|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted October 23, 2009 09:55 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:01, 23 Oct 2009.
|
Sorry, but the weight of science is in favor of the existence of God unless you are saying the laws of thermodynamics are false, entropy is a lie, and things can come into existence from absolute nothing with no cause.
You may say that YOU can't know if my personal experiences with God are real or not but you can't say that I can't know that they are real.
Edit:
Quote:
Oh, and you have NO evidence to show that God does exist .. except your own vivid imagination. Sure some might be able to heal, it might be possible that someone has gained some skills manipulating blood flows and stuff like that in your body ... but mostly through suggestion.
Sorry, but the universe is evidence. I noticed the article you quoted had no explaination for what caused the singularity by the way.
And no, my experiences with God are not my "own vivid imagination" and it is rather arrogant of you to make that claim.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:04 AM |
|
|
You mentioned earlier I am not open to God .. I was, I were born free and no one influenced me. I had to go to Church like every other kid (which should be illegal  ), but I didn't find the consept "God" to be valid.
And if you actually bothered to read instead of being so snow ignorant then you would get to know that it didn't happen out of nothing, there were a reason why it happened then and not some other time .. but you have too much belief in that "God" of yours to actually even care to read it ... I give you science, and you frown of it and won't even read. Which makes you a fool saying what you're actually saying, when I just posted the answer to it.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And if you actually bothered to read instead of being so snow ignorant then you would get to know that it didn't happen out of nothing, there were a reason why it happened then and not some other time .. but you have too much belief in that "God" of yours to actually even care to read it ... I give you science, and you frown of it and won't even read. Which makes you a fool saying what you're actually saying, when I just posted the answer to it.
I read it. It begins with the singularity. But what caused the singularity?
The very basis of the scientific method is the law of causality. Everything has a cause. Without that principle there is no modern science.
Eventually we must face the question of what the first cause is. The uncaused cause. We are faced with only one possibility since there can't be an infinite regression of causes. God must be the uncaused cause.
No, I'm not the one throwing science away, you are. Oh, and I'm not any more of a fool than any other human being.
____________
Revelation
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:21 AM |
|
|
If you read on you get your answer... but again you're ignorant and arrogant.
And you clearly don't believe in science, you believe in your make-up god.
God is dead, deal with it.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:33, 23 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
If you read on you get your answer... but again you're ignorant and arrogant.
And you clearly don't believe in science, you believe in your make-up god.
God is dead, deal with it.
I don't think you understand the article you quoted. It offers a singularity as the cause of the Big Bang which supposedly causd the universe. But it offers no explaination for the cause of the singularity.
Don't feel bad that you can't explain what caused the singularity. None of the famous atheist debaters can either. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennit. They all come down to "I don't know but it wasn't God."
That is the point where atheists throw out science and claim ignorance to the law of causality.
____________
Revelation
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:44 AM |
|
|
And it makes alot of sence that some old dude made is in seven days ... I am proud of being an atheist, and not one of the fools to think that believe in someone omnipotent. If God were omnipotent he could for example create a rock he couldn't lift .. which again would make him not omnipotent  the consept is rubbish, and were simply an explanation for stuff people couldn't explain in the old days .. and thanks to the religious fools it has lasted this long. After all, they claimed the earth to be flat and earth to be the center of the universe .. anyone who objected were killed for blasphemy. This sounds like some true christians, don't you think?  Killing anyone not sharing their beliefs.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't feel bad that you can't explain what caused the singularity. None of the famous atheist debaters can either. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennit. They all come down to "I don't know but it wasn't God."
That is the point where atheists throw out science and claim ignorance to the law of causality.
Then WHO are you to claim something? You claim "God did it", what makes your claim more valid than theirs to "It was not God".
My idea and claim is that universe exist to deny nothing. Which by some definition is also "the universe exists because it DOES".
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
elodin, back of the bus.... the godless bus!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:49 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you are making a fatal mistake.
The first mistake is the assumption that everything must have a cause - then you go on saying THAT CANNOT be, because there can't be an infinite regression of causes.
Then you define, what every scientist would call a fudge factor - god: something that doesn't need any cause.
This is a contradiction in itself: if there IS a god, the assumption that everything must have a cause is wrong in the first place.
Take the hen and egg problem: which was first?
The assumption is this: Hens doesn't come out of nowhere, so there must have been an egg from which the first hen slipped. However, that cannot be because we'd have to have a hen producing the egg and a cock as well, mind you.
At this stage we define the Original Egg that did NOT slip, but came indeed out of nowhere. Voila. The ultimate fudge factor.
Now, the hen problem is basically not so different from the god problem because "cause" is a very small word for what may amount to a very complex thing. Was there even something like the first hen, the first egg, the first cell, the FIRST ANYTHING - and if there was, what was the CAUSE? God "making" them? Evolution (which would be a rather complex process and no "cause" in the sense of the word.
Likewise, you have a thermodynamics fixation. Thermodynamics needs a CLOSED system to work the way you want it to work, but we haven't got the slightest clue whether the universe as we know it is a closed system or not. In fact everything we know points to a simple truth: we don't have the full picture at this time - we don't know the FULL universe, but only a part of it, and we don't even know whether it's a small part or a big part, so you simply CANNOT use Thermodynamics for anything here because for that a couple of assumptions are necessary that simply can't be made.
"God" is simply a different name for "we have not the slightest at the moment how things really work, what we live in, how it has come to pass, what the basic elements of reality are and some couple billions other questions".
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 10:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And you clearly don't believe in science
It's not possible "not to believe" in science. Science is not a cult and has absolutely nothing with religion at all. Facts aren't a matter of beliefs, you just acknowledge them or not.
Again, science has absolutely nothing in common with religion and shouldn't be treated as some sort of "alternative". It is not. There isn't even a point of correlation between those two.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Rubycus
Known Hero
-student of the mind-
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 02:58 PM |
|
|
Let's not make this a new explosive religion descussion, but let me say this:
What most people think is that becoming a religious means that you have to follow a set of rules. 1: ... 2: ... 155: ... etc. Those one might call "rules" are only directions from God to a more "perfect" life. Many people think becoming religious means you have to avoid that and that. Let me give some examples of why this is wrong.
Alcohol:
From old christian time, we associate christianity with non-alcoholism. Jesus drank wine, why should we be allowed to drink alcohol too? But what the Bible tells us is we should not get DRUNK! The bible has no rules about not allowing people to drink a glass of wine at Christmas eve, f.ex. But the oppisite, namely getting drunk (every weekend or so) might have severe consequenses: violence, criminality etc.
Sex:
The Bible tells us nothing about if sex is allowed or not. It says we shouldn't have sex before marriage f.ex., because the opposite, or sex outside marriage might lead to disagreements, partition of families and also violence etc.
Religious life:
Who says religious persons have got to go to church every sunday? Who says religious people need to read the Bible x pages per day, and pray x numbers of prayers each week? You know one might perfectly well be a christian without these things. The clue here is that true belief leads to Bible reading, prayers and going to church -NOT opposite.
Remember, I am not saying you should get drunk or have sex with whoever you want, but the Bible tells us not to do it as an encouragement to a better life, because doing such thing may result in even worse things!
____________
A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 04:25 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker: the difference is that no one is claiming (i don't know if Elodin) that God is subject to science measurements, so why would he be subject to the law of causality?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, you are making a fatal mistake.
The first mistake is the assumption that everything must have a cause - then you go on saying THAT CANNOT be, because there can't be an infinite regression of causes.
Then you define, what every scientist would call a fudge factor - god: something that doesn't need any cause.
This is a contradiction in itself: if there IS a god, the assumption that everything must have a cause is wrong in the first place.
It seems you either have not read what I said, not comprehended what I said, or are just deliberately taking what I said out of context.
I said there had to be a first cause, an uncaused cause. All matter and energy is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. God is not matter or energy, he is a Spirit. God is not bound by the universe he created. He fills and transcends the universe.
In the same way, it is obvious that a painter is not bound by a painting he created.
Quote:
Then you define, what every scientist would call a fudge factor - god: something that doesn't need any cause.
That is ludicrous. I am telling you what the first cause is. None of the big name atheists have been able to do it. They just say "We know for a fact the first cause is not God because there is no God." They are highly religious people, clinging to their dogma that they take by faith.
Sorry, but we now know for a fact that the univers had a definite beginning. Atheists in the 1800s could claim the universe is eternal, but that theroy just does not wash now.
Quote:
Likewise, you have a thermodynamics fixation.
No, I just pointing out known science.
The fact of entropy and the need for causation prove the universe is not eternal and could not produce itself. Our observations confirm that the universe had a beginning. Now, you may reject the laws of thermodynamics and the current observatinos taht indicate the universe had a beginning. Feel free to reject science to cling to your faith that God does not exist.
Quote:
"God" is simply a different name for "we have not the slightest at the moment how things really work, what we live in, how it has come to pass, what the basic elements of reality are and some couple billions other questions".
No, you just refuse to consider the possibility that God exists. You seemingly throw out all science that indicates the universe had a beginning and needs a first cause. But you have the right to your faith that God does not exist.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 07:50 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin, you sound like you would repeat something you've learned by heart, but don't understand in the least. You can't just make wild assumptions of what there has to be or not to be when you have no idea what in fact is. The universe might be a hell of a lot "bigger" than it seems.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 23, 2009 08:58 PM |
|
|
@ wog_edn
Quote:
If you read on you get your answer... but again you're ignorant and arrogant.
And you clearly don't believe in science, you believe in your make-up god.
God is dead, deal with it.
Warning!
Any further direct insult will result in a penalty.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted October 24, 2009 12:02 PM |
|
|
I love religious guys, both sensible and the nutty ones (not the violent ones) in the same vain, I love atheists...
I mean, has anyone heard of the godless buses? has anyone heard of debatpism with a hair-dryer? i'm sure no-one else has heard (as this happened to my a year ago) where there was a sign saying "Jesus saves" and underneath it someone had written "yeah, but darwin scores on the rebound" (as far as I can tell, the priest has kept it up because he thought it was really funny)
doing crazy and joyous things isn't about relgion or lack of thereof. there's something fundimentally human about doing fun stuff, and isn't that what lifes for? I mean, we only have 70-80 years to live it, shouldn't we have fun? as far as I can tell, we only have one shot at life in this world (before we migrate onto the next plane of existance derby-derby-do) so if the gods didn't make us immortal, then he must have made us so that we can have fun!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 24, 2009 12:24 PM |
|
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted October 24, 2009 12:33 PM |
|
|
no, not what I was saying.
I was saying that it is fundementally human to be...well...human. to laugh, to cry, to hate, to love, to murder, to celebrate, to mourn, to lie, to promise, all of these things make a human.
However, Human, strangely, need an excuse to do these things, and find one on religion, politics, atheism, economics, and all manner of thing, so whatever the cause was originally, it can be perverted by human nature so badly it would make a man with his arms coming out of his arse throw up.
ideas are to appreciate, humans are to corrupt.
but hey, what's so bad about corrupting them into something fun? like gosbel choirs? or godless buses? or republicans vers democrats fight in sumo suits?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted October 24, 2009 12:39 PM |
|
|
Didn't post it as an answer to your post
But I don't see why people should be kept away from alot of fun stuff because some almighty thing tell them it's baaaaad ... I am glad I can read fantasy, have sex, be drunk if I wish, can sleep as long as I wishes on sundays .. and don't have to pray and stuff. Really doesn't make much difference in the lives of christians except that they think they are better than the rest because they've accepted Gods word (I've talked to a few that walk around trying to turn people, they think they're soooo great .. when most people actually laugh of them cause they make fools of themselves).
Yeah, religion were made as a reason for all the stuff we didn't understand back then .. now we understand much of it, so there's no need for religion anymore. But still there are those way too religious that won't let go and brainwash their kids.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 24, 2009 06:55 PM |
|
|
I take it you have conceded my points since you are seemingly doing nothing but religion bashing and making up stuff now.
Christians don't think we are better than anyone else or brainwash our children. I won't bother to point out the brainwashing that is always done in officially atheist countries or the arrogance of the atheist "evangelists" such as Dawkins and Hitchens.
Oh, and you claim that religion is not good for pepole and yet statistics show religious people have fewer mental problems, commit suicide less, and live longer than non-religious people. Not to mention that atheist tyrants murdered more than 250 million people in the past 100 years, far more than all other religions in all of recorded history combined. So I will apply your statment to atheism. Yeah, atheism is good for people.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
