God is not a religion, religion is man made.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2014, 01:14 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:06 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  But even in that case, we know religion predates the human concept of gods, especially the omnimax monotheistic one. So religion would still predate a concept of god.
What religion(s) are you referring to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:13 AM)childeye Wrote:  And again I will say, it is more probable that something is eternal than everything came from nothing. Why can't you agree with that?

That's just an assertion. How did you evaluate the probabilities? In any case 'everything came from nothing' seems a bit ambiguous.

So far we have seen no God and have needed no God in any scientific theory. Predictions are matched by experiment to a high degree of precision and there has been no need to assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage has been changing experimental results. I'd say that lends weight to the hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  I'd say that lends weight to the hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
Undecided


Weeping

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
16-06-2014, 01:35 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:13 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:06 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This relies on that unsubstantiated assumption that god both exists and is eternal. Again, I think Occum's Razor applies.
And again I will say, it is more probable that something is eternal than everything came from nothing. Why can't you agree with that?

Probably because there is no evidence that anything is eternal, for starters. Furthermore the scientific account of "creation" has a lot more credible details than the bible. Are you one of those christains who agree with the big bang but claim god started it all? This is certainly possible, and not entirely inconsistent with "eternal god", but lacking in evidence and based on a host of unnecessary assumptions. If I assume that there is a naturalistic, although yet unknown, cause for the universe I only have to make one assumption; that a naturalistic explanation is the only possible explanation for anything, including the beginning of space, time, and matter. If you claim god did it you must assume first that god exists, second that god does not exist in time and space but can still affect time and space, and third that God is the only thing that could have created the universe (as opposed to some other things that exists and is also eternal). To provide evidence of your claim you would have to prove both that god created that universe and that the god that created the universe is the same abrahamic god as in the bible.

Furthermore you are operating under both a fallacy and a false assumption. The first is that matter cannot come from nothing, which, if you knew anything about quantum mechanics, you would know is false. Something comes from nothing, and disappears back into nothing, all the time. The fallacy that you are making is that the rules of cause and effect that seem to apply to our current universe must have applied at the creation of the universe. This is an existential fallacy. We cannot know that there must be a cause for the creation of the universe because there must be a cause for everything that happened after the creation of the universe. It is possible that the creation of the universe needed no cause, or that the universe pre-creation was a place where effects without causes were possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:35 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:13 AM)childeye Wrote:  And again I will say, it is more probable that something is eternal than everything came from nothing. Why can't you agree with that?

That's just an assertion. How did you evaluate the probabilities? In any case 'everything came from nothing' seems a bit ambiguous.

So far we have seen no God and have needed no God in any scientific theory. Predictions are matched by experiment to a high degree of precision and there has been no need to assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage has been changing experimental results. I'd say that lends weight to the hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
Of course it's an assertion. I believe it is more probable that there is something eternal than everything came from nothing. I also assert that there is no flying spaghetti monster.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:37 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
Why couldn't it have been the 'Flying Fettuccine Monster'?

Love me some alfredo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:41 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:37 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Why couldn't it have been the 'Flying Fettuccine Monster'?

Love me some alfredo.

His Noodliness is all varieties of Pasta to all of His children.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:43 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 01:47 AM by childeye.)
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:35 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:13 AM)childeye Wrote:  And again I will say, it is more probable that something is eternal than everything came from nothing. Why can't you agree with that?

Probably because there is no evidence that anything is eternal, for starters. Furthermore the scientific account of "creation" has a lot more credible details than the bible. Are you one of those christains who agree with the big bang but claim god started it all? This is certainly possible, and not entirely inconsistent with "eternal god", but lacking in evidence and based on a host of unnecessary assumptions. If I assume that there is a naturalistic, although yet unknown, cause for the universe I only have to make one assumption; that a naturalistic explanation is the only possible explanation for anything, including the beginning of space, time, and matter. If you claim god did it you must assume first that god exists, second that god does not exist in time and space but can still affect time and space, and third that God is the only thing that could have created the universe (as opposed to some other things that exists and is also eternal). To provide evidence of your claim you would have to prove both that god created that universe and that the god that created the universe is the same abrahamic god as in the bible.

Furthermore you are operating under both a fallacy and a false assumption. The first is that matter cannot come from nothing, which, if you knew anything about quantum mechanics, you would know is false. Something comes from nothing, and disappears back into nothing, all the time. The fallacy that you are making is that the rules of cause and effect that seem to apply to our current universe must have applied at the creation of the universe. This is an existential fallacy. We cannot know that there must be a cause for the creation of the universe because there must be a cause for everything that happened after the creation of the universe. It is possible that the creation of the universe needed no cause, or that the universe pre-creation was a place where effects without causes were possible.
As far as I know matter comes from energy, not nothing. Moreover one cannot prove something is eternal from a temporal existence. But if God created time and space then He would have the ability to foretell the future and that is the case with the Abrahamic God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 01:44 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:13 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:06 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This relies on that unsubstantiated assumption that god both exists and is eternal. Again, I think Occum's Razor applies.
And again I will say, it is more probable that something is eternal than everything came from nothing. Why can't you agree with that?

False equivocation for starters.

Your first idea, that something 'eternal' is more probable than something that is not is, for all intents and purposes a crap-shoot. We simply do not know enough to make that guess as it applies towards 'everything', so even our best guesses would contain margins of error so large as to be meaningless.

You are trying to equate 'something' that is 'eternal' with your 'god' concept. Is that all your god is? Because 'god' represents a hell of a lot more to the vast majority of people on this planet than just a single attribute. 'Eternal' is an attribute often attributed to some gods, but it's hardly the only one. Trying to conflate the two is a false equivocation. Eternalness might be a attribute assigned to various god-concepts, but it's never been demonstrated, nor have any of the aforementioned gods. Something might be eternal, the universe itself might be eternal, but that still doesn't get you to an 'eternal god' unless you are a Pantheist/Panentheist and you assume the universe is god and eternal (once again, both assumptions).

Something might be eternal, but we don't know enough to make a sound probability judgement. Even if something is eternal, Occam's Razor would still strip it of everything traditionally attributed to any god-concept, leaving you with nothing but just the assumption of 'eternalness'.

TL;DR version.

Eternalness is an assumption, and we know too little to make a sound probability judgement. Occam's Razors would strip even that assumption of all other 'god' characteristics (i.e. needless assumptions). That which can be posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Lacking any evidence in support of an eternal god-concept, it is a needless assumption, and thus less likely (all things considered) according to Occam's Razor. Unless you are using 'god' as a synonym explicitly for just 'eternal', in which case, why call it god?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-06-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:35 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  That's just an assertion. How did you evaluate the probabilities? In any case 'everything came from nothing' seems a bit ambiguous.

So far we have seen no God and have needed no God in any scientific theory. Predictions are matched by experiment to a high degree of precision and there has been no need to assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage has been changing experimental results. I'd say that lends weight to the hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
Of course it's an assertion. I believe it is more probable that there is something eternal than everything came from nothing. I also assert that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

Ja but 'something eternal', 'something from nothing'... what is something? what is nothing? The words are too ambiguous IMO to be useful when discussing tricky concepts like origins which involve *time* which we also know little about. Thanks to Einstein and the Prophets we know quite a lot about *how* it works but... is there time outside our universe? Stuff like that... we can only speculate.

What you are doing by asserting the existence of a God is making a claim of *knowledge* which I think is unjustified.

Also God is ambiguously defined IMO. Everyone has their own idea what a God is.

Also... we have a very nice alternative hypothesis for the origins of the *God* stuff. The God hypothesis is that there exists a big ol' super-Dad who gives a shit about us and made us and etc. The alternative is simply that it's a made up thing. And we have a lot of reason to suspect that this is the case. So not only do you have to make this whole existence of an invisible super being sound plausible, you've *also* gotta answer the charge that it's all made up.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: