Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thank you for making, well, not a single decent point. I'm glad to see your buddies gave you lots of recs for it. That'll make you sleep better at night.
Stick to begging the question. Sarcasm isn't working for you.
Anyhoo, I have not made god 'guilty by association'
It's precisely what you've done. That and begging the question sums up your entire OP.
I have merely asked you, mr stong-in-faith, how you make a distinction between two things, neither of which you have any evidence for existing?
Sir...sir...put the loaded question down and back away.
Of course, you know, as I do, that there is no way of providing arguments that he doesn't exist.
There are, but they all suck. Mostly the skeptics nowadays just whine about alleged Bible contradictions and how God let them stub their toes yesterday.
We also both know that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained without the necessity to invoke god.
The facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection can't be explained without invoking God.
1) Died and was buried in rich man's tomb.
2) Tomb became empty.
3) Post-mortem appearances.
4) Changed lives of apostles, in particular their willingness to die proclaiming Jesus' bodily resurrection.
So no, I clearly "know" more than you. 😉
I view god as a fantastical claim, for which there is no evidence, the same way I view all these other things.
I think you need better seats, 'cause your view sucks.
Maybe a more basal question is 'if you allow god into your world view, do any other rules or laws continue to be definite?'
It's only in a theistic universe that laws can be expected to remain definite. Why is gravity at the strength it is? Is there something responsible for it or is it random? If it's random, then why can't it change tomorrow? Thanks for pointing out an absurdity of your own worldview.
God could, for example, suspend gravity. Or time. Or any number of these things.
He could, but He won't. He's a God of order. Which is why there are laws in the first place.
These rules would effectively stop being rules. They'd become only mere descriptions of the past - without any predictive value in a universe that can fundamentally change at any given moment. If you drop a cup you'd expect it to fall to the ground and shatter, yes? What if you dropped it now and it levitated in mid air? The law of gravity would be meaningless.
What's ironic is you're describing what would be a very possible state of affairs if God didn't exist. If the universe and its constants appeared at random, why can't they randomly change?
Why is the concept of my right pinky finger stopping trains stupid, but a guy walking on water not stupid then?
Because there would be no context to your right pinky finger stopping trains. No claiming God did it, we're just supposed to accept that you, a mere mortal, did what is currently impossible. Jesus walked on water with the claim that His miracles were of God. Jesus also evidenced that He really did walk on water by rising from the dead.
How can you prove that god is not merely a human conception? What supporting evidence do you have that cannot be explained without invoking god?
1)The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
2)The source of morality.
3)Biblical prophecy
Just to name a few.
What evidence do you have the none of the others are real?
That's the thing. I don't care if they're real or not. I quite simply lack belief in them. You skeptics bely your real concern when you argue with theists all the time about something you adamantly deny is true.
Fine tuning of the universe? Easy - anthropic principle. Look it up. It's called circular reasoning.
It's called appeal to vagueness to avoid getting into damning specifics.
The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Here's an analogy to display why:
Suppose a man is condemned to die by firing squad. He's placed against a wall and a few dozen sharpshooters line up to execute him. At the count of three they all open fire. When the smoke clears, the man is left standing, not a bullet touching him. By your logic, we're supposed to say "Well, we don't need an explanation for why the man is still alive, because he wouldn't be alive unless whatever happened happened." It's absurd not to demand a reason why he's still standing and the odds of it occurring are astronomical.
The Kalam argument fails immediately, in that it is impossible to prove that the universe has not existed forever. Sure there may have been the big bang, but what was before it? Time didn't exist before it, according to current scientific thought, so the universe has existed forever.
That's pure idiocy. Space didn't exist either, genius. No matter. No mass. Nothing. Everything came into existince at the Big Bang. You have to tell me why.
I second question, in response to the Kalam argument then.. Why does the universe require a creator, but god does not?
Science demands that everything that begins to exist should have a cause. God never began to exist. The universe did.
Come on, I'd like to hear 'evidence' of god, better than the circular reasoned crap that you've already served up. btw, I've never played halo and i don't have a cell phone.
What exactly was circular about the arguments I made? And I bet you're a Half Life man.
Oh, and I don't have a wife either.
Are you hitting on me?
My question of why believe one thing and not another is not loaded.
Your question was "why believe on thing that has no evidence and not another?" You loaded it with the assertion that there was no evidence for what I believe, so if I answered it as was, I was tacitly admitting that there was indeed no evidence.
It is a valid question - why not try something novel and actually answer it?
Saying confidently that it wasn't a logical fallacy won't make the fact that it was disappear, Scotty.
Why do you believe in god but not the tooth fairy?
Why do you believe in determinism and concurrently believe that you arrived to your beliefs through reason?
Projecting? perhaps, but so far you have provided no solid evidence for either god, nor disproved santa. So how can you make a logical distinction? Or, no, wait, let me guess, you're going to avoid the question again...
I've provided evidence, you just think that waving it away like it means nothing is an actual rebuttal. Deal with the data, Scotty. Be a man.
Are you seriously suggesting that god is mute?
Not seriously.
Or perhaps he doesn't care to talk to you.
What's your hang up on communication being audible?
Perhaps he doesn't exist.
Perhaps you think this is a strong argument. It isn't.
How do you distinguish?
Distinguish between what?
Fell free to call me a bigot or whatever name you wish. You obviously know all about me, my politics, my thoughts and all the other things I've done in my life. oh wait, nope, that was sarcasm.
Ok, I'll "fell" free to.
So what direct evidence do you have that god did create the planet then?
You seem to think that Young Earth creationism is the only or even predominant view among Christians. It isn't.
0.000% life on planets? Well, that's us stuffed then.
We both spoke as though we weren't including Earth.
What proof do you have to deny the existance of extraterrestrial life? Nasa seems to think it's a worthwhile search.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/0801frozenworlds.html
(for example, amongst others)
I need to prove a negative? How about the complete lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life? If there is some. Please provide it other than by saying "Gee, there sure are a lot of rocks out there."
I don't believe my last sentence was a false dichotomy. There is no direct proof of any of the first group, and therefore none of them fall within 'science' - hence the logic and reason statement.
Again you beg the question.
By the way, science is not synonymous with logic or reason. Nor is it the exclusive domain of either.
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are making the implication that the story of god is not true, not I. I don't believe it is, but that's my opinion. The point is that stories that we know to be true, tend with telling and re-telling to become exagerated. Like chinese whispers.
Hold on. Did you say "true"? How do you know the concept holds no truth?
Originally posted by Halitose'Forever' is all the time that has ever existed. Since time is an inherent property of the universe, there was no time 'before' the universe. All the time that ever existed happenned within the universe, and therefore the universe has existed forever. It would only not be forever if time were not an inherent property of the universe, which it is.
[b]Sure there may have been the big bang, but what was before it? Time didn't exist before it, according to current scientific thought, so the universe has existed forever.
You're kidding?! No time = infinite time? Hmmm... Lets see if I make any sense of it:
No distance = infinite distance? Err... no.
No electrical current = infinite e ...[text shortened]... you remove all the possibilities, what’s left - no matter how improbable - is the solution.[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusYou cannot even definitively prove that jesus existed, let alone he rose up, walked on water or turned any substances into any other. So your whole argument about god being the only answer is rubbish.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Thank you for making, well, not a single decent point. I'm glad to see your buddies gave you lots of recs for it. That'll make you sleep better at night.
Stick to begging the question. Sarcasm isn't working for you.
Anyhoo, I have not made god 'guilty by association'
It's precisely what yo ...[text shortened]... e domain of either.[/b]
Why is it "only in a theistic universe that laws can be expected to remain"? The absence of god will not lead to gravity ceasing to exist. You seem to be of the impression that a non-theist universe will not adhere to rules. It would, of course! Chemistry and physics being the main ones, neither of which require the existance of god.
"Because there would be no context to your right pinky finger stopping trains. No claiming God did it, we're just supposed to accept that you, a mere mortal, did what is currently impossible. Jesus walked on water with the claim that His miracles were of God. Jesus also evidenced that He really did walk on water by rising from the dead."
How do you know it is impossible? How do you differentiate? You are willing to accept that a man can walk on water without evidence (we both know that the bible could merely be allegory, there are many, many fiction books out there), and yet not that I can stop trains with only the power of my pinky? How can you accept one thing which defies logic, yet deny another?
1) the resurrection. Proof please. I'll take roman records, provided it can be proven that a) Jesus existed, b) jesus was crucified, c) jesus died, d) jesus body was not grave robbed, and e) zombie jesus was seen independantly by others, and reported in another source. That should keep you busy.
2) The source of morality. Why does this require god? Many animal societies have rules and yet no religion. Muslims have rules and morals, and don't worship your god.
3) Biblical prophesy. Such as? Prove that these prophesies were not written post hoc, or could not have been guessed in advance by anyone with abit of fore vision. Remember, your precious bible has been written and rewritten many times.
Anthropic principle. The state of the universe and our existance in it only proves that the universe exists in a manner that we can survive in, and nothing more. It does not mean god created it this way - that's unprovable.
I do not have to tell you why the big bang happened. It just did. There could be nothing to cause it because there was no time for anything to exist in. Cause and effect doesn't come into it.
Science does not demand that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Cause and effect only exists within this universe, but the beginning of the universe need not have a cause.
Okay, that'll do for now.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOriginally posted by Darfius
You cannot even definitively prove that jesus existed, let alone he rose up, walked on water or turned any substances into any other. So your whole argument about god being the only answer is rubbish.
Why is it "only in a theistic universe that laws can be expected to remain"? The absence of god will not lead to gravity ceasing to exist. You seem t ut the beginning of the universe need not have a cause.
Okay, that'll do for now.
Some of us have actually looked for and found the evidence for God.
This is the point that you have overlooked. God prooves himself to the individual who searches for him, not the masses who don’t accept anything that defies their logic.
You assume too much when you say that theists don’t have any proof. There are and have been saints who have proved God to themselves.
Edit: Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThere have been people who "proved" the existence of Bigfoot by similiar methods.
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Some of us have actually looked for and found the evidence for God.
This is the point that you have overlooked. God prooves himself to the individual who searches for him, not the masses who don’t accept anything that defies their logic.
You assume too much when you say that theists don’t have any proof. There are and have been saints who have proved God to themselves.[/b]
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressIf I told you I encountered a Bigfoot would you believe in them? Even if I didn't have a single piece of tangible proof? If I claimed that Bigfoot only appears to those who seek him, not the masses?
If you encountered a bigfoot would you believe in them?
EDIT: Bigfoot 29:13 I appear only to those who seek me and bring a nice, tasty piece of fruit.
Originally posted by no1marauderTheists are not supposed to take other peoples word for it. They are supposed to find God for themselves.
If I told you I encountered a Bigfoot would you believe in them? Even if I didn't have a single piece of tangible proof? If I claimed that Bigfoot only appears to those who seek him, not the masses?
God is a bit more important than Bigfoot. Frankly I couldn’t care less if Bigfoot exists or not. Something’s are worth searching for in an of themselves. Given that science tells us we live, die, and that’s it, some of us think that it’s worthwhile to dig a little deeper.
Originally posted by no1marauderEDIT: Bigfoot 29:13 I appear only to those who seek me and bring a nice, tasty piece of fruit.
If I told you I encountered a Bigfoot would you believe in them? Even if I didn't have a single piece of tangible proof? If I claimed that Bigfoot only appears to those who seek him, not the masses?
EDIT: Bigfoot 29:13 I appear only to those who seek me and bring a nice, tasty piece of fruit.
Yes, I see the guilty by association ploy is a popular tactic.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressScience tells us we live and die; it says nothing about whether "that's it" or not. That is outside the realm of science and inside the realm of metaphysics. I really have no idea why so many of the "Christians" on this site believe that science is necessarily atheistic; that's never been true in history, isn't true now and doesn't logically follow. Could you explain to me why you think science says there is no afterlife?
Theists are not supposed to take other peoples word for it. They are supposed to find God for themselves.
God is a bit more important than Bigfoot. Frankly I couldn’t care less if Bigfoot exists or not. Something’s are worth searching for in an of themselves. Given that science tells us we live, die, and that’s it, some of us think that it’s worthwhile to dig a little deeper.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe question is, how do you differentiate between the existance or non-existance of either bigfoot or god.
Theists are not supposed to take other peoples word for it. They are supposed to find God for themselves.
God is a bit more important than Bigfoot. Frankly I couldn’t care less if Bigfoot exists or not. Something’s are worth searching for in an of themselves. Given that science tells us we live, die, and that’s it, some of us think that it’s worthwhile to dig a little deeper.
Your answer is that you use no logical distinction - only belief. For 500 years people believed the world was flat. They were wrong. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong?
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe can prove the world ain't flat by observation, but there's no proof ever possible that there is no God. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong (assuming you say there is no God)?
The question is, how do you differentiate between the existance or non-existance of either bigfoot or god.
Your answer is that you use no logical distinction - only belief. For 500 years people believed the world was flat. They were wrong. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong?
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause that’s what the scientists have told me. The body shuts down and that’s it. Are you a scientist? Do you believe that there are no atheistic scientists out there who would argue emphatically that there is no afterlife?
Science tells us we live and die; it says nothing about whether "that's it" or not. That is outside the realm of science and inside the realm of metaphysics. I really have no idea why so many of the "Christians" on this site believe that science is necessarily atheistic; that's never been true in history, isn't true now and doesn't logically follow. Could you explain to me why you think science says there is no afterlife?
It’s my belief that science will prove one day that there is an afterlife, and science and religion will converge.