tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post115082194054416228..comments2024-03-27T00:15:41.321-07:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: Prove It!Aaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1153838250342292732006-07-25T07:37:00.000-07:002006-07-25T07:37:00.000-07:00If I claim that invisible teapots revolve around m...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.<BR/><BR/>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.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152127453370724402006-07-05T12:24:00.000-07:002006-07-05T12:24:00.000-07:00Aaron,Remember that whole thing on how zero and in...Aaron,<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152115421859730852006-07-05T09:03:00.000-07:002006-07-05T09:03:00.000-07:00Aaron, Is this really it after a week?Aaron said, ...Aaron, <BR/><BR/>Is this really it after a week?<BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Jesus Christ Groundfighter you had nothing of substance in your response to me.” <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “We are totally talking past eachother at this point.”<BR/><BR/>Right… I have no idea how this is so (hint: because it isn’t so). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “All you really did was throw around worthless ad hominems:<BR/><BR/>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...”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>It’s apparent you have nothing to say in reply about me destroying your joke of blog entry. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “All you do is argue nihilism: <BR/><BR/>Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself!”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Is this supposed to excuse you from doing it? <BR/><BR/><BR/>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!”<BR/><BR/>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’. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “And now are you impling that the word prove can have no meaning?”<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/> <BR/>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...”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Youve gone nowhere. Arguing with nihilists like you gets tired quick.”<BR/><BR/>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. ;)Don Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16945116697427375137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152090692916651922006-07-05T02:11:00.000-07:002006-07-05T02:11:00.000-07:00Actually, breakerslion, there's pretty strong lite...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152086870136540142006-07-05T01:07:00.000-07:002006-07-05T01:07:00.000-07:00Christ Bearer, This same science points to the uni...Christ Bearer,<BR/><BR/><I> This same science points to the universe having a beginning altogether.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>If matter always existed, space always existed.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If space existed then time must've existed since space-time coexist, you can't have on without the other.</I><BR/><BR/>True. But "space" and "time" as we know them are temporal (not eternal), and matter/energy is eternal.<BR/><BR/><I>Another thing, what "caused time to start"?</I><BR/><BR/>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 <STRONG>reasonable</STRONG> and <STRONG>detailed</STRONG> theories out there that explain the beginning of time naturalistically and without invoking god.<BR/><BR/>But the more important question, Christ Bearer, is this:<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>I believe that "god" is a non-answer. <BR/><BR/>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 <STRONG>you</STRONG> how God did it? ;)<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>So I take it you agree that God created evil.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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 :)<BR/><BR/>Watch. Ill give you the two examples of order:<BR/><BR/>Grouping: 111 222 333<BR/>Sequential: 123 123 123<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>So there are only two possibilities:<BR/><BR/>1. The universe was "designed" and it is therefore impossible to claim that its design is "obvious"<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>Nature itself seems to have been designed by a conscience entity.</I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>People were considered crazy for believing some of the science mentioned in the Bible, but nowadays science confirms it's validity.</I><BR/><BR/>Such as? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>You have to give both sides consideration.</I><BR/><BR/>I was a Christian for 17 years. <BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Your last sentence was interesting. You finished it with "...but to save you." <BR/><BR/>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?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152084386332953612006-07-05T00:26:00.000-07:002006-07-05T00:26:00.000-07:00Mustachio said... Aaron, i amgetting tired of defi...<I>Mustachio said... <BR/><BR/>Aaron, i amgetting tired of defining my god for you,</I><BR/><BR/>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... <BR/><BR/>You need to give me some attributes for goodness sake. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152083929699593712006-07-05T00:18:00.000-07:002006-07-05T00:18:00.000-07:00Jesus Christ Groundfighter you had nothing of subs...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:<BR/><BR/><I>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...</I><BR/><BR/>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: <BR/><BR/><I>Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself! </I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1152045225612203572006-07-04T13:33:00.000-07:002006-07-04T13:33:00.000-07:00Hey beakerslion, i was talking about this blog in ...Hey beakerslion, i was talking about this blog in general<BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>Don't tell me you din't post this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151832758102708172006-07-02T02:32:00.000-07:002006-07-02T02:32:00.000-07:00breakerslion"What about all the miracles Christ pe...breakerslion<BR/><BR/><I>"What about all the miracles Christ performed?"<BR/><BR/>1. Hearsay.<BR/>2. Non-supernatural explanation:</I><BR/><BR/>So you immedietly exclude the chance of supernatural occurances.<BR/><BR/><I>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!"</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Can you please clarify what you mean here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151809894486708142006-07-01T20:11:00.000-07:002006-07-01T20:11:00.000-07:00Breakerslion said,"Typical bullshit character atta...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.<BR/><BR/>I give you full points for dedication, but quantity is no substitute for quality."<BR/><BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>I will only give you full points for dedication to intellectual sloppiness, but sloppiness is no substitute for quality.Don Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16945116697427375137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151805743927249952006-07-01T19:02:00.000-07:002006-07-01T19:02:00.000-07:00Christbearer:"What about all the miracles Christ p...Christbearer:<BR/><BR/>"What about all the miracles Christ performed?"<BR/><BR/>1. Hearsay.<BR/>2. Non-supernatural explanation:<BR/><BR/>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!"<BR/><BR/>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.breakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151802122060758612006-07-01T18:02:00.000-07:002006-07-01T18:02:00.000-07:00"Advice, if I were you, I would take some Ritalin ..."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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I give you full points for dedication, but quantity is no substitute for quality.<BR/><BR/>"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!""<BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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.breakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151639900206286212006-06-29T20:58:00.000-07:002006-06-29T20:58:00.000-07:00According to science, the universe existed before ...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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"?<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>According to the Biblical quotes I have here, it is crystal clear that God created evil. Try these out for fun:<BR/><BR/>Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things.<BR/>Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good?<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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"?<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Nature itself seems to have been designed by a conscience entity.<BR/><BR/><I>This is true. Abiogenesis has never been observed.<BR/><BR/>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?<BR/><BR/>"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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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!</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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, <B>no matter what.</B> But this is the case with mythology, getting proven wrong by natural processes, but the Bible doesn't do that.<BR/><BR/><I>the same thing is happening here.<BR/><BR/>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 :)</I><BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151604203206813132006-06-29T11:03:00.000-07:002006-06-29T11:03:00.000-07:00Groundfighter, I'm totally with you man. Aaron, i ...Groundfighter, I'm totally with you man. <BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!""<BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151524022443647902006-06-28T12:47:00.000-07:002006-06-28T12:47:00.000-07:00Aaron, Aaron said, “My definition of faith coincid...Aaron, <BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “My definition of faith coincides with the Biblical definition of faith, IMO.”<BR/><BR/>Whatever.<BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “So why dont you provide a definition then?”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “I disagree with you about the qambiguity of my definition of the word faith.”<BR/><BR/>So what? I have shown that it was. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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).”<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Now Groundfighter, whats your definition?”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Actually, definitions 1 and 4 are 100% compatible with definition 2. I use #2 to clarify context.”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Are you gonna give me your definition of faith or you gonna unsuccessfully nitpick all day at my definition?”<BR/><BR/>See above.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Typical Christoid, always refusing to reveal his hand. What are you afraid of? At least my cards are on the table.”<BR/><BR/>Typical Ayndroid, can’t read. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Oh yea, you mean the version of faith that is held by the majority of respected theologians and scholars?”<BR/><BR/>Another positive assertion. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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)…”<BR/><BR/>By the way, you know you are going to need to actually prove all this, right?<BR/><BR/><BR/>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!”<BR/><BR/>Ha… Now who’s the “bullshitter”? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “I have way too much familiarity with Christianity to let you try to pull a quick one on me Groundfighter.”<BR/><BR/>See directly above. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>You are too funny to be taken seriously! I WILL INSIST! HAHAHAHA… Aaron, your hall pass has expired, time to go back to class. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Yawn. More of the same nonsense. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>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!” <BR/><BR/>Reading comprehensive seems to be low among some atheists these days. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.” <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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?”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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?”<BR/><BR/>This is what we are trying to get at, is it not? Seriously, you do since you obviously make the extraordinary positive claims… ;)<BR/><BR/><BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/> <BR/>Aaron said, “So I indeed AM assuming innocence when it comes to God.”<BR/><BR/>See above. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>This is assertion # 19,534. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “It is, I am sorry to say, YOUR definition of faith that is incomplete... for you havent even provided one!”<BR/><BR/>Reread. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Because I know the difference between a positive and negative claim. You obivously dont. <BR/><BR/>Positive = God exists = X happened = guilty<BR/>Negative = God doesnt exist = X didnt happen = innocent”<BR/><BR/><BR/>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<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Aggravating huh… <BR/><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Okay so I consider that good proof that the analogy is appropriate. So why dont you either try to refute that, or accept it?”<BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.” <BR/><BR/>See above. It has become quite apparent that you want me to assume you are right without proving to me that you are. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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?”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.” <BR/><BR/><BR/>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!”<BR/><BR/>Before that, you would need to “prove” (whatever that means) your criteria for proof itself! <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Ah… so you don’t have to prove your positive claims anymore? ;) <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>See directly above. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>You sure do ‘contend’ and ‘insist’ on many things don’t you… <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “I cant believe your nerve.”<BR/><BR/>Seriously, are you a comedian? lol <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.” <BR/><BR/>From my first post to my present one, I have told you about belief and faith. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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!” <BR/><BR/>This has been addressed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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?”<BR/><BR/>This has been addressed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>And it is simply illogical to assume a positive claim is true if there is no reasoning or support for the positive claim.<BR/><BR/>Simple logic. If you think so many logicians disagree with me, then why dont you reproduce what they had to say on the matter?”<BR/><BR/>It obviously ain’t too simple for you, is it? Why not just “prove” (again whatever that means) it if it was? <BR/><BR/>Again, your quote above depends on who the rejector and the positive claimants are for the upteenth time! <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.” <BR/><BR/>It appears that you are the one making the assertions not me… :)<BR/><BR/> <BR/>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 :)”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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!"Don Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16945116697427375137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151516516000443332006-06-28T10:41:00.000-07:002006-06-28T10:41:00.000-07:00Christ Bearer,God by definition does not need a be...Christ Bearer,<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>According to the Biblical quotes I have here, it is crystal clear that God created evil. Try these out for fun:<BR/><BR/>Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I Yahweh do all these things. <BR/>Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good? <BR/>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. <BR/>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. <BR/>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. <BR/>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. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true. Abiogenesis has never been observed. <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><I>You have to explain why the natural properties arose as well. </I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>"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! <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>the same thing is happening here. <BR/><BR/>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 Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151514320255769752006-06-28T10:05:00.000-07:002006-06-28T10:05:00.000-07:00Groundfighter76:Even if I accepted ‘your’ definiti...Groundfighter76:<BR/><BR/><I>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. ;) </I><BR/><BR/>My definition of faith coincides with the Biblical definition of faith, IMO.<BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>Now Groundfighter, whats your definition? <BR/><BR/><I>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? </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, definitions 1 and 4 are 100% compatible with definition 2. I use #2 to clarify context. <BR/><BR/>Are you gonna give me your definition of faith or you gonna unsuccessfully nitpick all day at my definition? <BR/><BR/>Typical Christoid, always refusing to reveal his hand. What are you afraid of? At least my cards are on the table.<BR/><BR/><I>“That” version of faith, huh? “That” version of faith seems to be no faith at all. </I><BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/><I>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). </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>So I indeed AM assuming innocence when it comes to God. <BR/><BR/><I>I am not seeing how asserting the context of a court of law supports your assertions.</I><BR/><BR/>I thought it would be a fun analogy to use becasue creationists use it all the time. <BR/><BR/><I>It is still incomplete, just like your definition of faith.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>It is, I am sorry to say, YOUR definition of faith that is incomplete... for you havent even provided one!<BR/><BR/><I>Why assume that your position is ‘innocent’ in the first place?</I><BR/><BR/>Because I know the difference between a positive and negative claim. You obivously dont. <BR/><BR/>Positive = God exists = X happened = guilty<BR/>Negative = God doesnt exist = X didnt happen = innocent<BR/><BR/><I>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. </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Okay so I consider that good proof that the analogy is appropriate. So why dont you either try to refute that, or accept it? <BR/><BR/><I>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. ;)</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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). </I><BR/><BR/>You want me to prove Okhams Razor? <STRONG>FIRST</STRONG> 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. <BR/><BR/>And you know what else? No, I <STRONG>DONT</STRONG> need to prove every ontological foundation for life, love, liberty, intelligence. <STRONG>You</STRONG> need to prove yours through your master-slave Godly world view. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I cant believe your nerve. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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! <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>And it is simply illogical to assume a positive claim is true if there is no reasoning or support for the positive claim.<BR/><BR/>Simple logic. If you think so many logicians disagree with me, then why dont you reproduce what they had to say on the matter?<BR/><BR/>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.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151445306213589522006-06-27T14:55:00.000-07:002006-06-27T14:55:00.000-07:00You didnt answer my question. You just re-stated t...<I>You didnt answer my question. You just re-stated the very assertions that I asked you to support without actually supporting them.<BR/><BR/>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>I agree to some extent. Everything down to an atom is designed in a <B>different sense</B> But if you see some ashes, and a skyscraper, one is more designed.<BR/><BR/><I>For more information on chaos and order, I strongly suggest you read this page: Everything Forever.</I><BR/><BR/>If I have time later I certainly will.<BR/><BR/><I>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."</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><I>So can you please explain to me HOW God made a cell? And HOW made the universe?</I><BR/><BR/>See above.<BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>You have to explain why the natural properties arose as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151442456505030012006-06-27T14:07:00.000-07:002006-06-27T14:07:00.000-07:00Aaron,Aaron said, “Why dont you supply some of tho...Aaron,<BR/><BR/><BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>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. ;) <BR/><BR/> <BR/>Aaron said, “Obviously you and I cannot continue until we agree on a definition. MY definition agrees with the main dictionary definition,” <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “as well as the definition used by the VAST MAJORITY of God-fearing people on this planet.” <BR/><BR/>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’.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “That is what my blog was made to do: combat that version of faith.”<BR/><BR/>“That” version of faith, huh? “That” version of faith seems to be no faith at all. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Simple logic.”<BR/><BR/>We’ll see. <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Here all you do is reword your dogmatism and consequently, this gives me nothing new. Another assertion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “That is the reason,”<BR/><BR/>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’. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “…for one example, that US courts assume a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It is proper logical form.” <BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. ;)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Where would science be without it? We probably wouldnt even have computers if it weren’t for this logical principle.”<BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Well I just gave support for that statement you quoted in earlier in this comment.”<BR/><BR/>We see how that went. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Aaron said, “Then give me a reason why you believe in God; whether its faith or evidence or logical reasoning.”<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>Isn’t this whole burden of proof jig that you guys play quite annoying?Don Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16945116697427375137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151426259111301712006-06-27T09:37:00.000-07:002006-06-27T09:37:00.000-07:00Christ Bearer,God doesn't need a cause because he ...Christ Bearer,<BR/><BR/><I>God doesn't need a cause because he didn't have a beginning. The universe however did.</I><BR/><BR/>You didnt answer my question. You just re-stated the very assertions that I asked you to support without actually supporting them. <BR/><BR/>Let me re-post my questions for you: <STRONG>"Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?</STRONG><BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>For more information on chaos and order, I strongly suggest you read this page: <A HREF="http://www.everythingforever.com" REL="nofollow">Everything Forever</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>Snowflakes come year round. Gravity is observed everyday. A cell forming without a designer has never happened, nor has it been observed.</I><BR/><BR/>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." <BR/><BR/>Christ Bearer, if you think that cells require a designer to be formed, and that God did it, then HOW can you explain it? <STRONG>HOW</STRONG> did God do it? Can you describe the process to me? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>So can you please explain to me HOW God made a cell? And HOW made the universe?<BR/><BR/><I>An unconscious entity certainly couldn't design matter so your point is moot. </I><BR/><BR/>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 Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151425050628226602006-06-27T09:17:00.000-07:002006-06-27T09:17:00.000-07:00Mustachio,AAron,Dependancy in a third party nihlis...Mustachio,<BR/><BR/><I>AAron,<BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>The question remains, Mustachio: <STRONG>Do you believe that the entire universe was created within the mind of God or not?</STRONG><BR/><BR/>Religious people always want to have their cake and eat it too. Observe these examples:<BR/><BR/>"We were all created via God's will (or thoughts), but we deny nihilism"<BR/>"Everything and everyone belongs to God, but we are responsible for our sins and our ancestors sins"<BR/>"God had a son, but that son is God as well. He is three entities, yet he is one entity"<BR/>"Gods will shall always be done. Always. But you better not defy him!" <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/> <BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Baloney. Duplication does not mean eternal existence of one's consciousness. I define "dead" as "the expiration of one's consciousness." <BR/><BR/>How do you define "dead"? <BR/><BR/>Besides, what you are describing is not an "afterlife" but an extension of life at least as I see it. <BR/><BR/><I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Well at least youre not an immaterialist. And that means that you dont believe in the afterlife as I define it. <BR/><BR/><I>Btw, this is the third time i post this, but i find it rather significant:<BR/>"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<BR/>Ya, that sounds pretty Goddly to me. </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151374414332608892006-06-26T19:13:00.000-07:002006-06-26T19:13:00.000-07:00Aaron Kinney This is called special pleading. W...Aaron Kinney<BR/><BR/> <I>This is called special pleading. Why does god not need a beginning or a cause? And if he doesnt, then why does the Universe?</I><BR/><BR/>God doesn't need a cause because he didn't have a beginning. The universe however did.<BR/><BR/> <I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>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><BR/><BR/>Snowflakes come year round. Gravity is observed everyday. A cell forming without a designer has never happened, nor has it been observed.<BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>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?<BR/><BR/> 1. Conscious entity (God) is eternal and immaterial.<BR/> 2. Conscious entity creates material universe.<BR/><BR/> OR<BR/><BR/> 1. Unconscious entity (the universe) is eternal and material. </I><BR/><BR/>An unconscious entity certainly couldn't design matter so your point is moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151366138597957732006-06-26T16:55:00.000-07:002006-06-26T16:55:00.000-07:00AAron,Dependancy in a third party nihlism is wrong...AAron,<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Btw, this is the third time i post this, but i find it rather significant:<BR/>"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<BR/>Ya, that sounds pretty Goddly to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151365997754584582006-06-26T16:53:00.000-07:002006-06-26T16:53:00.000-07:00Anonymous,Well Aaron is still attempting to refute...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>Well Aaron is still attempting to refute by definition (his own). <BR/><BR/>You say, "Faith is, according to the dictionary, belief without logical proof or material evidence."<BR/><BR/>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).</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>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:<BR/><BR/>"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."</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Where would science be without it? We probably wouldnt even have computers if it werent for this logical principle. <BR/><BR/>Okham's Razor also supports this idea. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. So unless you can provide a <STRONG>necessity</STRONG> for a God being around, then we cannot include that entity within our belief structure.<BR/><BR/><I>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. </I><BR/><BR/>Well I just gave support for that statement you quoted in earlier in this comment. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1151365299656692902006-06-26T16:41:00.000-07:002006-06-26T16:41:00.000-07:00Mustachio:OO, and rememder that little thing on ho...Mustachio:<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>For more information on this everything=nothing idea, I highly suggest you visit <A HREF="http://www.everythingforever.com" REL="nofollow">Everyting Forever</A>, 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. <BR/><BR/>The website is excellent and contains many visual illustrations and aids to help you conceptualize how <STRONG>changes in order type</STRONG> can bring about questions of "is everything really nothing and vice-versa?" <BR/><BR/><I>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).<BR/>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. </I><BR/><BR/>Again, you collapsed the difference b etween God and the universe, and again, you are guilty of <STRONG>unjustifiably</STRONG> 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?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.com