You're wrong.
How can you prove that there is no higher power, a God, a higher being of existance?
How many times must these superstitionists throw around their faulty guilty-until-proven-innocent argument? The first post I ever made at this blog was entitled Burden of Proof, and here is the first paragraph of that post:
The first step in refuting both the afterlife and god arguments, is the burden of proof. The burden of proof means that the one who asserts a positive statement, like "there is an afterlife," is the one who must support the statement. The asserter is "burdened" to prove the assertion.
Attention all afterlifers and superstitionists: It is up to you, first and foremost, to support your afterlife and God claims. While I personally enjoy supporting my anti-afterlife arguments, it is not up to me to prove the non-existence of an afterlife in the same way that it is up to you to prove that there is one.
Atheism and anti-afterlifeism are negative claims. Negative claims are defaults; they require no proof to stand on their own, for they don't actually claim anything positive.
A positive claim is like saying "Blark exists." It is asserting a positive. It is saying what something is.
A negative claim is like saying "Blark does not exist." It is not asserting anything positive. It is only saying what something is not.
Now, when a positive claimant presents his arguments or evidence to support his positive claim, it is then only proper for the negative claimant to respond to those positive arguments and refute them, or accept the positive claimants argument. So, a negative claimant isn't exactly free from having to do anything.
However, the negative claimant is not the one who has to make the first shot. The negative claimant has nothing to do until the positive claimant first makes his argument. Just because negative claimants like myself take pleasure in providing evidence for the negation of something, doesn't mean that the positive claimant's position is the default. It does not mean that the positive claimant's position is already assumed. It does not mean that the positive claimant has no responsibility to support his own claim absent of the negative claimant's refutations or objections.
The ball is in your court, you superstitious, immaterialist, Neverland seeking, fairy-tale believing, gullible storybook readers!
Think there's a God? Think there's an afterlife? Prove it!
120 comments:
Legionofeternaldarkness,
Your link in NUMERO UNO does not work. I copied and pasted it into my browser and it says that it cannot find the page at Living Waters.
for NUMERO DOS, you totally misunderstand the universe. In actuality, and according to the law of conservation of matter/energy, the universe has no beginning. Matter and energy are eternal; they cannot be created nor destroyed. It is only time that is temporal. Time is a property of matter and energy. So time has a beginning, but it is explainable within the context of the eternal matter/energy.
I suggest that you be careful when you use science to try to argue for a God, since science specifically says that God is superfluous, and that the universe never "began" to exist. You cannot call upon Einstein to support your argument while ignoring the law of conservation of matter/energy (sometimes referred to as the first law of thermodynamics).
NUMERO TRES:
I have no faith to support. Faith is, according to the dictionary, belief without logical proof or material evidence. I am a materialist. That means that I dont believe in anything without some kind of material evidence or logical proof. I am devoid of faith. Everything I believe is supportable by logical proof and/or material evidence.
If different faiths were different hair colors, I would be bald.
First off, It is a fact that the universe began. There is overwhelming evidence to support it also.
Here are a few;
If the universe was infinite, you would have to pass an infinite amount of time to reach today, which is absurd, because "today" in that case, would never come to being, and it is absurd, for we are!
Motion is observed throughout the universe
Motion needs to be initiated; Objects do not move themselves--this implies a beginning
Each proton consists of at least 3 quarks, which decay irreversibly into antiquarks, pions, positrons, and electromagnetic radiation.
This proves matter is NOT eternal.
Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis have proven that space, time, and matter are irrevocably coupled. Space matter and time itself had a beginning.
In my second response, I want to address your "positive statement" statement.
You claim "There is no God". But what you don't realize is this is an absolute statement. And in order to make an absolute statement you need absolute knowledge.
Let's compare this to the statement "There is no gold in China".
What do you need for this statement to be true?
A) No knowledge of China
B) Partial knowledge of China
C) Absolute knowledge of China
There correct answer is C.
I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.
Let's say you have an incredible 1% of of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist? If you are reasonable. you will have to say "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God" In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "Atheist", you are what is commonly known as an "Agnostic".
Correction: "You see the *building* but refuse to beleive the builder.
*RCC^
Hey Aaron, need any help with this spewnum of faulty memes?
Polly want a cracker? Polly is a cracker? Hey, at least the cracker is fully baked, unlike your understanding of science.
"according to quantum mechanics, the exact same chemicals that made your body will one day rejoin and reanimate you."
Op. Cit. please? Is that from Wayne Dyer's flakey girlfriend? Would you like me to "prove" that my asshole is the center of the Universe? Quantum physics seems to support some very strange and contradictory conclusions. Those that extrapolate those theoretical conclusions (probably based on incomplete information) into the macro aspect of the universe are idiots. I'd sooner accept Aristotle's "Humors" as real medical science.
Please respond to both my posts.
There again, a failure to conciedartion, fear, arrogance, you only attemped to respond to a single idea in that post, Steven Hawkings idea.
You didn't even attempt to consider the ideas. All the people who posted here have conceidered athiesm and why it could be possible or impossible. What you just did is look at the concept of the existence in god and made a vague statement on its impossibilities.
Take an example of these post and type a logical, considered post to read.
Your insults only further prove the ignorance of athiesm, your proofs are only of petty discord.
*is not the center of the universe
Anonymous,
If the universe was infinite, you would have to pass an infinite amount of time to reach today, which is absurd, because "today" in that case, would never come to being, and it is absurd, for we are!
You are mistaking time with the universe itself. Time as we currently experience it had a start. The matter/energy of the universe did not.
Motion is observed throughout the universe Motion needs to be initiated; Objects do not move themselves--this implies a beginning
A beginning to time as we know it, yes.
Each proton consists of at least 3 quarks, which decay irreversibly into antiquarks, pions, positrons, and electromagnetic radiation. This proves matter is NOT eternal.
You are totally wrong. All that decay you talk of is the universe progressing to a state of a singularity, which is the ultimate destiny of the universe. Whether its a big rip or a big crunch, it will still be a singularity. The matter/energy wont go anywhere, it will still be here, even if its a bunch of quarks and pions. And dont forget, that in a singularity there is information loss. Theoretically, the end of the universe can be the start of a new universe in another big bang with more hydrogen and helium being spit out, and the whole process starts all over again.
Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis have proven that space, time, and matter are irrevocably coupled. Space matter and time itself had a beginning.
Hawking is also the guy who said that matter can never be created: it has nowhere to come from, and it can never be destroyed: it has nowhere to go.
Ever hear of the Hawking-Hartle wave function of the universe theory? Hawking is no friend of God, Anonymous.
I suggest you come up with a refutation of the first law of thermodynamics if you want me to take you seriously.
What insults?
And I didn't say "Hawkings thinks this is true" I said they've proven it to be. Here I'll throw in another piece of evidence pointing to the universe having a beginning. It lies in thermal decay. Heat always flows from hot bodies to cold. If the universe were infinitely old, the temperature throughout the universe would be uniform. It isn't, therefore it isn't infinitely old. The universe had a beginning.
I am willing to listen to new ideas, but I am going to post proof supporting my side. Doesn't mean I'm biased or close minded, it just means I'm logically proving my point.
Christ Bearer,
In my second response, I want to address your "positive statement" statement.
You claim "There is no God". But what you don't realize is this is an absolute statement. And in order to make an absolute statement you need absolute knowledge.
That was the informal version. Let me give you the formalized version: There is no reason for me to accept the positive claim that God exists.
Let's compare this to the statement "There is no gold in China".
What do you need for this statement to be true?
A) No knowledge of China
B) Partial knowledge of China
C) Absolute knowledge of China
There correct answer is C.
Yes, yes, I am well familiar with the no gold in china claim of apologists. I hope that my formalized explanation of my "there is no God" claim clears up that confusion for you.
Let's say you have an incredible 1% of of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist? If you are reasonable. you will have to say "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God" In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "Atheist", you are what is commonly known as an "Agnostic".
Wrong. The negative is the assumption until the positive is proven. I am an atheist, just like I am an a-blarkist. Agnosticism isnt really a position. It is the lack of a position. It is the state where someone says "There is evidence for both (or an equal lack of evidence for both) and I dont know what to choose because I am pulled both ways."
I, on the other hand, say "There is evidence that points to God not existing. Furthermore, all of the known versions of God believed in by humans are wholly refutable. Based on the knowledge that I do have, I believe that no God exists, nor could exist, until new evidence compels me otherwise."
Besides, in your particular worldview, evidence is irrelevant. Its all about faith. The belief of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, right?
Mustache Man,
Quit trying to plaster a mask of consciousness on "anything and everything." Anything and everything is the universe, and the universe is not a conscious singular being, no matter how much you want it to be.
If you think God exists, why dont you show us your arguments? Christ Bearer gave no arguments in favor of the existance of God, so quit stroking him. All he did was take my informal statement too far, and mischaracterize the definitions of both "agnosticism" and "atheism."
This isnt hard, people. Provide evidence for your worldviews! Throwing stones at my worldview is not the same as presenting evidence for your worldview. At least Legionofeternaldarkness tried to support his views. You other guys are just trying to attack my worldview without providing any evidence for God.
Christ Bearer,
Just to clear up the confusion, are you Anonymous in this comment section or not?
And I didn't say "Hawkings thinks this is true" I said they've proven it to be. Here I'll throw in another piece of evidence pointing to the universe having a beginning. It lies in thermal decay. Heat always flows from hot bodies to cold. If the universe were infinitely old, the temperature throughout the universe would be uniform. It isn't, therefore it isn't infinitely old. The universe had a beginning.
I already told you, quit mistaking the beginning of time for the beginning of the universe! Yes, the second law of thermodynamics says taht heat always flows from a hot to a cold body, all other things being equal. So what? Again, we come to the eventuality of a singularity being the end of the universe. Viola! A singularity is also where the universe came from (big bang).
And I would like to point out that if you want to call up a law of thermodynamics, you need to accept the whole set. You cant pick and choose which laws you want to invoke. For you to refer to the 2nd law of thermo, means you must accept the first law of thermo, which means that you must admit that the matter and energy in the universe are eternal.
You need to read up on singularities, my friend.
Lets talk about time. Time changes speed as the universe ages. But the matter and energy in the universe stays the same. So time can change while the total energy/matter of the universe remain constant. Heat to cold and complex molecules to quarks only shows a decrease in the usable energy of the universe, but that doesnt mean it dissapears. Information gets lost in singularities, but not energy or matter.
I am willing to listen to new ideas, but I am going to post proof supporting my side. Doesn't mean I'm biased or close minded, it just means I'm logically proving my point.
I am eager to hear it. But so far you are batting zero on your universe claims.
Matter/time agglutenation in an infinitesimally compressed singularity necessitates their uniform expansion. Apart from time, matter has not been and cannot be observed. Any speculation of the eternal nature of matter/energy via the First Law of Thermodynamics is just that: speculation. It presupposes an eternal universe but, as Big Bang Theory clearly exhibits, the universe is >>not<< eternal. Formulae attempting to allow for an eternal universe via infinite looping around a singularity have all failed when real numbers are interposed. We can presume that, at one time, the laws governing the physical universe now were not in place, allowing for the creation of matter/energy and thus violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, elsewise we resort to infinite regression which is not only unacceptable but fallacious, given the presence of time simultaneously intrinsic to matter.
Now, you could apply this same argument to permit a universe which would be exempt from scientific laws, but that would be relying on faith as much as a Christian, which you are obviously attempting to avoid ;-)
According to Quantum Fishing, "Perfect" doesn't exist in their world. Since the Jehova-god is alleged to be a perfect being, it does not exist in their world.
Perfection is derived either a priori or via revelation, as there is no example of perfection in nature. Descartes and Kant loved to cite this :-)
Yo Super Cat,
Apart from time, matter has not been and cannot be observed.
That is a limitation of the conscious entities that are composed of that same matter, not a limitation of the universe or of matter.
Any speculation of the eternal nature of matter/energy via the First Law of Thermodynamics is just that: speculation.
No. It is theory. And theory is a hell of a lot more than faith.
It presupposes an eternal universe but, as Big Bang Theory clearly exhibits, the universe is >>not<< eternal.
Um, correction again. The universe as we know it is not eternal. The matter and energy that it is comprised of is, as far as we can tell, eternal. Just because all matter and energy goes into a singularity does not mean that it is an argument against an eternal universe.
And if the matter of the universe is not eternal, as you seem to be claiming, then where are the theoretical laws of nature or physics that express this idea? How come all the physicists are subscribing to an eternal body of matter/energy and supporting the laws of thermodynamics?
Formulae attempting to allow for an eternal universe via infinite looping around a singularity have all failed when real numbers are interposed.
Since when did imaginary numbers get excluded from the game? You know, all kinds of problems arise in all kinds of math formulas when you interpose real numbers for the kind of numbers that are supposed to be in the equation.
We can presume that, at one time, the laws governing the physical universe now were not in place, allowing for the creation of matter/energy and thus violating the First Law of Thermodynamics...
Presume? Based on what? But two can play at that game, pal. If we can presume that laws of nature were not in place at the beginning of the universe, then we can also presume that the beginning of the universe needs no creator, right? If I am going to let you violate whatever tickles your fancy, then you have to afford me the same.
Sorry Super Cat, but until there is some logical proof or material evidence that allows us to say with confidence that the laws of nature could easily have been violated, I will instead say that you are only speculating, while I am basing my arguments on theories and evidence. You are far more speculative than I am in this situation.
elsewise we resort to infinite regression which is not only unacceptable but fallacious, given the presence of time simultaneously intrinsic to matter.
No we dont. Matter does not depend on time for its existence, because as I explained earlier, the unobservability of matter in a timeless state is the limitation of conscious entities like us who are composed of matter. It is not a limitation of thermodynamics, nor of matter itself. Dont forget what you are made of.
Im sure you are familiar with imaginary time. Hawking described it as a perpendicular time that intersected with our universe at its state of singularity and caused time as we know it to begin. Your claims are defeated in multiple ways, and most deliciously by the leading physicists of our time.
And lets not forget about the Hartle-Hawking Wave Function of the Universe theory. Where the universe behaves as a wave and our universe naturally had a very large chance of occurring without any God involved? Why is it, Super Cat, that none of the physicists today who are proposing the most interesting ideas about the beginning of the universe as we know it agree with you about matter being so dependent upon time? None of them have a problem with matter existing as a singularity absent of time. None of them consider the unobservatbility of matter in a timeless state to be a limitation of the first law of thermo, nor a limitation of anything else other than our own material nature (the material nature of humans that is)?
I wanted to note that my last paragraph was a legitimate argument from authority, not a fallacious argument from popularity, just in case anyone wasnt sure.
"Matter/time agglutenation in an infinitesimally compressed singularity necessitates their uniform expansion."
Really? Have you ruptured any singularities and noted this behavior? If the observable behavior of the only probable event that fits this criteria does not support your theory, how can you state it as fact? Do you also believe that a bumble bee can't fly?
1. According to quantum theory, any particle that interacts with any other particle continues to have a relationship to that particle from that time forward. All matter in a hypermass can be said to be interacting and undifferentiated. Therefore, according to quantum physics, the matter that composes my rectum has an intimate relationship to the center of the universe, having once been a component of the only object in, and therefore the center of, said universe.
2. According to Einstein, space is curved. If you pick a starting point, and travel in any direction long enough, you will return to the point of origin. If you were to start at a point, equal to the X, Y, and Z coordinates of my anal orifice, and traveled in an infinite number of directions for an infinite amount of time, the resulting trajectories would traverse the universe and create a three-dimensional spheroidal spirograph pattern with the coordinates of my ass at the center.
Satisfied?
Truth is finite, bullshit is infinite.
Joker,
Prove to me that there isn't a God. Unless you have evidence to support you atheist beliefs, you cannot claim otherwise.
Youre joking, right? Ive been doing it since my first post on this blog. And Im doing it right now in these very comments.
As you see we have come to the beginning question again. The truth of the matter is that none of us can prove what we are trying to make the other believe.
Technically, we cannot prove either of our positions, yes. I admit that there is a possibility that I am mistaken about my atheism. However, I can claim that, based on what we know about the universe and logic and the laws of nature, that God is very unlikely to exist, especially the Abrahamic (Christian,Jewish,Muslim) God. All the evidence we have points to a Godless universe.
So I would be happy that you don't try to change the minds of others without evidence to support your claims.
I believe in a free marketplace of ideas. I believe that it is perfectly moral for me to engage in debate over God and the afterlife with anyone who is willing to engage me. I believe that many people get satisfaction and enjoyement out of merely arguing about these ideas, regardless of whether they convince anyone else of their position or not. For example, Christ Bearer has already indicated that, like me, he enjoys debating these ideas. Its fun!
So I dont care what makes you happy. You are free to pursue your own happiness however you like. But as far as my happiness is concerned, I am going to argue these ideas with anyone else who enjoys doing so, and many theists and atheists alike enjoy it. So if it makes you mad, then leave those who enjoy it to their own devices, as we will leave you to yours. I can only assume, based on the fact that you found my blog, commented on it for the first time, and started your own blog on the same day, that you like doing this too. So it would be cool if you could just admit that enjoying this kind of debate is a legitimate thing to enjoy.
Also, since I am in fact presenting evidence, logic, and theory to support my anti-God and anti-afterlife claims, your last sentence doesnt even apply to me.
Finally, since theism ultimately requires faith (which is having belief without material evidence or logical proof), you should take the advice of your last sentence and not try to change the minds of others without evidence to support your claims, or at least retract the statement.
Sorry Joker, but I dont like it when people start arguing against freedom of speech. Im sure you support freedom of speech, right? :)
LOL Beakerslion's latest response was actually very good on a logical standpoint.
Lol, my ass may as well be..
is it wrong to view nature as a whole as god?
"That is a limitation of the conscious entities that are composed of that same matter, not a limitation of the universe or of matter."
It's a presupposition regarding the unfalsifiability of your claims, which tend to rely on speculation alone.
"No. It is theory. And theory is a hell of a lot more than faith. "
A theory must be falsifiable. This is unfalsifiable. Still stuck on the Vienna Circle prior to Popper?
"Um, correction again. The universe as we know it is not eternal. The matter and energy that it is comprised of is, as far as we can tell, eternal. Just because all matter and energy goes into a singularity does not mean that it is an argument against an eternal universe.
And if the matter of the universe is not eternal, as you seem to be claiming, then where are the theoretical laws of nature or physics that express this idea? How come all the physicists are subscribing to an eternal body of matter/energy and supporting the laws of thermodynamics?"
The very presence of a singularity implies an origin beyond which nothing can be said evidentially to exist (To paraphrase Hawking: "Asking what exists beyond a singularity is like asking what lies beyond the North Pole"). Likewise, there is much debate in the cosmological realm about an eternal universe, which Big Bang Theory discounts, so your claim of unanimity is erroneous. You could rely on the oscillating model, but that itself violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
"Since when did imaginary numbers get excluded from the game? You know, all kinds of problems arise in all kinds of math formulas when you interpose real numbers for the kind of numbers that are supposed to be in the equation."
Imaginary numbers suit certain aspects of a theory when is incapable of being confined to real numbers, however a cosmological model would eventually need to substitute real numbers in all non-theoretical areas. The imaginary number assists in the compilation of the equation, but presence in the answer implies incorrect application. There is of course, an exception: another dimension which would necessitate the imaginary line. This, of course, is speculation as well...opening a door for metaphysics, which you also seek to avoid ;-)
"Presume? Based on what? But two can play at that game, pal. If we can presume that laws of nature were not in place at the beginning of the universe, then we can also presume that the beginning of the universe needs no creator, right? If I am going to let you violate whatever tickles your fancy, then you have to afford me the same."
That would require the absence of time, not a mere reconfiguration of it. But supposing I permit you this luxury: It's as much speculation as Christianity.
"Sorry Super Cat, but until there is some logical proof or material evidence that allows us to say with confidence that the laws of nature could easily have been violated, I will instead say that you are only speculating, while I am basing my arguments on theories and evidence. You are far more speculative than I am in this situation."
You're presupposing the constants necessary for this law to maintain applicability have always been constant...this is itself speculation ;-)
"No we dont. Matter does not depend on time for its existence, because as I explained earlier, the unobservability of matter in a timeless state is the limitation of conscious entities like us who are composed of matter. It is not a limitation of thermodynamics, nor of matter itself. Dont forget what you are made of."
Once again, your misapplication of a law that is concocted with certain premises which, if violated, would invalidate it is glaring.
"Im sure you are familiar with imaginary time. Hawking described it as a perpendicular time that intersected with our universe at its state of singularity and caused time as we know it to begin. Your claims are defeated in multiple ways, and most deliciously by the leading physicists of our time. "
This model is purely theoretical and still subject to debate. Now, while it certainly alleviates quantum mechanics of some previous errors and allows the partial avoidance of the origin of being, it is still in its evolutionary phase and Hawking himself stated that it still does not allow for an eternal universe (even stating that "....time has a beginning", in a Reader's Digest article). In addition, the singularity is still maintained: The plane in which eternity can expand simply extended to the y-axis. It still reduces to an eventual singularity at the center beyond which there can be only nothing.
Another piece of advice: Lose the hostility. You asked for these debates and you are thus expected to practice civility.
"And lets not forget about the Hartle-Hawking Wave Function of the Universe theory. Where the universe behaves as a wave and our universe naturally had a very large chance of occurring without any God involved? Why is it, Super Cat, that none of the physicists today who are proposing the most interesting ideas about the beginning of the universe as we know it agree with you about matter being so dependent upon time? None of them have a problem with matter existing as a singularity absent of time. None of them consider the unobservatbility of matter in a timeless state to be a limitation of the first law of thermo, nor a limitation of anything else other than our own material nature (the material nature of humans that is)?"
Citations of this unanimous consent amongst cosmologists, please. Also, your appeal to popularity is invalid.
I can see both sides have good arguments, but i just want to get one thing strait, i know you dont even beleive in it, but how do you all define God?
Uuggghhh. A whole thread with people seriously making the argument from ignorance?? Aaron, your position is airtight and well-proven.
Apologists: I've never heard a more desperate bunch of willfully ignorant whiners!
To the above statement made by blacksun, that is just biased. I even admit that both sides have brought really good points to the table. And I'm fired up to see how this is going to end.
I guess we're gonna have to depend on Aaron to debate like a civilized person. Aaron though we have disagreeing views I want to commend you for not insulting us but rather just discussing it like adults. I really appreciate it and it makes me take your words more seriously, as opposed to..
francois, well let's just say you didn't change anything. The comment you made at the end of your post completely discredited all you had to say. How about you watch your words then come back and debate, but if your gonna improperly, then please just leave..
But on a serious note, props Aaron, I have to give it to you, you have some deep thoughts and intresting views. Let the debate continue.
Civilized people don't hide behind a mask of anonymity.
Before even talking about 'evidence' for god, one needs a clear, coherent definition of what 'god' is so that we can understand what form 'evidence' for 'him' will be in. Not only have theists been unable to give evidence for god that isn't more easily and readily explained by natural phenomenae, they can't even give a clear, coherent definition of 'god'!
"Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it?" may sound juvenile, but it cuts to the heart of every vain theist's assertion that an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity exists and we owe him allegiance. And, remmeber, believing this deity exists and sucking his dick is what they claim to be the 'mature' position.
Some cosmologists have theorised a multiverse that has existed through infinity. The way I see this, is the material that is expanding from big bangs throughout the Multiverse coalesce with one another to create more cosmic eggs that will explode under increasing pressure and create more universes.
Aaron, correct me if I have this wrong.
Super Cat,
Unfalsifiabile?!? Be careful where you throw that term around. Everything I am arguing is coming from leading scientific knowledge, and as you (should) know, scientific theories ARE falsifiable. My statements regarding singularities come from observed phenomena and scientific theories, which are all falsifiable.
Is faith falsifiable? Sheesh...
A theory must be falsifiable. This is unfalsifiable. Still stuck on the Vienna Circle prior to Popper?
Since when is the law of conservation of matter/energy unfalsifiable? Please explain how this is so. And then explain how faith in God is falsifiable. Your claim of unfalsifiability in unsupported and frankly Ive never had a theist ever be so brazen as to make that kind of claim regarding a scientific theory.
The very presence of a singularity implies an origin beyond which nothing can be said evidentially to exist (To paraphrase Hawking: "Asking what exists beyond a singularity is like asking what lies beyond the North Pole").
That has nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. And you misunderstand what is meant by that statement about singularities. It is that no information is retained when material goes through a singularity. Even singularities spit out material though. Hawking radiation, remember? There is indeed escape from singularities.
Likewise, there is much debate in the cosmological realm about an eternal universe, which Big Bang Theory discounts, so your claim of unanimity is erroneous. You could rely on the oscillating model, but that itself violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
LOL but you have no problem violating the first law. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time you call upon the 2nd law of thermo. You cant pick and choose which laws YOU think are OK to violate. And I dont subscribe to the oscillating model. I subscribe more closely to the Hartle-Hawking Wave Function idea.
That would require the absence of time, not a mere reconfiguration of it. But supposing I permit you this luxury: It's as much speculation as Christianity.
Are you admitting that faith is the core of your belief? Are you admitting that your God claims are unfalsifiable according to how you set the stage?
You're presupposing the constants necessary for this law to maintain applicability have always been constant...this is itself speculation ;-)
What, and assuming that they werent always constant isnt speculation? No, my friend. I am basing this on theories, not speculation.
Once again, your misapplication of a law that is concocted with certain premises which, if violated, would invalidate it is glaring.
But you have nothing to support your contention. I have something, not everything, but something. You have nothing other than wishful thinking. All you are doing here is attacking my position based on what you think is wrong with physics. What the Hell happened to YOUR arguments in FAVOR of a God? Where did they go? Do you have any cards to play in this game anymore?
This model is purely theoretical and still subject to debate. Now, while it certainly alleviates quantum mechanics of some previous errors and allows the partial avoidance of the origin of being, it is still in its evolutionary phase and Hawking himself stated that it still does not allow for an eternal universe (even stating that "....time has a beginning", in a Reader's Digest article). In addition, the singularity is still maintained: The plane in which eternity can expand simply extended to the y-axis. It still reduces to an eventual singularity at the center beyond which there can be only nothing.
Quit confusing time with matter. Matter does not require time to exist, regardless of its observability. And I think its amusing that you are quoting Hawking's statements about time, since I recall recently seeing a Hawking interview where he said "matter cannot be created; it has nowhere to come from. matter cannot be destroyed; it has nowhere to go." Hawking and his theories are no friend of God's. Besides, we are still at square one here. I am busting out all kinds of theories to support a Godless universe, but all you are doing is throwing stones at the Godless theories. There seems to be a lack of theories in favor of a God-created universe here that you are presenting. You need to spend more time explaining why you think God exists, not merely why you think the first law of thermo doesnt apply to the beginning of the universe.
Another piece of advice: Lose the hostility. You asked for these debates and you are thus expected to practice civility.
I thought I was having a civil conversation. Ive been communicating with Christ Bearer for example and him and I get along fine. Hes a nice guy. You seem nice too.
You know, I am the kind of person who can differentiate between an idea and the person that holds the idea. Sometimes I get hostile to the idea of a creator of the universe, and it may leak out in my writing, but I mean no hostility toward you or any theist here personally. When I feel like getting hostile with theists personally, I make it well known, but it is a rare occurence for me to do so, and it is never instigated by me. So if you are reading hostility from me, Im sorry, it wasnt my intention, and I will try to avoid doing so with you in the future.
Now how bout that God, huh? ;)
Citations of this unanimous consent amongst cosmologists, please.
Well, the more sciencey you get, the less you believe in God. It is pretty much unanimous (90%) among physicists that God doesnt exist:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Also, your appeal to popularity is invalid.
Now whos being hostile? It is a legitimate argument from authority, that is all. I am referring to the fact that the leading minds in the field, based on their interpretation of their work, see no God in the equation.
An argument from popularity would be an appeal to all the humans on the planet, not only a specific set of authority figures in a particular field. I have theists confuse these two all the time, and I used to confuse them myself. An argument from popularity will necessitate the "population" of humanity to be considered, in which case, an argumentum ad populum always favors (in this day and age) the existence of a God because thats what most humans believe. The operative word here is "popular." Now an argument from authority would be limited to an authority figure on a specific subject, or a series of authority figures.
So what evidence do you have to support the existence of a God, Super Cat? Or do you only have faith? Or do you only have objections to the multitude of Godless theories out there? Can you name an authority figure on the subject and present one of these authority figures theories or ideas which allow for a conscious omnipotent creator of the universe?
Mustachio:
God as I define it is an all-powerful and personal being that existed prior to the universe and prior to time and brought the universe into existence ex nihilo.
God is third party nihilism.
Vic's second paragraph regarding the definition of God is very well stated.
Everyone, I appreciate your support, but I want to try to keep the ad hominem on both sides to a minimum. When I find theists that are respectful, I like to afford them the same respect.
I think its just that some atheists in here are expressing frustration at the lack of strength of some of the arguments presented. And note that many of us atheists, especially Francois and Blacksun and I, have had numerous recent experiences with some very unfriendly Christians. So sometimes our guard is up, or our patience is thin.
But I think we can agree that at least in THIS comment thread, we are all good and nice people who are eager to discuss the issues and not focus on insults :-)
Herb,
Some cosmologists have theorised a multiverse that has existed through infinity. The way I see this, is the material that is expanding from big bangs throughout the Multiverse coalesce with one another to create more cosmic eggs that will explode under increasing pressure and create more universes.
Aaron, correct me if I have this wrong.
No, you got it right. There are a few different multiverse theories. Indeed, there are many theories proposed right now for both universes and multiverses.
Super Cat seems to be familiar with many of them, as am I.
But there is a fundamental problem: all of these theories proposed by scientists (at least the ones Ive heard and read about), whether uni or multi verses, all involve a Godless formula: no God necessary for the universe to exist.
Im looking for theories and evidence that supports the existence of a God.
Faith doesnt cut it for me. I dont believe in an idea for the sake of its unsupportability.
I still dont see why the universe, the dimension, and infiniti cannot be considered god.
I understand that the beleifs that there is one man pulling the strings is weird, even i find that hard to beleive, but why cant we say that the universe itself is god and every action that occurs in this world is a naturall occurance of the universe?
Have you all tried considering why the could be a god?
Taking the idea that god is simply a representation of everything and every event doesnt make it a nihlism (impressive vocabulary)
taking god as a whole of this world does not make him somthing that is out of our world that cannot be communicated with or whatnot.
Its all a question of labeling.
Mustachio,
The reason we don't call the universe God is because we already have a name for it, The Universe. There is simply no reason to call it God.
The name God caries with it the notion of a creator/causer. To use it to describe natural cause is to completely dismiss its meaning. If the universe has no unnatural cause then it has no God, nor is it God.
I do not believe in the existence of a God because I see no evidence for it. Almost every thing theists have attributed to God scientists have found the true mechanics and cause of. Following this trend we can expect that science will eventually learn the true cause of the known universe and beyond.
It is possible that at some point science will discover a god, but at that point, with the level of knowledge required would be so great that we would greet God as Equals.
It is easy to show that no religion man has devised is correct because of numerous mistakes and contradictions.
It is currently not possible to definitively prove or disprove the existence of a god.
There is no reason at this point in time to believe that a god dos exist.
At this point in time, the existence or nonexistence of a god is irrelevant.
Apparently Christians find it hard to understand English.
The legion has a point.
But how did u think the universe was created, AAron?
Btw, for the guy a little above, this isnt a christian debate, geeze.
apparantly someone annonymous said that, but nevertheless, how did you say the universe came to be?
"But how did u think the universe was created, AAron?"
OK, this was addressed to Aaron, but I have to ask in response ... why do you think the universe was "created?" Sure, science indicates that the universe as we know it began 13.7 billion years ago. Note that this is the universe "as we know it." Whether this is a "sub-universe" spawned via a black hole of a parent universe, or created via a collision of two 3-branes in a 10-dimensional bulk, or any other exotic theory, the point remains that we, as humans, observe the universe around us to be 13.7 billion years old. For all we know, we may be within a singularity ourselves (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925381.200.html), and unable to experience the rest of the universe. The point of these ideas is that there are a number of ways to address the supposed problem of the "creation" of the universe without resorting to an intelligent cause. The burden on the theist is to prove that an intelligent designer is REQUIRED.
Second, I have an issue with the question "How did the universe come to be?", because it assumes that non-existence is the default position, as if, for "eternity" there was nothing, zip, nada (as if time is a meaningful concept in the absence of matter), and then poof, matter came to exist. I do not buy this, and leading scientists do not buy this (that dang First Law of Thermodynamics again). The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there was nothing, and poof, matter was created. Matter has always existed. Time is merely a convenient way of measuring the interaction between particles of matter/energy. If all of the matter/energy in the universe became static (I know QM says this is impossible, this is a hypotethical scenario) and "frozen", this in effect would spell the end of time, but it would not destroy the matter itself.
Mustachio,
I still dont see why the universe, the dimension, and infiniti cannot be considered god.
Because you are trying to shift the definition of God to be whatever totality of existence is, just to satisfy your emotional comfort need. Basically, when you assign the Universe itself the name "God" then your definition of God isnt what mine is, which means that you arent arguing in favor of a God as I define it and am fighting against, which means that you arent technically claiming to me that "God" as I define it exists anyway, which means you might as well be a Pagan calling the planet Earth "Gaia".
And besides, trying to assign some kind of name that others assume implies consciousness to a clearly unconscious thing like the universe, or Earth, or your teddy bear, is like making up an imaginary friend. Most people in the Western world accept my definition of God, and when you talk of God, those people assume you are talkiung about a personal conscious creator of the universe, not the unconscious universe itself.
Have you all tried considering why the could be a god?
Yes, and I already provided my definition. If you dont like my definition, then supply your own, and you and I will argue about definitions of God instead. And sorry, but Im not that flexible. My God definition needs to include a singular consciousness, being responsible for creating the universe, and needs to be personal, and needs to be all-totally powerful in every way. Plastering a "Hi my name is God" sticker on the universe will not cut it for me.
So lets see if we can agree on a definition. Why dont you agree with my definition?
Another thing, how did time get started IF nothing initiated it's beginning?
Mustachio,
Taking the idea that god is simply a representation of everything and every event doesnt make it a nihlism (impressive vocabulary)
No. Thats not what Im saying. I think a definition of third party nihilism is appropriate here. Third party nihilism is when one believes that nothing exists except for in the mind of another being. In this case, that being is God. Well actually, by definition of God and of nihilism, whichever "mind" that all of existence was in would by definition be God.
Its all a question of labeling.
Yeah, and Im not gonna let you sticky-note a God label on whatever you see fit to try to get me to agree that it exists. You are just trying to keep your imaginary friend alive by transferring it's name (God) from entity to entity, in the hopes of me agreeing that said entity "exists" and that I dont notice you sneaking the God label on. Sorry, no definition shifting here.
Mustachio,
But how did u think the universe was created, AAron?
By the natural forces or properties of the universe.
How do you think the universe was created? God did it? Thats third party nihilism, and it also forces you to admit that God isnt the universe itself.
If God is the universe itself, then he didnt create himself, because he has no creator right? Oh whoops! Now we have accidentaly collapsed God and the universe into the same thing! Well why assign a consciousness to it? Its just a universe. Your teddy bear is just a plush toy, not a conscious being. Its time to lose the imaginary friends.
Sorry Mustachio, but you are frustrating me. You are doing constant definition shifting, and therefore contradicting your own empty assertions and implications. The others in here who identify themselves as Christians have the backbone to hold a real definition of God and defend it and attack my arguments and claims directly. This makes me respect them and enjoy my dialogue with them. Please pick a definition, pick a position, explain it, defend it, and provide arguments for it.
Christ Bearer,
Earlier I mentioned Imaginary Time which is a theory proposed by Hawking. Think of it as a kind of time that is perpendicular to the time we know of. And with the Wave function of the universe theory, another theory that I mentioned, there is a wave property to the universe and it was just very likely to come into existence as the entire universe would be a multiverse where time is actually a property of shifting through the universes.
After all, nothing can move in spacetime (no time travel) and some people argue that time is an illusion and its just the act of moving through different multiverses or dimensions, each one slightly different than the next.
Anyway, what Im getting at is that there are many kinds of specific, detailed, naturalistic explanations for the existence of the universe that dont require God.
But when God believers argue that "God did it," they dont offer how. They dont seem to be able to.
Saying "God did it" is like a scientist saying "Nature did it." Now of course, theists ask the scientist "but how did nature do it?" and then the scientist takes what he knows and comes up with theories and evidence and all kinds of detailed explanations. As time goes on, these explanations get better and more accurate.
But the theist on the other hand, when asked by the scientist, "How did God do it?" the theist has nothing to say. What, through magic? How does magic work? How does magic make the universe? Magically.
Or was it that God just thought about it and it happened? Thats third-party nihilism!
"God did it" is a non answer, because its an appeal to something unexplainable. Basically, its an admission of faith, since you have nothing to provide in terms of how God made the universe. No evidence, no logic, no theory.
Faith is surrender of ones intellect and reason in favor of emotion.
Legionofeternaldarkness,
A quick analogy here. Saying Theories about the universe don't include god "in the equation" is like looking at a house and saying "I see how it was made, but what built it?"
Not at all. Your analogy is totally false. The proper analogy would be this: a Godless universe-theory is like looking at a diamond and saying "I know the properties of carbon and crystalization is a natural property of that element. I see no conscious creator of that crystal."
Not only that, but your analogy fails because in recognizing the designer of a house, you are assuming that a house is can be contrasted against something not designed by man, like a lake or a rock.
But if you want to calim that the universe and all of existence is designed, then what do you have that is not designed that you can contrast against the "designed" universe? How can you tell if its designed or not when you have nothing of "not-designedness" to compare it to? Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.
If someone lived in a reality where the only color they ever saw was red, it would be impossible for them to tell you that the color they see is not blue, or that it is even red itself. "Red" doesnt make sense unless there are other colors to contrast it with. I hope that analogy helps.
I have kept my definition, i still beleive that god represents everything as a whole, that includes nature, the thng that you say created the universe. How can you say that ive shifted definitions when i have defined everything as a peice of god?
Theres a reason why i label everything god. First god is what nature is to me, and if nature created the universe, the only thing nature could have made it with was of natural resource or "god." Therefore you can identify anything as a part of god.
I'm not calling him a single being of consiousness, but rather the whole system of this univerese. (Thats also why i think your will is gods will and visa versa, because you are a part of god). But i understand that its can be illogical to identify god as a third party being, thats why its logical in the sense that i present it.
"I know the properties of carbon and crystalization is a natural property of that element. I see no conscious creator of that crystal."
No the creator of such things was not consious; that requires a mind, but nature needs no mind for certain tasks. Minds are for humans only another part of nature.
Don't bother talking to a believer about "burden of proof", I have found that the majority are either:1. not smart enough to understand what it means. or 2. disingenous enough to state that those who don't believe have the burden of proof to prove why they disbelieve.
About the only thing you can do is to ask them to explain in detail why they don't believe in invisible, flying squirrels which belong to mensa.
Zero is as good as Infinite ~Roubmeister
Anything multiplied by zero becomes zero, and anything becomes infinite when multiplied by infinite. Anything divided by infinite is zero and everything divided by zero is unidentfied by a certain number, or infinite. Compared to any other number zero is just as central as any other compared to the infinites. And so we are as close to infiniti as everything else. But one thing is for sure; the infinities exist, and we are smack dab in the center. And since you can make zero with infinite and infiniti with zero, we can call everything nothing and nothing everything. We can call ourselves a creation of nothing or a creation of everything.
What im saying is god is everything and nothing. But everything can be concretely described when absolutely nothing cant even be imagined.
We see some of god, but we cant see other parts. "Everything and nothing"
Why does a minority find a majority illogical?
Its like saying "everyone thinks there pretty, but actually im the only pretty one"
No, veryone sees eachother as attractive except you. Consider why the majority finds something logical before you call it illogical.
And yes, many peoples logic is based on fables, but all fables have morals and they all make sense when u break them down.
Geeze, your like a white tourist in New Orleans saying that you know exactly how the people feel.
Before you go along accusing people false, you have to try to prove yourself false. And if the majority is against you, you must ponder, why?
There is a reason for the majority's beliefs, and that doesn't mean you have to automatically have a pessimistic attitude towards it.
Trust me, iv lost faith in God far too many times in the many years of my life, but each time i seriously tried to disprove his existance, but when i really tried, it only made his existance more real to me.
To me, it's pretty simple. The universe has a design, and life has design. It's like looking at a painting and wondering if there is a painter. You can offer a bunch of theories explaining how the painting is there excluding the painters existance (even though you never saw him paint it or know who he is) even a child can tell you the painting has a painter, and the universe and life has a Creator.
The above post was by me by the way lol
You can compare the design of the universe to the fact that if Earth was off its axis by a single degree, life would cease to exist. If the coupling constant was slightly increased or decreased, elements would bond too frequently or not enough. If 1% less stars existed in the universe, life would cease to exist.
You can see a cell is designed. 35 billion molecules arranged in a way to work like a machine does. It's like a supercomputer compressed to one 50's of the dot of an eye.
"i"*
christ bearer. Disregarding the veracity of the claims you make your argument doesn't show any design of the universe. Think about the countless worlds on which life did not appear because of some variable not being right. Think of a lottery, almost everybody loses wheras there are some lucky winner(s). But I guess that in your world lottery winners are also selected by an imaginary friend.
As for the complexity of the cell I recommend you check out The origin of species by Charles Darwin for a satisfactory explantion.
"Before you go along accusing people false, you have to try to prove yourself false. And if the majority is against you, you must ponder, why?"
The argument ad populum gets real old, real fast. An idea does not become more valid just because the (overwhelming) majority believe it's true. In case you have forgotten, 500 years ago an overwhelming majority thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. That overwhelming majority was wrong. 600 years ago, an overwhelming majority thought the Earth was flat. THAT majority was wrong also. Popularity of opinion means nothing, the idea must stand on its own.
I find the concept of a spiritual god impossible. How can a being without a physical brain and without physical hands create anything?
I'll check the book out, but I'm worried it will have little use, they didn't have good microscopes back then, so a cell was "simple" to them. Nowadays we've realized how much design is in a cell. It's kind of like the watch watchmaker theory.
How can a physical being create the existance of the physical and simulateously not be bound to the laws applied to it?
real old real fast aye? Concepts like astronomy were new to people back in the day, but the concept of an infinite world always made sense, and the copncepts that all things have a creator also made sense. The concept of god is not something of a few senturies, more like several millenia, like tens of thousands of years.
You havent even tried to think of a reason why god must exist have you? if you did, you would still be thinking instead of debating.
The legion is right about that color thing, we dont see certain colors, but we know their existance, Ultraviolet and infrared do count as colors, but their not ones detectable by our eyes. Vacuums exist, but we can sense them alltogether. Just because our minds cant comprehend what goes outside hteir boundries doesnt mean they do not exist.
Herb, that's where my idea comes as how god is nature and how nature is god. A phisical mind is required for thought, but nature othere than humans (humans count as natural creations), has no mind in many situations, and yet it creats the greatest things.
"real old real fast aye? Concepts like astronomy were new to people back in the day, but the concept of an infinite world always made sense, and the copncepts that all things have a creator also made sense. The concept of god is not something of a few senturies, more like several millenia, like tens of thousands of years.
You havent even tried to think of a reason why god must exist have you? if you did, you would still be thinking instead of debating."
I never said that the concept of belief in god was "new and getting old fast". Obviously it has existed throughout recorded history. What I was saying is that the argument ad populum, which is the argument that an idea that is embraced by the majority is necessarily true in some way, has gotten old for me very quickly because I hear it so often, and it simply does not MATTER if a majority of people believe something is true, it has to be true of its own accord.
As to accusing me of not trying to think of a reason why god must exist, you are incredibly wrong. Your clairvoyant powers are lacking, because I was a Catholic for the first 30 years of my life. Hello, I used to buy your arguments.
Now I'm just waiting for the inevitable "no true Scotsman" fallacy to come my way :)
eh, seriously i never really trusted the whole catholic/christian thing, in that sense i would understand why you would want to disbeleive god, since the whole catholic idea is to fear gods wrath, and i trust you dont want to fear gods rath; neither do i. Thats why i go with the whole God = everything/nature thing.
Everyone, i dunno if ive already said this, but a religion is meant to be a guidline to life. As long as it keeps you happy, and protects the morals and the values of the people around, then its a good one.
Saying that god is the world as a whole tells you that you will and his will are the same, even though the world can be 100% predictable, you can still call your will free will. Even though being athiest means you beleive in free will it also means you came frome something that came from nothing, and so you will die and be realeased to nothing.
Since the dawn of life, the simple organisms competed and many died, but the smart organisms colonies and eventually combined to form an even powerful, and long living organism. Our Debate/competition is simply on a larger scale. Do you all realize that if we combine, we can form a far more powerful and solid belief?
Monthiests believe in one, independant God. Athiests beleive in the Universe. I want to believe the universe to be god.
Mustachio
I have kept my definition, i still beleive that god represents everything as a whole, that includes nature, the thng that you say created the universe. How can you say that ive shifted definitions when i have defined everything as a peice of god?
Because at first you were saying that God created the universe, and then you changed to saying that God is the universe.
If we cant agree on a definition, then I will simply insist that I dont think you actually believe in God. You are instead trying to plaster a consciousness onto the universe itself, which Im not going to engage.
BeepBeepitsme,
Man I always see invisible flying squirrels going to the mensa facilities. What are you talking about? ;-)
Christ Bearer,
To me, it's pretty simple. The universe has a design, and life has design. It's like looking at a painting and wondering if there is a painter. You can offer a bunch of theories explaining how the painting is there excluding the painters existance (even though you never saw him paint it or know who he is) even a child can tell you the painting has a painter, and the universe and life has a Creator.
Then isnt it obvious that God has a creator too? Slippery slope of infinite regress.
Here is a fun one:
From "wisdom without answers" by daniel kolak and raymond martin...
""[I]f all order, without exception, requires a designer, then God, too, requires a designer. If God were the intelligent designer of the universe, God would have to be even more perfectly ordered than the universe. But if God were even more perfectly ordered than the universe, and God could exist without an external designer, then why not the universe?
Finally, which is simpler: the idea of a well-ordered universe somehow ordering itself, or the idea of a well-ordered universe plus and even better-ordered (and self-ordered) being who ordered it?"
legion...
.........That made absolutley no sense to me. Sorry.
Because you dont understand the concept of reference, obviously.
If someone lived in a reality that the only color they saw was red, how would they know blue, green etc. even existed? Just because all they see whats in front of their eyes is red does NOOOT mean their demension is limited to that color and that color alone.
True, but it WOULD mean that the people who could only see red would have no way to claim to eachother "hey, its obvious that we are all seeing red!"
Which means that your argument "its obvious the universe has a designer" is impossible to logically say. Its impossible for it to be obvious or even detectable, if indeed the universe has a designer.
You can compare the design of the universe to the fact that if Earth was off its axis by a single degree, life would cease to exist. If the coupling constant was slightly increased or decreased, elements would bond too frequently or not enough. If 1% less stars existed in the universe, life would cease to exist.
You can see a cell is designed. 35 billion molecules arranged in a way to work like a machine does. It's like a supercomputer compressed to one 50's of the dot of an eye.
That is a non-sequitor. Citing those facts in no way implies any conscious creator. It does not follow.
Besides I can flip it around by using the your argument on God himself. God is the perfect machine. He needs a creator even more than an imperfect machine would.
Well, if ur trying to say the universe was "just there" you can just as easily say that God was always there. Or if the universe began naturally...wel then that only proves my point.
Your being way to closed minded. Are you really restricting yourself that badly, or do you not want to be proven wrong.
And no, i still havent changed my definition, don't be cutting parts out, you all seem to be taking the information that is easy to attack instead of considering the solid info we have presented.
Do you really beleive you come from nothing?
Man, i don't even know why i bother to show moraal values or philosophy, you may as well have your eyes shut and your ears plugged because you don't even think to consider the good stuff we have, you automatically kill it anyway you can.
Might as well go around telling people that life is as good as shit, just go die somewhere. That being true or not does not matter, it only makes people devalue themselves.
Wasn't it your page that said claiming peoples lives are devalued by telling them they have a soul? Telling people that they have a soul makes them feel great about themselves. And its what people think that sets the value for life. Your religion is not helping progress man.
Mustachio,
Everyone, i dunno if ive already said this, but a religion is meant to be a guidline to life. As long as it keeps you happy, and protects the morals and the values of the people around, then its a good one.
No. Emotional arguments are no good. But moral arguments are good.
What is actually meant to be a guideline to ones life is reality, how it applies to morality, and how ones values apply to the reality-based moral framework.
Belief in God is not a guideline to life. My answer of reality and a moral framework and ones values is much more satisfying of a guideline to life than saying "God exists!"
Mustachio,
Well, if ur trying to say the universe was "just there" you can just as easily say that God was always there. Or if the universe began naturally...wel then that only proves my point.
No. You are trying to force me to use a definition of God that I dont agree with.
Answer me these two questions please:
1) Do you think that God is conscious and personal?
2) Do you think that God created the universe, or is the universe?
And we can work on the definition from there.
Your being way to closed minded.
Not anymore than you are being closed minded to accepting my definition of God.
Are you really restricting yourself that badly, or do you not want to be proven wrong.
Dude, this blog is about the afterlife, and how to kill it. This blog is about atheism. A-Theism. Are you a theist, or deist, or what? A universist? Come on here.
I cant argue with you if you wont define your God. Yea hes the universe. What else? Are you just substituting one word for another, or do you claim that the universe has certain god-like properties, and will you lay those out, or what?
Do you really beleive you come from nothing?
No. Quite the opposite. If you would carefully read the many comments I have left about the eternal universe, and how theistic creationism (universal kind) can sometimes be equated with third party nihilism, and how it is a creationist who is in fact proposing an ex-nihilo creation event.
So quit loading questions. No, I dont really believe I came from nothing, and I never once implied or claimed that I did. I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed.
And one more question for you Mustachio: do you really believe you came from nothing (were created by a God)?
Mustachio
Wasn't it your page that said claiming peoples lives are devalued by telling them they have a soul? Telling people that they have a soul makes them feel great about themselves. And its what people think that sets the value for life. Your religion is not helping progress man.
That is not true. My premise directly underneath my blog title says that believing in an afterlife devalues the one that actually exists: this one.
Feeling good about oneself by falsely believing that one will not lose consciousness forever once ones body dies is bad. It is better to recognize and accept the factual truth, rather than appeal to emotional comforts to try to erase the reality of mortality.
Atheists love life at least as much as theists, if not more. Atheists are overrepresented in high-acheivement circles, like nobel prize laureates for example, but underrepresented among prisons, psych wards, etc... Atheists are virtually nowhere to be found among homeless populations, or insane asylums, and seldom found in the lock-up. They are more likely to have a college degree and are less likely to get divorced or have an abortion.
Hows that for guidance in life and feeling good about oneself?
Because I have only one life, that means this is the best life; the most important life; the most precious life. And I cherish it more dearly than anything else.
legion...
^Mustachio speaks the truth on terms of purpose. Something atheists think of as superfluous, Im sure. While we as humans should continue to try and discover this universe we live in, it does not mean we must be completly devoid of faith in doing so. But if you choose to be, so be it.
Baloney. Provide some statistics that support your and Mustachios argument.
Note in the previous post I made many claims about atheists exhibiting more purposeful life traits than theists. Would you like to compare stats? Ive got lots ;)
Besides I can flip it around by using the your argument on God himself. God is the perfect machine. He needs a creator even more than an imperfect machine would.
Nope, because God had no beginning, he doesn't need a cause. He is eternal, not having a beginning in time because he created time. And a cell is clearly designed, now I expect a reason as to how it is. A cell doesn't just form by chance, that hasn't happened till this day, nor has it happened by intelligent human minds guiding it towards being, so why should I believe it came by chance? I believe in a higher power because it just seems logical, design ------->designer. Simple as that, no need to get over scientific. Plus most the things you say are assumptions and theories..Just explain where design came from, that's all I ask.
Hey Legions.... - you left out a step on the theist side:
Define "God" in a logically coherent manner.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
(Hint - when you realize you can't do it, you see why the atheist side wins.)
AAron,
I see how athiesm may make you want to live life to the fullest, but remember the whole DNA thing. Your offspring will be your afterlife until this world goes thru another Big bang or whatever and everything reorganizes the way it was. Eternal consiousness is an illusion, yes, but your part in this world, your peice of the puzzle can never be destroyed.
"I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed."
That sounds dangerously close to what a god is....
"1) Do you think that God is conscious and personal?"
"2) Do you think that God created the universe, or is the universe?"
What i think is that God created this Universe, but when he did, he had no resource other than himself, therfore everything is god. So if I see a counsoius human being, a may very well say that God is consiuos in that sense.
I am very happy to see that you cherish this life, instead of hoping to die soon to meet god; but forthose who do, they are being to quick to judge god, because God is allready here, and that you are God and everyhitng else around you is god.--Also, everything that occurs in the universe can be predicted, though humans are incable of doing so. Nothing is random. You can make a guess and it may be right, but thats how probablitity works. Its all one big design*
OO, and rememder that little thing on how zero and infinite are of the same origin and how everything and nothing can be the same as well. I can easily say there is everything because everything can be described, but nothing cant even be imagined. (space is something too, its an area were something else can be unrestricingly replaced).
And where did god come from. Well the universe was always there, so it came from itself; that's the same idea of gods origin. All of this designs and births or whatever occured an eternity ago, so you may as well say God was always there, but in the way im saying is that he is still there; everywhere.
Well Aaron is still attempting to refute by definition (his own).
You say, "Faith is, according to the dictionary, belief without logical proof or material evidence."
Belief (faith as you've equated the two above) is a cognitive attitude toward the object of a proposition. But that's nice form - pick and choose what you want 'faith' to mean and then refute (dictionaries provide many definitions).
Now I would like for you to start 'proving' (whatever you take a 'proof' to be you never say) your positive claims throughout this post, rather than just dogmatically declaring it to be so, starting with this claim:
"The first step in refuting both the afterlife and god arguments, is the burden of proof. The burden of proof means that the one who asserts a positive statement, like "there is an afterlife," is the one who must support the statement. The asserter is "burdened" to prove the assertion."
The rest of your post is littered with positive statements that would likewise need to be 'proven' such as your claim that the default position is the 'negation' (convenient that it's claimed to be negative and not an agnostic position) of the positive claim, not restated or given rhetorical force by 'claiming' that unless this is so you may believe something absurd which would also need to be 'proven' since it would be another positive claim on your part.
"OO, and rememder that little thing on how zero and infinite are of the same origin and how everything and nothing can be the same as well."
Yes yes. and Death = Life and Down (burial) = Up (heaven). It hurts. Make it stop. I'm going to have to scroll up through a ridiculous number of comments to see if a certain idiot ever deigned to give a direct question a direct answer and tell me where he got the "molecular reintegration theory of quantum physics." If even half of those comments are equally stupid as the above quote, I'm going to need a big bottle of Jack Daniels to wade through them.
Joker said, "The thing is you people want evidence for everything, however there are somethings in the multyverse where you mustn't ask quaetions and must accept."
Who told you that and what was their purpose in doing so?
Yeah thats right call it stupid, instead of making a counter againts the logic i proved you make an insult, nice, i see how logical you really are..
oo and why dont you try saying "we win" again, all you want is for us to go away so you dont hear any more of our proofs, you just dont want to be wrong more than you want to disbelieve god. That's right go get drunk, you dont seem to be helping your side.
anon - "Consider why the majority finds something logical before you call it illogical."
Because they have been told to. Religion is a self perpetuating mechanism of twisted psychological control. It is often ruthless in its application and self-protecting nature. If you don't believe me, ask Jean D'Arc, or any of the decapitated victims of the religious militants in Iraq. If they don't answer, don't blame me.
I never did get an answer, and I hate having to prove a point without receiving the promised payment for my work. Of course, there was no good reason for the "do it and I'll tell you" stipulation in the first place.
Ok Mustachio.
There is much of what Ayn Rand says to which I disagree, however I think she nailed this one:
A = A
B = B
A != B
Everything equals everything.
Nothing equals nothing.
Everything does not equal nothing.
They are opposites. Opposites, by definition are not equals.
The Eastern theory that everything alternately exists and does not exist is just another form of mental masturbation leading to religious brain-cramp. The reason I say this is, even if it were true, it is not relevant to our perceived existence. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. You can also get the same mind-blowing effect by seriously and repeatedly considering the "chicken and the egg" riddle. Pfui!
thanks for the normal response this time (btw, i know the answer to the chicken > egg thing, lol). Now i know you beleive you came from "something", which aaron said: "I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed."
Which is a very similar trait we describe God with.
Do you have a response to this, or do you have a different opinion of your origin.
Since there are a few anon's on here the above post starting with: "Well Aaron is still attempting to refute by definition (his own)." was mine
Yes, I came from something. I came from a biological replication process, sustained by a complex system of digestive and reproductive organs. There are whole chapters in Biology books and some "blackmail" photos taken a long time ago to prove it.
The creation of embarrassment/shame in conjunction with human sexuality is a tool of control used by the priest/shaman class. It is the first step in the process of mystification of the carnal, and claiming possession of an act that is in truth very personal. The assertion that the human organism is incapable of creating more humans without the intervention of some sky fairy is self-serving to that class of social parasite and the temple structure.
This probably seems slightly off-topic to you, but to me it is an integral part of the superstitious illusion that is being constantly and ruthlessly reinforced in virtually every society every day. I call it the neverending godfomercial, and my conceptualization includes Fortune Tellers, "supernatural" horror movies, and dozens of other, seemingly unrelated calls to supernatural belief that are constantly subconsciously reinforcing the paradigm by "validating" belief in same. It's make-believe, in the truest sense of the phrase. It leaves me asking two questions: Could anything be more convenient to the priest class than a god that remains so stubbornly cryptic and illusive? If the whole system portrayed by any religion is so obviously correct, why does it need to be “sold” so vigorously and repetitively? Bonus question: Why does god need a starship, or my groveling?
... Which brings me back to the origin of matter in the Universe. Was the hypermass sentient or self-aware before the Big Bang? Would such a state affect the outcome of the Big Bang? Is there a quantum-level relationship of matter and energy in the Universe that translates into something akin to Douglass Adams’ Total Perspective Vortex? Barring some future interdimensional discovery, or the discovery of a viable method of time travel, there is no way that any human being can know with 100% certainty the answer to those questions. The best one can say is, “probably not”, to a degree of certainty that approaches 100% due to the nearly infinite alternate possibilities that one could theorize based on the nearly infinite number of variables involved.
Theists often use the improbability of life on earth to conclude that it would be impossible without some supernatural supercalifragalistic Genetic Engineer. I will not go so far as to fall into the same trap, but that still does not make me an agnostic. I have made my decision, based on a lack of non-imaginary supporting evidence for the god theory, let alone evidence to support that theory above any other. Likewise, while difficult interactions with religious people and the social power structures they create do affect my life, interaction with the alleged god is nil. I have personally seen improbable and unexplained events. I have never seen anything impossible to explain unless attributed to “magic”, or “ghosts”, holy or otherwise. I have never seen anything approaching knowledge of god that cannot be explained as an attempt by an unscrupulous authority figure (or huckster) to avoid saying “I don’t know”. To put it another way, I see no tinkering with causality that could be attributed to supernatural powers. Nom myo ho renge kyo, except that there is nothing mystical about it.
I have no wish to hijack this discussion, but that was enough work that it will be appearing on my blog sometime soon too.
Sweet! It looks like this post broke 100 comments over the weekend.
Legion,
You seem to have gotten a bit upset, yet you also seem to imply a shit in your thinking:
Picking your brain a little, it seems you have a major need to get your point across through science and supposed facts. Do remeber one thing, you are only a human. Hawking= only human. Einstien=only human. Humans thought flight was scientifically impossible only a century ago. Now a decade later we have absolute knowledge of the universe? Wow, not bad for a few years work huh?
And don't gimme that "its supported by scientists that," B.S. All human. Not one of us is omniscient. Let me give you this perfect example Aaron boy, since you like science so much. Lets use the scientific method.
Hypothesis: There is no god.
Materials: ?????????
Testing: ??????????
Conclusion: ?????????
Hypothesis: There is a god.
Materials: ????????
Testing: ???????????
Conclusion: ?????????
A lot of blanks it seems. Care to fill them in for me? And do NOT use conductive reasoning. Thats complete BS unless your the messiah the jews are looking for.
Are you admitting a personal shift to agnosticism?
Anyway, I would disagree with your conclusion. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that the question marks you wrote are all we have concerning both hypothesis, atheism would STILL be the answer. That is because the negative claim is the default until the evidence or logic sides with the positive claim.
Christ Bearer,
Nope, because God had no beginning, he doesn't need a cause. He is eternal, not having a beginning in time because he created time.
This is called special pleading. Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?
And a cell is clearly designed, now I expect a reason as to how it is.
A cell is not clearly designed. It is a problem of referents. You see, you think EVERYTHING is designed, including the universe. How can you claim that design is obvious when you have nothing "undesigned" to compare it to?
A cell doesn't just form by chance, that hasn't happened till this day, nor has it happened by intelligent human minds guiding it towards being, so why should I believe it came by chance?
Youre not supposed to believe it came by chance. I dont believe it came by chance. Snowflakes dont make crystalline shapes by chance. Gravity doesnt exert its force by chance.
I believe in a higher power because it just seems logical, design ------->designer. Simple as that, no need to get over scientific. Plus most the things you say are assumptions and theories..Just explain where design came from, that's all I ask.
You need a class on logic. You also need to familiarize yourself with Okham's Razor. Which of the following two lists seems more "logical" or simple to you?
1. Conscious entity (God) is eternal and immaterial.
2. Conscious entity creates material universe.
OR
1. Unconscious entity (the universe) is eternal and material.
Mustachio:
What i think is that God created this Universe, but when he did, he had no resource other than himself, therfore everything is god. So if I see a counsoius human being, a may very well say that God is consiuos in that sense.
I am very happy to see that you cherish this life, instead of hoping to die soon to meet god; but forthose who do, they are being to quick to judge god, because God is allready here, and that you are God and everyhitng else around you is god.--Also, everything that occurs in the universe can be predicted, though humans are incable of doing so. Nothing is random. You can make a guess and it may be right, but thats how probablitity works. Its all one big design*
That sounds like third party nihilism to me: "Nothing exists except the mind of God," because everything was created by his mind or of his mind.
Do you believe that God answers prayer?
Do you believe in an afterlife? Since you believe that God is the universe, where exactly in the universe do you think the afterlife can be found?
Do you believe in Immaterialism?
Mustachio:
OO, and rememder that little thing on how zero and infinite are of the same origin and how everything and nothing can be the same as well.
Indeed. But of course you realize that that is actually an atheistic argument as well! Oh the irony. You seem very eager to plaster the God name tag onto the material universe just to allay your fears of not having a cosmic big brother.
For more information on this everything=nothing idea, I highly suggest you visit Everyting Forever, which describes how the universe is timeless, infinite, eternal, and how order (specifically two opposing types of order) relate to the "everything is nothing" idea. Parts 1 and Two of the website are the best IMO, but parts 3 and 4 contina excellent data as well.
The website is excellent and contains many visual illustrations and aids to help you conceptualize how changes in order type can bring about questions of "is everything really nothing and vice-versa?"
I can easily say there is everything because everything can be described, but nothing cant even be imagined. (space is something too, its an area were something else can be unrestricingly replaced).
And where did god come from. Well the universe was always there, so it came from itself; that's the same idea of gods origin. All of this designs and births or whatever occured an eternity ago, so you may as well say God was always there, but in the way im saying is that he is still there; everywhere.
Again, you collapsed the difference b etween God and the universe, and again, you are guilty of unjustifiably plastering a singular consciousness "mask" onto the material universe. Would you believe me if I told you that my teddy bear was alive as well?
Anonymous,
Well Aaron is still attempting to refute by definition (his own).
You say, "Faith is, according to the dictionary, belief without logical proof or material evidence."
Belief (faith as you've equated the two above) is a cognitive attitude toward the object of a proposition. But that's nice form - pick and choose what you want 'faith' to mean and then refute (dictionaries provide many definitions).
Why dont you supply some of those dictionary definitions that are "different" and lets compare them to the Biblical definition so that you and I can agree on exactly what is meant by the word "Faith." Obviously you and I cannot continue until we agree on a definition. MY definition agrees with the main dictionary definition, as well as the definition used by the VAST MAJORITY of God-fearing people on this planet. That is what my blog was made to do: combat that version of faith.
Now I would like for you to start 'proving' (whatever you take a 'proof' to be you never say) your positive claims throughout this post, rather than just dogmatically declaring it to be so, starting with this claim:
"The first step in refuting both the afterlife and god arguments, is the burden of proof. The burden of proof means that the one who asserts a positive statement, like "there is an afterlife," is the one who must support the statement. The asserter is "burdened" to prove the assertion."
Simple logic. When there is a blank slate so to speak, and tow claims are presented; one supporting the existence of a thing, and the other claim not supporting the existence of a thing, the burden of proof lies with the positive (supporting) claim. That is the reason, for one example, that US courts assume a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is proper logical form.
Where would science be without it? We probably wouldnt even have computers if it werent for this logical principle.
Okham's Razor also supports this idea. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. So unless you can provide a necessity for a God being around, then we cannot include that entity within our belief structure.
The rest of your post is littered with positive statements that would likewise need to be 'proven' such as your claim that the default position is the 'negation' (convenient that it's claimed to be negative and not an agnostic position) of the positive claim, not restated or given rhetorical force by 'claiming' that unless this is so you may believe something absurd which would also need to be 'proven' since it would be another positive claim on your part.
Well I just gave support for that statement you quoted in earlier in this comment.
Now quit trying to shift the burden on me. I do not want to sit here and give you a logics class. I want to argue about the existence of God and the afterlife.
Anonymous, give me a definition of the word "faith" that you accept as the proper definition for use in the context of religion and God arguments. Then give me a reason why you believe in God; whether its faith or evidence or logical reasoning.
AAron,
Dependancy in a third party nihlism is wrong. Instead of praying, i find it a thousandfold more progressive to take actions into my own hands. Ears are required for hearing prayers.
Afterlife: Your offspring carry a part of your life for you, and untill all of your genetic information is destroyed you shouldn't call urself dead. After that, you will simply return to where you came from, the dirt (soem people give it a spirit and call it gaya, but im not like that). You reurn to god which is the dirt.
Immaterialsm? How could i imagine things if my mind didn't exist and if i was just a thought? Sorry, but that's a weird question, one that can't be proved.
Btw, this is the third time i post this, but i find it rather significant:
"I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed." <--you said that, Aaron
Ya, that sounds pretty Goddly to me.
Aaron Kinney
This is called special pleading. Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?
God doesn't need a cause because he didn't have a beginning. The universe however did.
A cell is not clearly designed. It is a problem of referents. You see, you think EVERYTHING is designed, including the universe. How can you claim that design is obvious when you have nothing "undesigned" to compare it to?
First off, if everything in the universe was designed, there would still be clear evidence of design. It's like saying just because it's noisy everywhere and there is no quiet that means we can't compare noisyness to silence therefore we can't conclude it's noisy. Secondly, not everything is designed. There is noise, then there is music. There is order, then there is chaos. Etc. Etc. A cell my friend, is clearly designed. Molecular biology confirms the cell is extremely complicated, and works like a machine.
Youre not supposed to believe it came by chance. I dont believe it came by chance. Snowflakes dont make crystalline shapes by chance. Gravity doesnt exert its force by chance.
Snowflakes come year round. Gravity is observed everyday. A cell forming without a designer has never happened, nor has it been observed.
You need a class on logic. You also need to familiarize yourself with Okham's Razor. Which of the following two lists seems more "logical" or simple to you?
1. Conscious entity (God) is eternal and immaterial.
2. Conscious entity creates material universe.
OR
1. Unconscious entity (the universe) is eternal and material.
An unconscious entity certainly couldn't design matter so your point is moot.
Mustachio,
AAron,
Dependancy in a third party nihlism is wrong. Instead of praying, i find it a thousandfold more progressive to take actions into my own hands. Ears are required for hearing prayers.
Well sure, but that doesnt answer the charge I made about third party nihilism. You can believe that you are merely a figment of another being's imagination and still be able to "take actions into your own hands," at least from your perspective.
The question remains, Mustachio: Do you believe that the entire universe was created within the mind of God or not?
Religious people always want to have their cake and eat it too. Observe these examples:
"We were all created via God's will (or thoughts), but we deny nihilism"
"Everything and everyone belongs to God, but we are responsible for our sins and our ancestors sins"
"God had a son, but that son is God as well. He is three entities, yet he is one entity"
"Gods will shall always be done. Always. But you better not defy him!"
A bunch of bullshit doublethink! If the universe was created solely out of God's thoughts or will, then that is BY DEFINITION, NIHILISM! Thats what nihilism is. If you believe that the universe was created by God's mind, then you are a third party nihilist.
Hey, if I believe that Jews should be burnt in ovens, and that the only decent DNA is aryan DNA, then I am a racist. No matter how much I protest against the label, by DEFINITION, I would be a racist.
so are you going to admit to being a nihilist, or are you going to realize that the entire universe was NOT created in the mind of God?
Afterlife: Your offspring carry a part of your life for you, and untill all of your genetic information is destroyed you shouldn't call urself dead.
Baloney. Duplication does not mean eternal existence of one's consciousness. I define "dead" as "the expiration of one's consciousness."
How do you define "dead"?
Besides, what you are describing is not an "afterlife" but an extension of life at least as I see it.
Immaterialsm? How could i imagine things if my mind didn't exist and if i was just a thought? Sorry, but that's a weird question, one that can't be proved.
Well at least youre not an immaterialist. And that means that you dont believe in the afterlife as I define it.
Btw, this is the third time i post this, but i find it rather significant:
"I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed." <--you said that, Aaron
Ya, that sounds pretty Goddly to me.
How so? I disagree entirely. My definition of God is an all powerful all knowing being that is responsible for the creation of all of existence, including all energy and matter and all the rules of nature and logic and everything.
I, however, have described my person and consciousness as a TEMPORAL product of the eternal matter and energy of the universe. I am a result of eternal matter, not the creator of it. I am not all powerful or all knowing. My consciousness is not eternal.
So I must respectfully disagree with your "godly" charge and refer you to my definition of God vs. my definition of me. I will then have to ask you if you fully comprehend the definitions I have provided, since you seem to so easily mix up the vastly different qualities of 1) an eternal creator of existence, vs. 2) a temporal product of an eternal existence?
Christ Bearer,
God doesn't need a cause because he didn't have a beginning. The universe however did.
You didnt answer my question. You just re-stated the very assertions that I asked you to support without actually supporting them.
Let me re-post my questions for you: "Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?
First off, if everything in the universe was designed, there would still be clear evidence of design. It's like saying just because it's noisy everywhere and there is no quiet that means we can't compare noisyness to silence therefore we can't conclude it's noisy.
Actually, if all you ever experienced in your life was a constant amount of noise, you WOULD in fact have no idea what quiet was or how to describe it. Just like if you spent your whole life only seeing the color red, you would have no idea what blue was (or even red) and would not be able to describe the differences between the two.
Secondly, not everything is designed. There is noise, then there is music. There is order, then there is chaos. Etc. Etc. A cell my friend, is clearly designed. Molecular biology confirms the cell is extremely complicated, and works like a machine.
But if God created the universe, then he created chaos too. He created evil. He created all the laws of how everything interacts with eachother and therefore everything in the universe, would by necessity be his design.
So Christ Bearer, if you think that NOT everything is designed, then what parts of the universe did God not create? What parts of existence is God not repsonsible for, and if God isnt responsible for certain things (like the existence of chaos, for example), then who is?
Besides, chaos doesnt actually exist. There is only order: sequential and grouping. What you see as chaos is actually your untrained eye seeing order shifting from one type to another. I challenge you to provide to me an example of "chaos." I promise you that every example you provide will be refuted by me and proven to merely be a form of order, or a combination of the two kinds of order.
For more information on chaos and order, I strongly suggest you read this page: Everything Forever.
Snowflakes come year round. Gravity is observed everyday. A cell forming without a designer has never happened, nor has it been observed.
You just shot yourself in the foot. I can counter you by simply saying that "a cell forming WITH a designer has never been observed."
Christ Bearer, if you think that cells require a designer to be formed, and that God did it, then HOW can you explain it? HOW did God do it? Can you describe the process to me?
You see, scientists can describe the processes of the naturalistic (no God needed) answers for phenomena in the universe. Scientists dont just say "Gravity did it!" and leave it at that. No, they have to get very detailed with how gravity works, its properties, its effects, the way it affects entities, etc.
So can you please explain to me HOW God made a cell? And HOW made the universe?
An unconscious entity certainly couldn't design matter so your point is moot.
Correction: An unconscious entity cannot consciously design or will an entity into existence, but "ordered entities" from snowflakes to stars to planets to life forms can and do naturally arise due to the natural physical properties of matter an energy.
Aaron,
Aaron said, “Why dont you supply some of those dictionary definitions that are "different" and lets compare them to the Biblical definition so that you and I can agree on exactly what is meant by the word "Faith."
Even if I accepted ‘your’ definition of faith, it is ambiguous, incomplete and as a result doesn’t get you where you want to go. For instance, if faith is belief *without* logical proof or material evidence, it is unclear exactly what that means (‘without’ causes the ambiguity). Does it mean that faith is ‘incapable’ of proof or material evidence, or is it supposed to connote that faith is ‘contrary’ or ‘opposed’ to logical proof or material evidence - faith could be incapable of being proved but not necessarily opposed to proof. Or does it mean that faith does not *need* proof? Once you supply the missing ingredients to your definition, you will seem to deviate from your precious dictionary. ;)
Aaron said, “Obviously you and I cannot continue until we agree on a definition. MY definition agrees with the main dictionary definition,”
You are being dishonest Aaron. How is your definition the “main” definition? As a matter of fact, it appears that you obtained your definition from www.dictionary.com. I know you’ve used that website in the past and your definition just happens to be an exact quote of definition #2. However, there are *6* different definitions to be found there, so why arbitrarily choose definition number *2*. Why not use the *first* definition that says, “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” Better yet, why not use the *fourth* definition that states, “often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.” So why the arbitrariness?
Aaron said, “as well as the definition used by the VAST MAJORITY of God-fearing people on this planet.”
What is this? Another assumption. You would need to actually prove this rather than beg the question. But you know what they say, ‘might don’t make right’.
Aaron said, “That is what my blog was made to do: combat that version of faith.”
“That” version of faith, huh? “That” version of faith seems to be no faith at all.
Aaron said, “Simple logic.”
We’ll see.
Aaron said, “When there is a blank slate so to speak, and tow claims are presented; one supporting the existence of a thing, and the other claim not supporting the existence of a thing, the burden of proof lies with the positive (supporting) claim.”
Here all you do is reword your dogmatism and consequently, this gives me nothing new. Another assertion.
Aaron said, “That is the reason,”
Since “That” is a demonstrative and usually refers to its antecedent, I’m wondering where the ‘reason’ is. I didn’t exactly see a reason much less anything that would constitute a proof on most views. I saw a paraphrase of what you originally said though. Nevertheless, you still haven’t told me what you mean by ‘proof’.
Aaron said, “…for one example, that US courts assume a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is proper logical form.”
Actually, this is an argument from ignorance (assume negative when positive hasn’t been proven true). Logicians differentiate depending on the context of a discussion and so would say that the legal system is an exception, though technically it is an argument from ignorance. But I see no reason to make an exception for our present discussion (and logicians don’t either).
But if you want to assume the context of a court of law, then why not propose that God is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Why assume otherwise? I am not seeing how asserting the context of a court of law supports your assertions. It is still incomplete, just like your definition of faith. Why assume that your position is ‘innocent’ in the first place? But before we assume this context, you are going to need to ‘prove’ that the context of a court of law is analogous to the current situation.
Better yet, all this depends on us starting (that we can start) from a neutral/negative position when it comes to God’s existence. This in and of itself is a positive assertion that would need to be proven. I could very well just make the negative claim that the burden of proof does *not* apply in this situation. Since you are now making the positive assertion, you have the burden of proving that the burden of proof actually applies in this situation. ;)
Aaron said, “Where would science be without it? We probably wouldnt even have computers if it weren’t for this logical principle.”
See my comments on assuming the context of a court of law. The scientific method is not exactly monolithic. Science assumes different philosophical presuppositions. Specifically, I’m not sure why holding the ‘negation’ of a theory (rather than agnostic position) is necessary nor am I seeing how it escapes the charge of being an argument from ignorance. I’m also not sure how a conditional statement could be proven, such as that we “probably wouldnt even have computers if it weren’t for this logical principle.”
Aaron said, “Okham's Razor also supports this idea. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. So unless you can provide a necessity for a God being around, then we cannot include that entity within our belief structure.”
First, you need to ‘prove’ (whatever that means) the validity of Okham’s Razor and how it supports ‘this idea’. It’s nice of you to just assume that your thesis is more simplistic yet somehow adequate to provide the ontological foundations for life, love, liberty, intelligence, et al (another positive assertion).
Aaron said, “Well I just gave support for that statement you quoted in earlier in this comment.”
We see how that went.
Aaron said, “Now quit trying to shift the burden on me. I do not want to sit here and give you a logics class. I want to argue about the existence of God and the afterlife.”
It is apparent that you are shifting the burden. Actually the context of the discussion is about the Burden of Proof, remember, your blog entry?
Aaron said, “Anonymous, give me a definition of the word "faith" that you accept as the proper definition for use in the context of religion and God arguments.”
I thought you gave the “MAIN” one already. Oh right, I saw your dishonesty there. But my second paragraph in response to you would start leading you in the appropriate direction.
Aaron said, “Then give me a reason why you believe in God; whether its faith or evidence or logical reasoning.”
I don’t think we are at this point yet, Aaron. Why do you say “faith or evidence or logical reasoning” as if they are mutually exclusive?
Isn’t this whole burden of proof jig that you guys play quite annoying?
You didnt answer my question. You just re-stated the very assertions that I asked you to support without actually supporting them.
Let me re-post my questions for you: "Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?
God by definition does not need a beginning because he existed before time. The logic you're applying to him was made by him, so how can you apply it to him? He doesn't need a beginning be cause he had no beginning in time, and a cause isn't required for something that was, is, and will be. The universe had a cause. Whether it's "time starting" or all the universe all together, something initiated it.
Actually, if all you ever experienced in your life was a constant amount of noise, you WOULD in fact have no idea what quiet was or how to describe it. Just like if you spent your whole life only seeing the color red, you would have no idea what blue was (or even red) and would not be able to describe the differences between the two.
That doesn't change the fact that other colors exist. And there are levels as to how much red you see, and different types of red. Just cause you don't have something to compare and contrast it to, doesn't mean the noise isn't noise, or the color red isn't red.
But if God created the universe, then he created chaos too. He created evil. He created all the laws of how everything interacts with eachother and therefore everything in the universe, would by necessity be his design.
He created chaos. It is stated he did in the Bible. Created evil is debated. Evil in some sense does not exist. It's like saying he created darkness, but the truth is he created the light, and where there is absence of light, there is darkness. Where there is evil, there is absence of goodness. It is debated, he may have created evil, he may have not, either way, it's irrelevant to our topic.
So Christ Bearer, if you think that NOT everything is designed, then what parts of the universe did God not create? What parts of existence is God not repsonsible for, and if God isnt responsible for certain things (like the existence of chaos, for example), then who is?
Hold up, creating and designing are two different things. God created it all. All chaos is is disorder, entropy, it's happening every second. Which shows the universe is getting more disordered every second, pointing to a more organized state.
Besides, chaos doesnt actually exist. There is only order: sequential and grouping. What you see as chaos is actually your untrained eye seeing order shifting from one type to another. I challenge you to provide to me an example of "chaos." I promise you that every example you provide will be refuted by me and proven to merely be a form of order, or a combination of the two kinds of order.
I agree to some extent. Everything down to an atom is designed in a different sense But if you see some ashes, and a skyscraper, one is more designed.
For more information on chaos and order, I strongly suggest you read this page: Everything Forever.
If I have time later I certainly will.
You just shot yourself in the foot. I can counter you by simply saying that "a cell forming WITH a designer has never been observed."
And I can counter you by saying a cell forming without one has never been observed. It's just simply logical to conclude a design has a designer. Nobody needs proof of that.
Christ Bearer, if you think that cells require a designer to be formed, and that God did it, then HOW can you explain it? HOW did God do it? Can you describe the process to me?
He spoke it, and it became. He's God. Picture a video game. We are in the virtual world. God can put in "cheat codes". He has advantages over all the dimensions. He can do whatever. But if God exists, surely it isn't a huge task to make life. Plus if your implying a cell has no design, then why would it be hard for God to put one together?
You see, scientists can describe the processes of the naturalistic (no God needed) answers for phenomena in the universe. Scientists dont just say "Gravity did it!" and leave it at that. No, they have to get very detailed with how gravity works, its properties, its effects, the way it affects entities, etc.
We haven't observed a cell naturally forming. This is called spontaneous generation. Biogenesis (life comes from life) is accepted by scientists. And God is the first "life". We have NEVER observed a cell form, nor has a human mind succesfully guided one to form. So how did it form without a God?
So can you please explain to me HOW God made a cell? And HOW made the universe?
See above.
Correction: An unconscious entity cannot consciously design or will an entity into existence, but "ordered entities" from snowflakes to stars to planets to life forms can and do naturally arise due to the natural physical properties of matter an energy.
You have to explain why the natural properties arose as well.
Groundfighter76:
Even if I accepted ‘your’ definition of faith, it is ambiguous, incomplete and as a result doesn’t get you where you want to go. For instance, if faith is belief *without* logical proof or material evidence, it is unclear exactly what that means (‘without’ causes the ambiguity). Does it mean that faith is ‘incapable’ of proof or material evidence, or is it supposed to connote that faith is ‘contrary’ or ‘opposed’ to logical proof or material evidence - faith could be incapable of being proved but not necessarily opposed to proof. Or does it mean that faith does not *need* proof? Once you supply the missing ingredients to your definition, you will seem to deviate from your precious dictionary. ;)
My definition of faith coincides with the Biblical definition of faith, IMO.
So why dont you provide a definition then? I disagree with you about the qambiguity of my definition of the word faith. My definition is not ambiguous at all. Ive repeated it numerous times. It is belief in something by virtue of its unsupportability. It is also belief in something without logical proof or mateiral evidence. I have described what faith is held by (its unsupportability), and what it doesnt have (support).
Now Groundfighter, whats your definition?
You are being dishonest Aaron. How is your definition the “main” definition? As a matter of fact, it appears that you obtained your definition from www.dictionary.com. I know you’ve used that website in the past and your definition just happens to be an exact quote of definition #2. However, there are *6* different definitions to be found there, so why arbitrarily choose definition number *2*. Why not use the *first* definition that says, “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” Better yet, why not use the *fourth* definition that states, “often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.” So why the arbitrariness?
Actually, definitions 1 and 4 are 100% compatible with definition 2. I use #2 to clarify context.
Are you gonna give me your definition of faith or you gonna unsuccessfully nitpick all day at my definition?
Typical Christoid, always refusing to reveal his hand. What are you afraid of? At least my cards are on the table.
“That” version of faith, huh? “That” version of faith seems to be no faith at all.
Oh yea, you mean the version of faith that is held by the majority of respected theologians and scholars? Belief in something without evidence? Sorry Groundfighter but you are being a total bullshitter. That is a very popular definition BECAUSE thats the way th bible defines it and BECAUSE it is the definition held by theological scholars (legitimate argument from authority here) and when I was a Christian I was constantly explained that this was what faith was, by my family members, by my preacher, by my bible class teacher, by my youth director, IN THE SONGS WE SANG FROM THE HYMNAL BOOKS, EVERYWHERE!
I have way too much familiarity with Christianity to let you try to pull a quick one on me Groundfighter. I will insist that my version of faith is wholly consistent with Christian thought and Biblical writings. Your disingenuousness is actually quite offensive, unless you arent doing it on purpose, in which case its pathetic.
Dont try to bullshit me on the definition of faith, and dont try to act like this version of the word isnt generally accepted by the leaders of the theological field. Dont try to act as if this version ISNT the version championed by Christians within their own ranks. Youre just making a stink about it now because an atheist is calling your pathetic fairy-tale-believing-ass out on it.
And again, I ask YOU to provide a definition of faith that YOU believe in. If you dont lay your cards on the table, you cant claim that you beat the hand that I just played. Sheesh!
Actually, this is an argument from ignorance (assume negative when positive hasn’t been proven true). Logicians differentiate depending on the context of a discussion and so would say that the legal system is an exception, though technically it is an argument from ignorance. But I see no reason to make an exception for our present discussion (and logicians don’t either).
Bullshit. Before a claim is made, like "X exists," there is a blank slate so to speak. On that blank slate is no positive claims anywhere, and no positive claims are assumed to be as equally true as the negation of the smae claim. When the positive claim "X exists" is made, the FIRST thing that has to happen is that some REASON for "X exists" is provided. ONLY THEN can the one who denies the claim can present anything.
How can someoen refute a claim when the claim that was presented has nothing to support it with? How can a critic attack a position if said position has no substance or body to be attacked by?
Ground fighter, where do you think the burden lies? Who has it? Do you think its split 50-50%? And can you provide the reason WHY you think it is that way?
But if you want to assume the context of a court of law, then why not propose that God is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Why assume otherwise?
You obviously dont understand the difference between a negative and a positive claim. No wonder youre having so much confusion over the burden! To say "innocent" is to say "X did not happen." The term "innocent" is a negative claim. So "innocent" is analogous to "X didnt happen" or "God doesnt exist."
So I indeed AM assuming innocence when it comes to God.
I am not seeing how asserting the context of a court of law supports your assertions.
I thought it would be a fun analogy to use becasue creationists use it all the time.
It is still incomplete, just like your definition of faith.
My definition of faith is not incomplete. My definition of faith is fully consistent with Biblical and dictionary explanations, as well as popular culture and intellectual Christian culture usage.
It is, I am sorry to say, YOUR definition of faith that is incomplete... for you havent even provided one!
Why assume that your position is ‘innocent’ in the first place?
Because I know the difference between a positive and negative claim. You obivously dont.
Positive = God exists = X happened = guilty
Negative = God doesnt exist = X didnt happen = innocent
But before we assume this context, you are going to need to ‘prove’ that the context of a court of law is analogous to the current situation.
Sure. In a court, there are two sides. One side (prosecutor) makes a claim. The defense need make no claim. The prosecutor is burdened to prove his claim. All the defense has to do is address the evidence that the prosecutor presents. The defense has no independent burden of proof on his own and makes no positive claim on his own. The defense simply has to show that the prosecutors case isnt true or isnt likely. However, if the defense WANTS to, he can go above and beyond and present extra evidence for his side or even make a positive claim. Its just that he isnt burdened to. Its the prosecutor that is trying to PROVE something, and trying to CONVINCE a group of people that something happened or exists.
Okay so I consider that good proof that the analogy is appropriate. So why dont you either try to refute that, or accept it?
Better yet, all this depends on us starting (that we can start) from a neutral/negative position when it comes to God’s existence. This in and of itself is a positive assertion that would need to be proven. I could very well just make the negative claim that the burden of proof does *not* apply in this situation. Since you are now making the positive assertion, you have the burden of proving that the burden of proof actually applies in this situation. ;)
Nice try with the word play. But no, I am not making a positive claim in this context. All I am doing is saying "I have no reason to believe your positive claim X" and unless you start presenting some good damn evidence that God exists, I am going to assume he doesnt.
But Groundfighter, lets look at this from another angle. Lets say that I claim that Leprechauns exist on a microscopic level inside your own intestine. Would you agree with me that you have a burden to prove me wrong? Or would you insist that it is my burden to prove it to you?
Be reasonable you freak! By a matter of instinct, you would NEVER require the negative claim to have the burden of proof in ANY OTHER ASPECT of your daily life.
First, you need to ‘prove’ (whatever that means) the validity of Okham’s Razor and how it supports ‘this idea’. It’s nice of you to just assume that your thesis is more simplistic yet somehow adequate to provide the ontological foundations for life, love, liberty, intelligence, et al (another positive assertion).
You want me to prove Okhams Razor? FIRST you have to prove to me that God exists, and that its a Christian God at that! Then maybe Ill think about proving to you the validity of Okhams Razor. Im not gonna sit here with your annoying little self and prove to you the validity of every single scientific principle in the toolbox of knowledge.
And you know what else? No, I DONT need to prove every ontological foundation for life, love, liberty, intelligence. You need to prove yours through your master-slave Godly world view.
How can you have a foundation for any of those selfish things when God literally owns your punk ass? I contend that the mere assertion of yours that God exists invalidates your ability to have your own value for life, love, liberty, etc... In fact you have to BORROW from the atheistic axiom of self-interest in order to justify those things, and you will have to admit that your motivation for dong ANYTHING exists outside of God's commands. It is your own axiomatic self-interest.
I cant believe your nerve.
If you dont start laying your cards on the table; making positive claims; and supporting them, then you sure as hell cant expect me to give you the same consideration.
Remember this if you remember nothing else: A person who rejects a positive claim (like an atheist) cannot be burdened to prove his rejection of a claim UNLESS the person who made the positive claim (the theist) ALREADY provided some evidence! I cant lay out my refutation to a claim like "God exists" if that claim has no SUBSTANCE to it! Because the claimant has given me nothing to address! Nothing to point to in my refutation!
Its a logical impossibility. How can a defense attorney lay out a defense if the prosecution has laid out no evidence, no support for any claims about anything?
A claim rejector cannot lay out his case by attacking thin air. A case has to be made FIRST by the positive claimant for the claim rejector to be able to respond.
And it is simply illogical to assume a positive claim is true if there is no reasoning or support for the positive claim.
Simple logic. If you think so many logicians disagree with me, then why dont you reproduce what they had to say on the matter?
Groundfighter, You need to start supporting your assertions. Im getting sick of your empty claims and thin air while you constantly challenge me to attack. Attack what? invisible thin air? You gotta give me SOMETHING to respond TO.
Christ Bearer,
God by definition does not need a beginning because he existed before time. The logic you're applying to him was made by him, so how can you apply it to him? He doesn't need a beginning be cause he had no beginning in time, and a cause isn't required for something that was, is, and will be. The universe had a cause. Whether it's "time starting" or all the universe all together, something initiated it.
According to science, the universe existed before time as well. So while I can accept your proposition that god by definition is uncreated, I must reject your claim that God exists, or is even necessary for the universe to exist. The universe itself is uncaused, timeless, and eternal according to what we know about it through science.
That doesn't change the fact that other colors exist. And there are levels as to how much red you see, and different types of red. Just cause you don't have something to compare and contrast it to, doesn't mean the noise isn't noise, or the color red isn't red.
This is totally true. I agree with you. But what it DOES prove, is that if indeed the entire universe was designed, a human would not be able to claim that the features of the universe's design are obvious. There would be nothing for the human to point to in order to argue that design was "apparent" or "obvious" because there would be no undesigned thing to refer it to.
He created chaos. It is stated he did in the Bible. Created evil is debated. Evil in some sense does not exist. It's like saying he created darkness, but the truth is he created the light, and where there is absence of light, there is darkness. Where there is evil, there is absence of goodness. It is debated, he may have created evil, he may have not, either way, it's irrelevant to our topic.
According to the Biblical quotes I have here, it is crystal clear that God created evil. Try these out for fun:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things.
Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good?
Jeremiah 26:3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the EVIL, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
Ezekiel 6:10 And they shall know that I am Yahweh; I have not said in vain that I would do this EVIL to them.
1 Kings 21:29 Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the EVIL in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the EVIL upon his house.
2 Chronicles 34:24 Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring EVIL upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which was read before the king of Judah.
2 Chronicles 34:28 Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the EVIL which I will bring upon this place and its inhabitants.'" And they brought back word to the king.
There are many more besides that, but I think thats a good enough sampling. God creates evil and he declares it repeatedly in the Bible.
Hold up, creating and designing are two different things. God created it all. All chaos is is disorder, entropy, it's happening every second. Which shows the universe is getting more disordered every second, pointing to a more organized state.
That is not technically correct. The total amount of order in the universe is constant throghout all time. Entropy is micharacterization of the actual second law of thermo. In reality, it is not ENTROPY that increases, but only it is that the amount of usable energy decreases over time because the universe is changing from ONE kind of ordered state to ANOTHER kind of ordered state. More specifically, from grouping to sequential order.
It is quite literally impossible for a person to provide an example of "disorder." However, it is totally possible for a person to present examples of grouping and sequential order.
I agree to some extent. Everything down to an atom is designed in a different sense But if you see some ashes, and a skyscraper, one is more designed.
So are you implying that a skyscraper is designed but ashes are not? You see, for you to point to the obviousness of design in an object, like a skyscraper, you have to reference it against an object that is not obviously designed, like some ashes. You need an undesigned referent in order to show the obviousness of design.
In this case, I would agree with you that a skyscraper is obviously designed by a conscious entity, and things in nature like ashes are obviously NOT designed by a conscious entity.
And I can counter you by saying a cell forming without one has never been observed. It's just simply logical to conclude a design has a designer. Nobody needs proof of that.
This is true. Abiogenesis has never been observed.
But, since scientists have never observed the beginning of life, and theologians have never observed the creation of life by God, then how can a theist claim that God did it, while rejecting the scientific claim that nature did it?
He spoke it, and it became. He's God. Picture a video game. We are in the virtual world. God can put in "cheat codes". He has advantages over all the dimensions. He can do whatever. But if God exists, surely it isn't a huge task to make life. Plus if your implying a cell has no design, then why would it be hard for God to put one together?
How do those cheat codes work? How did Gods words create something out of nothing? I am a computer programmer. I can, for example, take some video game code and explain how the cheat code gives you extra points or lives or whatever. Can the same be done for God's proverbial cheat codes?
You have to explain why the natural properties arose as well.
Well I am no physicist. This is a bit beyond my expertise of course. The best I can say with my knowledge is that natural properties are inherent to the eternal energy/matter that comprises the universe. But more importantly, can the theologian explain how God created natural properties? How did God's will create such things?
"God did it" is a non-answer. Before science could explain lightning, the answer was "God did it" yet nobody could explain exactly HOW God created lightning. Nobody can explain how the supernatural does anything. But as soon as science discovered how lightning naturally came about, the "God did it" explanation disappeared. No wonder nobody believes in Zeus anymore!
Im sure you are familiar with the "God of the gaps" argument, where holes in our knowledge base are filled with "God" until the knowledge catches up and God gets squeezed out of the "hole" in the knowledge base. That is what you are trying to do right now.
You are filling up holes in our knowledge base with non-answers, or pseudo-answers. How does gravity work? Its magic! God did it! How did life start? Magic! God did it!
Imagine a magician on a stage and he makes a tiger dissapear from a box. People say "Oh, its magic!" as an explanation. But they cant explain HOW the magic did it. Magic, like God, is a non answer or pseudo answer. But as soon as the magician reveals HOW he made the tiger vanish (through mirrors or a trap door), then the magic dissapears from the equation. Suddenly its a practical natural and normal explanation.
the same thing is happening here.
Christ Bearer, I want to let you know right now that I am enjoying the dialogue with you very much. You are 1000 times more enjoyable to discuss these things with than people like Groundfighter. Thank you :)
Aaron,
Aaron said, “My definition of faith coincides with the Biblical definition of faith, IMO.”
Whatever.
Aaron said, “So why dont you provide a definition then?”
Maybe you were too emotional to completely read my entire last post. But if you decide to go back you will notice that I said that my second paragraph in reply to you will point you in the right direction. Not only that but I defined belief in my first post, so it should be easy to apply it to religion. I’m just not sure you are ready for that discussion just yet.
Aaron said, “I disagree with you about the qambiguity of my definition of the word faith.”
So what? I have shown that it was.
Aaron said, “My definition is not ambiguous at all. Ive repeated it numerous times. It is belief in something by virtue of its unsupportability. It is also belief in something without logical proof or mateiral evidence. I have described what faith is held by (its unsupportability), and what it doesnt have (support).”
Well, if what you said earlier was your definition, repeating it doesn’t make it less ambiguous. I know what you want to prove, but what I am saying is that quoting a dictionary’s definition *does not support your contentions*. And since arbitrarily choosing dictionary definitions is your tactic, I was wondering how you are going to support what you want to prove, since the clarifying concepts are not stated *in the dictionary*? The clarifying concepts are found outside of your holy book. Is that hard to understand?
Is something *only* supportable if it has “logical proof or material evidence”? But you need to define these terms a bit more – by logical proof, must faith be supported by a deductively valid argument or what? Do ‘reasons’, which count toward the truth of a proposition, fit within your arbitrary definition?
Let’s look at those other definitions that you conveniently ignored. First, what grounds a confident or secure belief? In other words, when it comes to *belief* justification (not knowledge justification and not just religious belief), what gives us confidence to hold to what we believe? You do know that belief is a constituent part of knowledge, right? And that it refers to a cognitive attitude toward a proposition, right?
Aaron said, “Now Groundfighter, whats your definition?”
Advice, if I were you, I would take some Ritalin or tranquilizers in order to calm down. I *pointed you in the right direction above and in my last post, but it seems that you are too emotionally unstable to read.
Aaron said, “Actually, definitions 1 and 4 are 100% compatible with definition 2. I use #2 to clarify context.”
Here we go again. Another dogmatic assertion. It’s not apparent that Definitions 1 and 4 entail or include definition 2. Notice that the former two definitions both point to confidence and security.
Aaron said, “Are you gonna give me your definition of faith or you gonna unsuccessfully nitpick all day at my definition?”
See above.
Aaron said, “Typical Christoid, always refusing to reveal his hand. What are you afraid of? At least my cards are on the table.”
Typical Ayndroid, can’t read.
Aaron said, “Oh yea, you mean the version of faith that is held by the majority of respected theologians and scholars?”
Another positive assertion.
Aaron said, “Belief in something without evidence? Sorry Groundfighter but you are being a total bullshitter. That is a very popular definition BECAUSE thats the way th bible defines it and BECAUSE it is the definition held by theological scholars (legitimate argument from authority here)…”
By the way, you know you are going to need to actually prove all this, right?
Aaron said, “…and when I was a Christian I was constantly explained that this was what faith was, by my family members, by my preacher, by my bible class teacher, by my youth director, IN THE SONGS WE SANG FROM THE HYMNAL BOOKS, EVERYWHERE!”
Ha… Now who’s the “bullshitter”?
Aaron said, “I have way too much familiarity with Christianity to let you try to pull a quick one on me Groundfighter.”
See directly above.
Aaron said, “I will insist that my version of faith is wholly consistent with Christian thought and Biblical writings. Your disingenuousness is actually quite offensive, unless you arent doing it on purpose, in which case its pathetic.”
You are too funny to be taken seriously! I WILL INSIST! HAHAHAHA… Aaron, your hall pass has expired, time to go back to class.
Aaron said, “Dont try to bullshit me on the definition of faith, and dont try to act like this version of the word isnt generally accepted by the leaders of the theological field. Dont try to act as if this version ISNT the version championed by Christians within their own ranks. Youre just making a stink about it now because an atheist is calling your pathetic fairy-tale-believing-ass out on it.”
Yawn. More of the same nonsense.
Aaron said, “And again, I ask YOU to provide a definition of faith that YOU believe in. If you dont lay your cards on the table, you cant claim that you beat the hand that I just played. Sheesh!”
Reading comprehensive seems to be low among some atheists these days.
Aaron said, “Bullshit. Before a claim is made, like "X exists," there is a blank slate so to speak. On that blank slate is no positive claims anywhere, and no positive claims are assumed to be as equally true as the negation of the smae claim. When the positive claim "X exists" is made, the FIRST thing that has to happen is that some REASON for "X exists" is provided. ONLY THEN can the one who denies the claim can present anything.”
Wow… I just don’t know what to say to you or about you anymore. I’ll refer you to either Douglas Walton or Copi & Cohen on the argument from ignorance. By the way, you haven’t even begun to prove the positive claims from your original blog entry, your first reply, or this reply. So right now, I guess I’ll just have a ‘blank state’ about the burden of proof.
Aaron said, “How can someoen refute a claim when the claim that was presented has nothing to support it with? How can a critic attack a position if said position has no substance or body to be attacked by?”
It seems like you have not yet understood what my post intended. Basically, your burden of proof criteria must be self-referentially consistent since it makes positive claims itself. I see no reason to exempt it from the same requirements. You have not yet told me what you mean by proof.
Aaron said, “Groundfighter, where do you think the burden lies? Who has it? Do you think its split 50-50%? And can you provide the reason WHY you think it is that way?”
This is what we are trying to get at, is it not? Seriously, you do since you obviously make the extraordinary positive claims… ;)
Aaron said, “You obviously dont understand the difference between a negative and a positive claim. No wonder youre having so much confusion over the burden! To say "innocent" is to say "X did not happen." The term "innocent" is a negative claim. So "innocent" is analogous to "X didnt happen" or "God doesnt exist."
In order to even have a ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ claim, you need to have a starting point, which will consist of a positive claim itself. But how do we get to this primary positive claim? Also, the *proposition*, “The term "innocent" is a negative claim” is itself a positive claim.
Aaron said, “So I indeed AM assuming innocence when it comes to God.”
See above.
Aaron said, “My definition of faith is not incomplete. My definition of faith is fully consistent with Biblical and dictionary explanations, as well as popular culture and intellectual Christian culture usage.”
This is assertion # 19,534.
Aaron said, “It is, I am sorry to say, YOUR definition of faith that is incomplete... for you havent even provided one!”
Reread.
Aaron said, “Because I know the difference between a positive and negative claim. You obivously dont.
Positive = God exists = X happened = guilty
Negative = God doesnt exist = X didnt happen = innocent”
Positive= the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion = atheists exist = atheism provides adequate epistemological and ontololgical frameworks = X happened = guilty
Negative= does not have the burden of proof = atheists do not exist (epistemological vs psychological distinction here) = atheism cannot provide adequate epistemological and ontololgical frameworks = X didn’t happen = innocence.
Aggravating huh…
Aaron said, “Sure. In a court, there are two sides. One side (prosecutor) makes a claim. The defense need make no claim. The prosecutor is burdened to prove his claim. All the defense has to do is address the evidence that the prosecutor presents. The defense has no independent burden of proof on his own and makes no positive claim on his own. The defense simply has to show that the prosecutors case isnt true or isnt likely. However, if the defense WANTS to, he can go above and beyond and present extra evidence for his side or even make a positive claim. Its just that he isnt burdened to. Its the prosecutor that is trying to PROVE something, and trying to CONVINCE a group of people that something happened or exists.
Okay so I consider that good proof that the analogy is appropriate. So why dont you either try to refute that, or accept it?”
Hahaha. Explaining how a court of law works does not prove that it *should* be used! Nevertheless, even if it were, we would then have to decide who’s on the defense and who’s the prosecutor, which is going to consist of what? POSITIVE CLAIMS!
Aaron said, “Nice try with the word play. But no, I am not making a positive claim in this context. All I am doing is saying "I have no reason to believe your positive claim X" and unless you start presenting some good damn evidence that God exists, I am going to assume he doesnt.”
See above. It has become quite apparent that you want me to assume you are right without proving to me that you are.
Aaron said, “But Groundfighter, lets look at this from another angle. Lets say that I claim that Leprechauns exist on a microscopic level inside your own intestine. Would you agree with me that you have a burden to prove me wrong? Or would you insist that it is my burden to prove it to you?”
Huh? When this is equivalent to belief in God, let me know. Nevertheless, if I was of the opinion that it is an extraordinarily ridiculous claim to not believe in the existence of Leprechauns and that a-leprechaunists did not in fact exist, then it would be the position of the a-leprechaunists to prove to me that someone like themselves could in fact exist! Again, you just want me to assume a certain position from the outset.
Aaron said, “Be reasonable you freak! By a matter of instinct, you would NEVER require the negative claim to have the burden of proof in ANY OTHER ASPECT of your daily life.
Ritalin/tranquilizer time. You should just go ahead and say, “In other words, please believe that I am right. Though I cannot support much of what I say, I promise I am right.”
Aaron said, “You want me to prove Okhams Razor? FIRST you have to prove to me that God exists, and that its a Christian God at that!”
Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself!
Aaron said, “Then maybe Ill think about proving to you the validity of Okhams Razor. Im not gonna sit here with your annoying little self and prove to you the validity of every single scientific principle in the toolbox of knowledge.”
Ah… so you don’t have to prove your positive claims anymore? ;)
Aaron said, “And you know what else? No, I DONT need to prove every ontological foundation for life, love, liberty, intelligence. You need to prove yours through your master-slave Godly world view.”
See directly above.
Aaron said, “How can you have a foundation for any of those selfish things when God literally owns your punk ass? I contend that the mere assertion of yours that God exists invalidates your ability to have your own value for life, love, liberty, etc... In fact you have to BORROW from the atheistic axiom of self-interest in order to justify those things, and you will have to admit that your motivation for dong ANYTHING exists outside of God's commands. It is your own axiomatic self-interest.”
You sure do ‘contend’ and ‘insist’ on many things don’t you…
Aaron said, “I cant believe your nerve.”
Seriously, are you a comedian? lol
Aaron said, “If you dont start laying your cards on the table; making positive claims; and supporting them, then you sure as hell cant expect me to give you the same consideration.”
From my first post to my present one, I have told you about belief and faith.
Aaron said, “Remember this if you remember nothing else: A person who rejects a positive claim (like an atheist) cannot be burdened to prove his rejection of a claim UNLESS the person who made the positive claim (the theist) ALREADY provided some evidence! I cant lay out my refutation to a claim like "God exists" if that claim has no SUBSTANCE to it! Because the claimant has given me nothing to address! Nothing to point to in my refutation!”
This has been addressed.
Aaron said, “Its a logical impossibility. How can a defense attorney lay out a defense if the prosecution has laid out no evidence, no support for any claims about anything?”
This has been addressed.
Aaron said, “A claim rejector cannot lay out his case by attacking thin air. A case has to be made FIRST by the positive claimant for the claim rejector to be able to respond.
And it is simply illogical to assume a positive claim is true if there is no reasoning or support for the positive claim.
Simple logic. If you think so many logicians disagree with me, then why dont you reproduce what they had to say on the matter?”
It obviously ain’t too simple for you, is it? Why not just “prove” (again whatever that means) it if it was?
Again, your quote above depends on who the rejector and the positive claimants are for the upteenth time!
Aaron blurted, “Groundfighter, You need to start supporting your assertions. Im getting sick of your empty claims and thin air while you constantly challenge me to attack. Attack what? invisible thin air? You gotta give me SOMETHING to respond TO.”
It appears that you are the one making the assertions not me… :)
Aaron said to Christ Bearer, “Christ Bearer, I want to let you know right now that I am enjoying the dialogue with you very much. You are 1000 times more enjoyable to discuss these things with than people like Groundfighter. Thank you :)”
Thanks for the compliment! I can’t help it if you don’t like the *same* criteria and consequences being applied to your beliefs. This points out that you are quite hypocritical.
All of your rants have been the equivalent of saying, "No please don't turn my criteria against me! I'm not emotionally stable enough to handle it. Just believe what I have to say!"
Groundfighter, I'm totally with you man.
Aaron, i amgetting tired of defining my god for you, if we are in aanother persons mind or not, it wouldn't matter because the God i defined (i don't know how many times) is still absolutely suitable for that situation. The reason why you like christbearer (no offense) so much is because his name implies he is totally in trust with the exact God described in the bible.
I have a feeling you don't want to go beyond what you have understood about what god is, even though your very own words perfectly desribe one.
In beakersiolins post: "All of your rants have been the equivalent of saying, "No please don't turn my criteria against me! I'm not emotionally stable enough to handle it. Just believe what I have to say!""
yea..it looks like you want to *sound* like your right more than you want to know that your right. I mean, you have so many people supporting this website, that you are pressured not to learn more, like you don't want to seem like you are fooled on your own web page.
According to science, the universe existed before time as well. So while I can accept your proposition that god by definition is uncreated, I must reject your claim that God exists, or is even necessary for the universe to exist. The universe itself is uncaused, timeless, and eternal according to what we know about it through science.
What science? This same science points to the universe having a beginning altogether. If matter always existed, space always existed. If space existed then time must've existed since space-time coexist, you can't have on without the other. Another thing, what "caused time to start"?
This is totally true. I agree with you. But what it DOES prove, is that if indeed the entire universe was designed, a human would not be able to claim that the features of the universe's design are obvious. There would be nothing for the human to point to in order to argue that design was "apparent" or "obvious" because there would be no undesigned thing to refer it to.
How can this be true? If you climb up a mountain and find 3 stones set on top of eachother, you could conclude someone was here before you and put them on top of eachother. You can indicate the design simply, and point to a designer.
According to the Biblical quotes I have here, it is crystal clear that God created evil. Try these out for fun:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things.
Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good?
Jeremiah 26:3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the EVIL, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
Ezekiel 6:10 And they shall know that I am Yahweh; I have not said in vain that I would do this EVIL to them.
1 Kings 21:29 Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the EVIL in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the EVIL upon his house.
2 Chronicles 34:24 Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring EVIL upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book which was read before the king of Judah.
2 Chronicles 34:28 Behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the EVIL which I will bring upon this place and its inhabitants.'" And they brought back word to the king.
There are many more besides that, but I think thats a good enough sampling. God creates evil and he declares it repeatedly in the Bible.
Maybe he created evil in a sense that whoever is absent from his presence, they walk in darkness/evil. He may have also "created" it to give us a choice. He didn't want robot-slaves with no option but to worship him. He wants relationship and love, which "choice" gives. Also, the quotes you gave, many of the translations I looked at used different words for evil, but they meant the same thing (bad times, calamity, etc)He may used evil to make the punishment fit a crime.
That is not technically correct. The total amount of order in the universe is constant throghout all time. Entropy is micharacterization of the actual second law of thermo. In reality, it is not ENTROPY that increases, but only it is that the amount of usable energy decreases over time because the universe is changing from ONE kind of ordered state to ANOTHER kind of ordered state. More specifically, from grouping to sequential order.
I don't see what you mean. If I leave my room for 20 years, it will decay, get dusty, and rot. This happens all throughout.
So are you implying that a skyscraper is designed but ashes are not? You see, for you to point to the obviousness of design in an object, like a skyscraper, you have to reference it against an object that is not obviously designed, like some ashes. You need an undesigned referent in order to show the obviousness of design.
Maybe, but the case doesn't change without something to compare it to. Relavism doesn't work. Truths don't change if we lack something to compare it to, reality remains, and the building still has a builder. And if Earth and it's life is so much more amazing designed, that a human with intelligence can't design a cell, what chance does it have by "naturally happening"?
In this case, I would agree with you that a skyscraper is obviously designed by a conscious entity, and things in nature like ashes are obviously NOT designed by a conscious entity.
Nature itself seems to have been designed by a conscience entity.
This is true. Abiogenesis has never been observed.
But, since scientists have never observed the beginning of life, and theologians have never observed the creation of life by God, then how can a theist claim that God did it, while rejecting the scientific claim that nature did it?
I would say it's more scientific to say a design has a designer. Many scientists know a cell has to have a designer, when they experiment the chances of one forming by natural processes, let's just say they became theists. But forget that as a point, my point is, whether we were at the site when the building was made, or even if we saw the builder, on thing is for sure, there was a builder, and the building wasn't a result of natural processes.
How do those cheat codes work? How did Gods words create something out of nothing? I am a computer programmer. I can, for example, take some video game code and explain how the cheat code gives you extra points or lives or whatever. Can the same be done for God's proverbial cheat codes?
How? Well since there was no laws of science restricting him (he made them) then what's stopping him? I don't know, ask him when you meet him, one thing is for sure, it is very well possible that he did.
Well I am no physicist. This is a bit beyond my expertise of course. The best I can say with my knowledge is that natural properties are inherent to the eternal energy/matter that comprises the universe. But more importantly, can the theologian explain how God created natural properties? How did God's will create such things?
"God did it" is a non-answer. Before science could explain lightning, the answer was "God did it" yet nobody could explain exactly HOW God created lightning. Nobody can explain how the supernatural does anything. But as soon as science discovered how lightning naturally came about, the "God did it" explanation disappeared. No wonder nobody believes in Zeus anymore!
I can flip this on you and say that the Bible was ahead of science and it took science quiet a while to catch up. People were considered crazy for believing some of the science mentioned in the Bible, but nowadays science confirms it's validity. Zeus and the rest were made up to explain what they couldn't understand. What you're doing is illogical though, you begin by excluding the possibility of the supernatural, then you try your best to prove everything naturally. You have to give both sides consideration. What about all the miracles Christ performed? What about his claims to be deity? What about his resurrection? What about the fact that he said he was alive before his physical birth, and he created all things? Check him out man, he isn't there to condemn you, but to save you.
Im sure you are familiar with the "God of the gaps" argument, where holes in our knowledge base are filled with "God" until the knowledge catches up and God gets squeezed out of the "hole" in the knowledge base. That is what you are trying to do right now.
Actually I would say God perfectly makes everything make sense, and knowledge just keeps affirming his existance. No knowledge I've come across contradicts God.
You are filling up holes in our knowledge base with non-answers, or pseudo-answers. How does gravity work? Its magic! God did it! How did life start? Magic! God did it!
Your doing the same with your god called nature. Is it possible that God created gravity? Sure it is, so I don't see why we can't assert he did.
Imagine a magician on a stage and he makes a tiger dissapear from a box. People say "Oh, its magic!" as an explanation. But they cant explain HOW the magic did it. Magic, like God, is a non answer or pseudo answer. But as soon as the magician reveals HOW he made the tiger vanish (through mirrors or a trap door), then the magic dissapears from the equation. Suddenly its a practical natural and normal explanation.
Can we say the tree fell a block down because an angel pushed it over, when there are clear natural explanations, of course not. But if people start getting healed, paralyzed start walking, blind start seeing, and the dead living again, you tend to think this isn't natural, no matter what. But this is the case with mythology, getting proven wrong by natural processes, but the Bible doesn't do that.
the same thing is happening here.
Christ Bearer, I want to let you know right now that I am enjoying the dialogue with you very much. You are 1000 times more enjoyable to discuss these things with than people like Groundfighter. Thank you :)
Likewise :D. Sadly this is the second time I wrote all this, last time my electricity went out :( Sucks, well anyways I'm afraid I'll get screwed at the end again. Fun discussing views with you! Take care.
"Advice, if I were you, I would take some Ritalin or tranquilizers in order to calm down. I *pointed you in the right direction above and in my last post, but it seems that you are too emotionally unstable to read."
Typical bullshit character attack from people too ignorant to attack the premise. This is why I don't argue logically with crazy people any more. If you want to sell your bullshit to me, I'll give you endless examples of alternative bullshit.
I give you full points for dedication, but quantity is no substitute for quality.
"In beakersiolins post: "All of your rants have been the equivalent of saying, "No please don't turn my criteria against me! I'm not emotionally stable enough to handle it. Just believe what I have to say!""
yea..it looks like you want to *sound* like your right more than you want to know that your right. I mean, you have so many people supporting this website, that you are pressured not to learn more, like you don't want to seem like you are fooled on your own web page."
Grammatical errors aside, what the fuck are you talking about? I said no such thing, and I am sincerely curious as to what you possibly could have hung that interpretation upon. No one has ever asked for my contribution on this blog, and for you to pretend that you don't preach to your own choir of, in my opinion, zombies, is perfidious. Take your sour grapes and go home loser.
Christbearer:
"What about all the miracles Christ performed?"
1. Hearsay.
2. Non-supernatural explanation:
Say I live in Jerusalem in 35 AD, and make my living as an itnerant Holy Man. I am a little smarter and more observant than the average yutz of the day. When Herod was in charge, there was general prosperity, but now that the Romans have taken over, times are tough. The Romans have funny ideas about tributes, Public Works, and who should pay for them. I notice this guy who is making a living as a beggar. He claims to be lame, but I notice that his feet are dirty and calloused. I go talk to him. I ask him how he is doing, and find out that he is not making enough alms to feed himself and his family. I commiserate, and tell him that I know he is faking. He is afraid. If I rat him out, he will be stoned to death, or imprisoned. In fact, this is why he has not given up and done something else with his life. He is trapped by his own lie, and the consequences of revealing himself as a fraud. I tell him that I have a way out for him. I tell him to play along that I have healed him, and he can do anything he wants from that time forward. The rest is "a miracle!"
Forget Lazarus, he was a ringer. Read between the lines and this becomes obvious. "He is alive again, but he won't know anyone he used to know." Bullshit.
Breakerslion said,"Typical bullshit character attack from people too ignorant to attack the premise. This is why I don't argue logically with crazy people any more. If you want to sell your bullshit to me, I'll give you endless examples of alternative bullshit.
I give you full points for dedication, but quantity is no substitute for quality."
Dude, what are you talking about? Do you know what the convo is about? When i read replies like this, I sometimes wonder if my interlocutor is living on earth. At the rate you guys are going, rhetorical assertions such as this give you no points. wannabe intellectuals...
Character attack (conveniently ignore everything else that was posted)! hahaha It was helpful advice for Aaron's emotionalism, but it by no means constituted the extent of my post! come back when you have actually read what's going on and have something substantial to say!
I will only give you full points for dedication to intellectual sloppiness, but sloppiness is no substitute for quality.
breakerslion
"What about all the miracles Christ performed?"
1. Hearsay.
2. Non-supernatural explanation:
So you immedietly exclude the chance of supernatural occurances.
Say I live in Jerusalem in 35 AD, and make my living as an itnerant Holy Man. I am a little smarter and more observant than the average yutz of the day. When Herod was in charge, there was general prosperity, but now that the Romans have taken over, times are tough. The Romans have funny ideas about tributes, Public Works, and who should pay for them. I notice this guy who is making a living as a beggar. He claims to be lame, but I notice that his feet are dirty and calloused. I go talk to him. I ask him how he is doing, and find out that he is not making enough alms to feed himself and his family. I commiserate, and tell him that I know he is faking. He is afraid. If I rat him out, he will be stoned to death, or imprisoned. In fact, this is why he has not given up and done something else with his life. He is trapped by his own lie, and the consequences of revealing himself as a fraud. I tell him that I have a way out for him. I tell him to play along that I have healed him, and he can do anything he wants from that time forward. The rest is "a miracle!"
Nice story. Except it doesn't hold water. Christ healed multiple people and performed miracles in front of thousands. Say when he fed the multitudes by breaking only a few pieces of bread. Christ wasn't a con man. And this is why your theory doesn't hold water. First off, I doubt there were stupid beggars as you mentioned above, I mean, it is just funny how people will resort to anything to avoid admitting to the miracles Christ performed. Even the Jews who hated Jesus admit he healed the paralyzed, blind, and raised Lazarus. Yet there is not a single document denying the fact that he performed miracles, radical Jews, who hated him, only went as far as to change the source of where he got his powers, and attributed them to Satan, but still they didn't deny the fact that he could heal. Because everyone knew he did. You also have to explain why people would claim to see him back from the dead, then willingly died for that. Nobody dies for a lie, unless they're insane.
Forget Lazarus, he was a ringer. Read between the lines and this becomes obvious. "He is alive again, but he won't know anyone he used to know." Bullshit.
Can you please clarify what you mean here?
Hey beakerslion, i was talking about this blog in general
"Grammatical errors aside, what the fuck are you talking about? I said no such thing, and I am sincerely curious as to what you possibly could have hung that interpretation upon. No one has ever asked for my contribution on this blog, and for you to pretend that you don't preach to your own choir of, in my opinion, zombies, is perfidious. Take your sour grapes and go home loser."
You call that an arguement beakerslion? Ya, that's right, instead of giving me a clean intelligent reply, you retaliate with anger. You are seriously damaging you credibility as well as your sides.
Don't tell me you din't post this.
Jesus Christ Groundfighter you had nothing of substance in your response to me. We are totally talking past eachother at this point. All you really did was throw around worthless ad hominems:
Whatever...Advice, if I were you, I would take some Ritalin or tranquilizers in order to calm down...Aaron, your hall pass has expired, time to go back to class...Yawn. More of the same nonsense...Reading comprehensive seems to be low among some atheists these days...
Groundfighter, you have yet to get your God justifiably inserted into any worldview, except the "faith" based worldview, which you seem to have a problem with. When are you going to provide something of substance? Most of the other Christians here are doing much better than you are at making any kind of positive push for their God. All you do is argue nihilism:
Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself!
Im quite sure that you will have a big problem with any attempt I make to define "prove", regardless of what I use. While I try to use the dictionary to define my words for convenience and convention and to help move the discussion along, you cant accept a single one! And now are you impling that the word prove can have no meaning?
Im not going to continue debating you unless you can start putting forth a position, presenting your own definitions for words instead of simply criticizing mine, etc... Youve gone nowhere. Arguing with nihilists like you gets tired quick.
Mustachio said...
Aaron, i amgetting tired of defining my god for you,
Well the problem is that what you call "god" I call "the universe"! I dont assign the labels "God" and "the universe" to the same thing. The problem is that you arent giving me the specifics that Im asking for. Does this universe/god of yours think thoughts consciously? Is it sentient? Does it hear prayer? Is there an afterlife? Heaven/hell? Etc...
You need to give me some attributes for goodness sake.
if we are in aanother persons mind or not, it wouldn't matter because the God i defined (i don't know how many times) is still absolutely suitable for that situation.
Yes its suitable for you, but whether or not its nihilism is very significant, from any angle. I need to figure out specifically what your "god" is so I can understand it and either argue against it, or accept it as true.
The reason why you like christbearer (no offense) so much is because his name implies he is totally in trust with the exact God described in the bible.
The reasons that I like Christbearer are many, but in relation to this comments section, I would say that the main reason is because he provides a specific worldview or position. He defines things, has positive claims, has specific detailed attributes of his God and his afterlife belief system.
You dont. You arent giving me anything to go on other than "God = universe." You need to get alot more specific than that. My atheism and materialism, for example, is very specific.
Christ Bearer,
This same science points to the universe having a beginning altogether.
The universe as we know it, yes. But not matter/energy itself. Energy is eternal. No information can pass through a singularity (big bang) so the universe as we know it is a clean slate from the beginning of it, so to speak. But the energy it is comprised of is eternal. Just about any astro-physicist will agree with this. Most of the theories (and the most accepted ones) agree with this.
If matter always existed, space always existed.
That is not correct exactly. Space as we know it wouldnt have always existed. "space" as we know it doesnt exist within a singularity, but matter/energy does.
If space existed then time must've existed since space-time coexist, you can't have on without the other.
True. But "space" and "time" as we know them are temporal (not eternal), and matter/energy is eternal.
Another thing, what "caused time to start"?
There are alot of theories out there. One proposed by Hawking, for example, is called "imaginary time" where a perpindicular time path intersects with our timeless singularity causing the universe to start. Another idea is that time never started or stopped really but since the big bang was a singularity and no information came through, and that the singularity could have only literally existed in an instant (since the singularity could have been the result of the end of another previous universe), making time to not have existed for that instant as far as we are concerned (no information passes through a singularity), but it never stopped as far as the energy was concerned. There are many, many other reasonable and detailed theories out there that explain the beginning of time naturalistically and without invoking god.
But the more important question, Christ Bearer, is this:
What, in your worldview, caused time to start? God? Ok, but how did God do it? What process did he use to make time start? How did he produce a singularity out of nothing, and then expand it, all before time started?
I believe that "god" is a non-answer.
When you say "God did it", it is the equivalent of me saying "nature did it". But of course, you ask me how nature did it, and I provide many ideas and theories based on observed evidence and known laws of physics. But what can you provide when I ask you how God did it? ;)
How can this be true? If you climb up a mountain and find 3 stones set on top of eachother, you could conclude someone was here before you and put them on top of eachother. You can indicate the design simply, and point to a designer.
That is wrong. You couldnt point to a designer if your whole existence involved nothing but seeing many many instances of 3 stones on top of each other. Your little example here is not analogous because there is a "natural" mountain to contrast against the 3 piled stones.
You should be aware that by merely providing an example of 3 stones piled up at the top of a mountain implies that the mountain was not designed. To make talk of a tornado creating a Boeing 747 in a junkyard implies that the tornado was not designed. Etc... In each instance, there is a contrast or an assumption of being able to DIFFERENTIATE between designed and not designed. If all of existence is designed, there is no "undesigned" reference to point to for a contrast to identify what IS designed.
Maybe he created evil in a sense that whoever is absent from his presence, they walk in darkness/evil. He may have also "created" it to give us a choice. He didn't want robot-slaves with no option but to worship him. He wants relationship and love, which "choice" gives. Also, the quotes you gave, many of the translations I looked at used different words for evil, but they meant the same thing (bad times, calamity, etc)He may used evil to make the punishment fit a crime.
So I take it you agree that God created evil.
I don't see what you mean. If I leave my room for 20 years, it will decay, get dusty, and rot. This happens all throughout.
Decay, dust, and rot are not "disorder." They are merely different ways of "order" shifting from one kind to another. We simply perceive these things as "disorder" because they arent the KIND of order that we want :)
Watch. Ill give you the two examples of order:
Grouping: 111 222 333
Sequential: 123 123 123
Everything in existence is just one of these kinds of order, or a combination thereof. An example of "disorder" cannot be provided; it will always be shown to be one kind of order or the other, or a combination of the two.
Maybe, but the case doesn't change without something to compare it to. Relavism doesn't work. Truths don't change if we lack something to compare it to, reality remains, and the building still has a builder.
Yes, I totally agree with you, but my point here is that you cannot logically come in here and claim that the "design" of the entire universe is "obvious"! It would only be obvious if there were an undesigned reference to compare it too, and if the universe really WAS designed, there would be no undesigned reference!
So what Im really arguing, is that by coming in here and claiming that the design of the universe is obvious, you are in fact implicitly admitting that an undesigned referent exists (because otherwise the "design" would not be "obvious" as you claim it to be), therefore defeating your argument.
So there are only two possibilities:
1. The universe was "designed" and it is therefore impossible to claim that its design is "obvious"
2. The universe was not "designed" and theists only THINK that the design of the universe is obvious because they dont realize that, ironically, they are subconsciously basing their ability to see "design" in the universe through their use of, and necessary admittance of the existence of, an undesigned referent.
Nature itself seems to have been designed by a conscience entity.
How so? How can you help me see this? What undesigned thing can I compare "nature itself" to in order to see what you see?
How? Well since there was no laws of science restricting him (he made them) then what's stopping him? I don't know, ask him when you meet him, one thing is for sure, it is very well possible that he did.
Here is the cop out. You cant provide anything of substance as to how your God does anything. Its just MAGIC is it? I sure wouldnt be so confident of my atheism if, when asked "how did nature do it?" I could only reply "I dont know, ask nature when you meet it."
But I will agree with you, it is possible that God did create everything, and that I am wrong. Christ Bearer, would you concede the same to me, that it is possible that God does not exist, and that you are wrong, and that the universe was not "designed"? Do you, like I do, admit the possibility of being wrong, even if you are 99.99999% sure of your position?
I can flip this on you and say that the Bible was ahead of science and it took science quiet a while to catch up.
Well, not really. For example, Genesis describes plants and the Earth being created before the sun and stars. As soon as "science" caught up, it discovered that stars came first, then the earth, then plants. Science, when it catches up, actually contradicts the Bible quite fundamentally.
People were considered crazy for believing some of the science mentioned in the Bible, but nowadays science confirms it's validity.
Such as?
I would contend that talking snakes, parting oceans, flaming flying chariots, the sun standing still in the sky, the earth existing before the sun, a global flood, and walking on water (just to name a few) are ALL totally denied by "science" as ever happening.
Zeus and the rest were made up to explain what they couldn't understand. What you're doing is illogical though, you begin by excluding the possibility of the supernatural, then you try your best to prove everything naturally.
Not exactly. What I am doing is showing the evidence that we have. Science has some evidence. Supernatural stuff, at least everything that Ive seen from it, has no evidence.
You have to give both sides consideration.
I was a Christian for 17 years.
What about all the miracles Christ performed? What about his claims to be deity? What about his resurrection? What about the fact that he said he was alive before his physical birth, and he created all things? Check him out man, he isn't there to condemn you, but to save you.
I used to believe all these things. I no longer do. The problem was that the further I dug, the less secure may faith in Christ was. It was a vicious cycle: The more I looked into and prayed and thought about my belief in God, shakier the foundations of my belief became. Eventually they came crashing down.
Your last sentence was interesting. You finished it with "...but to save you."
What do you believe that you need saving from, Christ Bearer? Is it the "sin" that you inherited from your ancestors eating a piece of fruit that God told them not to eat? Do you believe that you personally are guilty and sinful because your ancestors of over 2000 years ago were tempted by Satan?
Actually, breakerslion, there's pretty strong literary evidence that Jesus never did exist at all. It is just a mystery tradition that got out of hand. Myths and stories that make people feel good. See The Jesus Mysteries and others for further explanation. But perhaps you knew that already.
I am not going to be drawn into the rest of this conversation as it has devolved over time into mere idiocy. It has afforded me a certain amount of entertainment and education, however.
I would suggest to Aaron that, in spite of the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer, perhaps it would be helpful to the deists here if he would detail some of the evidence against the existence of an intelligent first cause. Or visit http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
Aaron,
Is this really it after a week?
Aaron said, “Jesus Christ Groundfighter you had nothing of substance in your response to me.”
Nothing of substance? That’s interesting. I’ll take it that you just didn’t want to or couldn’t respond to what I wrote. It’s there for everyone to see.
Aaron said, “We are totally talking past eachother at this point.”
Right… I have no idea how this is so (hint: because it isn’t so).
Aaron said, “All you really did was throw around worthless ad hominems:
Whatever...Advice, if I were you, I would take some Ritalin or tranquilizers in order to calm down...Aaron, your hall pass has expired, time to go back to class...Yawn. More of the same nonsense...Reading comprehensive seems to be low among some atheists these days...”
Is that really “All” I really did? Hmmm… Someone’s lying! It is disingenuous how you selectively quote me. None of my critique of your ‘blog post’ relied on your selective quotes above. Nevertheless, this was in response to the madness of your previous reply to me.
Aaron said, “Groundfighter, you have yet to get your God justifiably inserted into any worldview, except the "faith" based worldview, which you seem to have a problem with.”
When I read things like this, I have to wonder if you even read my posts.? With the above, it is apparent you would like to distance yourself from the current discussion.
Aaron said, “When are you going to provide something of substance? Most of the other Christians here are doing much better than you are at making any kind of positive push for their God.”
It’s apparent you have nothing to say in reply about me destroying your joke of blog entry.
Aaron said, “All you do is argue nihilism:
Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself!”
This is too funny. If you were even remotely familiar with the landscape of contemporary philosophy, you would know that this isn’t an absurd request.
Aaron said, “Im quite sure that you will have a big problem with any attempt I make to define "prove", regardless of what I use.”
Is this supposed to excuse you from doing it?
Aaron said, “While I try to use the dictionary to define my words for convenience and convention and to help move the discussion along, you cant accept a single one!”
This is desperation on your part. I have told you several times what I mean by belief/faith and have even referenced you to it in subsequent posts. So much for reading… It seems as though you are somewhat distraught since I don’t accept what you mean by ‘faith’.
Aaron said, “And now are you impling that the word prove can have no meaning?”
Oh my! Are you serious? First, I have been asking *what* you take proof to be since my *FIRST POST*. I said, “Now I would like for you to start 'proving' (whatever you take a 'proof' to be you never say)…” on June 23, 2006 at 2:18 p.m. It was repeated in every post of mine.
I was asking for you to *clarify* what you mean by proof and provide support for it! I never said nor intimated that ‘the word prove can have no meaning’. This is nonsense - of course ‘prove’ has a meaning!
Aaron said, “Im not going to continue debating you unless you can start putting forth a position, presenting your own definitions for words instead of simply criticizing mine, etc...”
I did present my own definitions. It appears you have at least 1 of 3 choices here: either 1) admit you haven’t read my posts, 2) admit that your reading comprehension sucks, or 3) admit that you really have nothing else to offer. But the way it’s looking at the moment, you would be wise to drop this dialogue.
Aaron said, “Youve gone nowhere. Arguing with nihilists like you gets tired quick.”
Arguing with 1st graders ‘like you gets tired quick’. If you want to consider that an ad hominem, then so be it. But realize that none of my argumentation relies on any of it. ;)
Aaron,
Remember that whole thing on how zero and infinite have the same properties? That's my whole point, the Univers and God, however you look at it have the same properties is what i think.
And I already said that you need a brain to think and ears to hear prayers, I already explained what my view on afterlife is, but im sure its something you would agree with since it doesn't include ghosts or spirits or anything. You don't really have to worry about afterlife because it requires a living brain to think.
Have you ever heard of a theory that the universe we know is only one atom compared to a being of far greater proportion, that perhaps we are only a single molecule compared to a greater universe? Maybe we are like a water molecule inside a cell of a greater being. In that sense we would be controlled by a 3rd part nihlism, but that greater being would only be part of another, proving that we are not really "controlled." Sorry if this is a bit confusing. But I can't be any clearer than my previous posts on what god is
I have no facts to prove it, but i have ideas to make one think. But you can't really disprove what you can't comprehend either. If you want I can make a mini bible kind of thing, like a factbook, except its from my ideas.
And you still haven't commented on that quotation by you: "I am claiming that I am composed of eternal and timeless matter/energy that was never created and can never be destroyed." or have you, this is pretty big blog so i may have missed something.
If I claim that invisible teapots revolve around mars, the burden of proof is with me as I am making the claim for the existence of something.
It is not the job of the person who doesn't believe in the existence of invisible revolving teapots to try and find evidence for their non-existence.
Post a Comment