something from nothing situation. Thirdly, most modern bi ...[text shortened]... ze for the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I have to congratulate you on that.
I'm so glad you did this - I just can't ridicule this guy enough! I just wish he'd go out and actually LEARN about some of this stuff (as Freaky tends to (but not always, apparently)) before spilling his rubbish all over the forums.
03 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanNow it seems pretty clear to me that it intones the pointlessness of a life with no afterlife.
As I've said before, you are sounding confused. This was your original post to which I replied:
[i]Tell me, if there is no after life, what does meaning, mean?
After all, the fool and the wise both die, if there is nothing afterwards
they equally become nothing, and all that either gained is now lost to
them, both are now nothing once dead. If this rhaps you could just clearly state what you do mean, since I would like to discuss it.
[/i]The point was that outside of life, it does not matter. Once life is
done it is pointless, you think that is not true? Tell me where anything
inside of nothing matters, I'll stand corrected.
As far as my views on the after life go, they don't come into play in
this discussion. I'm talking about the view there is nothing after this
life is over and what that means. I'm not attempting to push my views
on life after death here, I'm attempting to stick to the subject. Why
should that make you confused?
Legacy only matters to the living, true, but all things that matter
will matter only in life...so?
I am not claiming that nothing in life matters, I'm claiming all that
matters, matters in life alone! You seem to be missing that point,
and slamming me for it too. It is the great nothing that I think is
a fraud, and if true, robs everything of value of value given time.
Kelly
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by KellyJayRight, now I understand you. Okay, the difference in our views is that whilst you think that life only matters to the living, I think there is a responsiblilty that the living have to leave somehting behind when death comes. And so in death we have provided for the living to continue. Your view is that this legacy is only of importance to those still alive and I guess you are right. But what I don't understand is why there should be a problem with this? I'm quite happy to live and have meaning and then to die and for there to be nothing else. The living will still remain behind and with any luck I will have enriched their lives in some way.
[b]Now it seems pretty clear to me that it intones the pointlessness of a life with no afterlife.
[/i]The point was that outside of life, it does not matter. Once life is
done it is pointless, you think that is not true? Tell me where anything
inside of nothing matters, I'll stand corrected.
As far as my views on the after life go, they don't co ...[text shortened]... hat I think is
a fraud, and if true, robs everything of value of value given time.
Kelly[/b]
Is there some further point you wish to make about this?
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionNo we are still at an impasse.
After all, let's face it - it's not about evidence in the end - just what will satisfy our beliefs, what will reinforce our beliefs.
I suppose there might be evidence that could break my faith - it would have to be a life changing event, since it would completely shift my world view. I guess the kind of thing that 'born agains' claim to have been throug ...[text shortened]... I think my belief would preclude me from ever having such an experience. It's that strong.[/b]
That's the point of my belief. It will accept nothing outside the natural state.
Like yours accepts it easily.
Not exactly. By saying your belief will accept nothing outside the natural state, and yet lack a standard by which you undertake that belief is foolish. Kinda along the 'my mind's made up, so don't confuse me with the facts' lines of foolish.
Christianity considers the options, beginning with, well, the beginning. If is is not possible for matter to create itself (this is scientifically established), matter cannot be the uncaused cause.
The complexity and harmony of nature, the incredible precision and sophistication of the human mind and body demand a Creator and Designer.
ID and current creationism theories (wherein various groups find the answer and work back to the problem) notwithstanding, nothing in the reading of the Bible contradicts any known scientific laws. Not that science is the final arbiter, either, by the way. Tomorrow's discoveries are just as likely to demolish today's theories as has been the case since science was established.
We all only get but one vote. Each should be as careful with that vote as possible.
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo your belief is factual now, that's interesting - show me the facts.
[b]No we are still at an impasse.
That's the point of my belief. It will accept nothing outside the natural state.
Like yours accepts it easily.
Not exactly. By saying your belief will accept nothing outside the natural state, and yet lack a standard by which you undertake that belief is foolish. Kinda along the 'my mind's made up, so don't confus ...[text shortened]... .
We all only get but one vote. Each should be as careful with that vote as possible.[/b]
Matter can't create itself?
Have a look at virtual particle pair creation - verified in particle accelerators many times in the last few decades.
A creator/designer is demanded?
This isn't factual - just a mere hope on your part. Kind of like the SETI enthusiasts who was lyrical about the existence of alien intelligence and then use as their final argument, the incredible size of the universe. It can't just be us, they say. This can't be it.
Well maybe not, but that isn't an argument.
Any more than, the natural world is so full of wonders it must've been designed by a creator god. This may be self evident to you, but stating it as true doesn't make it so. And there is another explanation which doesn't require the existence of some unseen, undemonstrated supernatural force.
Nothing in the reading of the bible contradicts any known scientific laws?
How about the heliocentric model of the solar system, accepted for the last 600 years or so, and easily demonstrated to be true today. The bible would have us believe the Earth is motionless and is orbited by other objects.
How about a derivation of pi - clearly meant to have a value of 3 in the OT, but with a true value that any primary school child can determine is not 3.
I'll have a look around for more, I'm sure they're out there.
The bible is a book of its times, and its times - the OT ones at least - were thousands of years ago. It's not surprising that its Jewish authors missed a few things we now know about the world - how could they not?
But don't start telling me about the usefulness of this book.
You're right about science though, it does demolish old theories constantly. My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts - okay, I'll accept that, my mind is made up. But don't confuse me with facts?
Show me the facts ...
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionMatter can't create itself?
So your belief is factual now, that's interesting - show me the facts.
Show me the facts ...
Have a look at virtual particle pair creation - verified in particle accelerators many times in the last few decades.
What was the matter from which the particle pair was 'created?'
This isn't factual - just a mere hope on your part.
While hope certainly enters into the conversation, relative to the meaning of life, no hope is required to objectively determine that matter did not arise by itself. As in your illustration from above, a creator was involved.
And there is another explanation which doesn't require the existence of some unseen, undemonstrated supernatural force.
Of course, that explanation either requires the universe to be infinite, or matter to pull itself up by its own non-existent/soon-to-be-developed-because-it-needs-them bootstraps. Makes sense.
Nothing in the reading of the bible contradicts any known scientific laws?
How about the heliocentric model of the solar system, accepted for the last 600 years or so, and easily demonstrated to be true today.
Not exactly. This has been discussed in other threads, so we don't need to on a tangent, but this has idea has been set aside in light of further research.
Nonetheless, the Bible says nothing that contradicts even the newest of new discoveries. People have mis-read the biblical account regarding the beginnings, but that's another thread, as well.
How about a derivation of pi - clearly meant to have a value of 3 in the OT, but with a true value that any primary school child can determine is not 3.
Sorry, I don't recall the Bible declaring pi's numerical value. Please advise on this one.
There are many 'facts' which support the Bible's account of events with which it concerns itself. History, archaeology are two such fields which support the biblical accounts. Geography, reason, logic, astronomy, physics, law, agriculture, medicine, philosophy, ethics, statistics, military, and etc., etc., etc., all areas of human endeavor agree with what the Bible records, at least in facts. Every time anyone has ever tried to refute the biblical account of any of its claims, their efforts have been futile. Every time.
04 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanWho put that responsibility on anyone to leave something behind?
Right, now I understand you. Okay, the difference in our views is that whilst you think that life only matters to the living, I think there is a responsiblilty that the living have to leave somehting behind when death comes. And so in death we have provided for the living to continue. Your view is that this legacy is only of importance to those still ali enriched their lives in some way.
Is there some further point you wish to make about this?
Important point, why? Isn't it just like you liking one taste of food
over another? Another may feel, “Hey get it while you can, after all
when I'm gone, I'm gone!” You seem to want to imply your ways
of doing things are better than this selfish guy who thinks pleasure
is the goal in life, and when you both die, your both dead and then
dissolve into nothingness no matter what. You both end up the
same way at the end, and nothing you do can or will change that if
nothing is all there is after you die.
I’ll inject my beliefs here, because I’m tired of being accused of
things for taking up the point that nothing changes the way all
things are viewed. I do believe in eternal life and because of that, I
quite agree with the notion that we need to do all we can that is
right and good. There are things that will remain, the important
things are not things, but life.
I am not saying your life isn't good in your eyes, you are living
to suit yourself, but if nothing is what awaits you, the next guys is
heading the way doing something different and neither of you are
any better off for your choices in life. Any yard stick of good or
evil you apply goes away as soon as you die, it does not matter
if you are wise or a fool once dead and nothing awaits you.
Kelly
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEver seen this site, Freaky?
There are many 'facts' which support the Bible's account of events with which it concerns itself. History, archaeology are two such fields which support the biblical accounts. Geography, reason, logic, astronomy, physics, law, agriculture, medicine, philosophy, ethics, statistics, military, and etc., etc., etc., all areas of human endeavor agree with wha ...[text shortened]... efute the biblical account of any of its claims, their efforts have been futile. Every time.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRight next to your Tektonic Ministry link, I imagine.
Just now. Thanks. I'll be sure to add it to my 'favorites' list. You are a real pal.
It's just that you seem a little hopped up on the Jesus juice. You come off like a hysteric baptist who's been to one too many Ray Comfort seminars.
04 Mar 06
Hey! Here's a nice little tidbit from that source:
"This must seem strange to those who have never read the Bible. But anyone who has struggled through its repetitious and tiresome trivia, seemingly endless genealogies, pointless stories and laws, knows that the Bible is not an easy book to read. So it is not surprising that those that begin reading at Genesis seldom make it through Leviticus. And the few Bible-believers that survive to the bitter end of Revelation must continually face a disturbing dilemma: their faith tells them they should read the Bible, but by reading the Bible they endanger their faith."
Funny how a person who had never read the Bible, whose faith was based on ambiguity, is able to pronounce the Bible as "tiresome trivia," and "pointless stories and laws." How in hell would he know, and further, who is he that we should take his word for it?
Oh, I get it. Because something was beyond his understanding, it must therefore be pointless. God forbid that he actually study. Poor baby. It will be over soon: he'll wake up in heaven, no more tears, and all his 'probing' questions--- so easily answered here and now--- will then be revealed.