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, 01:53 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(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.

That is some delicious news!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
16-06-2014, 01:57 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 02:07 AM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:43 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:35 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  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.

Based on the latest science, it would seem that within the sub-atomic particles of the atom there exist even smaller particles called "quark". These quarks are constantly appearing and disappearing all the time, seemingly at random. If you examine electrons as they orbit nucleus you will find not only that the path of an electron cannot be predicted, the location of an electron cannot be predicted. They appear to disappear and appear all at once. Sometimes they even appear to occupy two points in space at the same time.

On the macro stage you have dark matter, which is gravity (the distortion of space and time) without matter, and dark energy, which, if the universe is a system, appears to be a force external to that system. Dark energy is accelerating all matter away from the center of the universe. Both of these are examples of something, energy and gravity, appearing to come from "nothing".

During the formation of the early universe many "laws" of physics must have been violated. For one thing, for a period of time anyway, particles must have traveled faster than the speed of light. Claiming that the laws of cause and effect that govern out current universe must have been present at its creation is not a safe assumption. The assumption that something cannot come from nothing is a blatantly false assertion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 02:32 AM by One Above All.)
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
Yes, religion is man-made... but, then again, so are gods.

(16-06-2014 01:35 AM)childeye Wrote:  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.

What's your data that you used to deduce such a probability? Which "everything" that "came from nothing" did you analyze, and which "something" that's "eternal" did you analyze? How much higher is the probability? 1%? 2%? 30%? This stuff matters!
Also, here's a few assumption you're making that you should really take care of, by educating yourself:
1 - Go on Wikipedia and search "Virtual particles", realize that there's no such thing as "nothing", and that things can and do appear randomly out of "nowhere".
2 - Try to find reputable scientists who will tell you "We know where the Universe came from, and it came from nothing".
3 - Watch "A Universe from Nothing" on Youtube, while keeping in mind that what Mr. Krauss is saying is that, while we don't know where the Universe came from, it can come from "nothing".

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:07 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:57 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Dark energy is accelerating all matter away from the center of the universe.

Tiny correction there: dark energy isn't accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe. We have no idea where the center is, or even if it exists. As far as we can tell, it's accelerating all matter away from us (yes, technically, we are the center of the Universe, but if the origin of your system of axes is another place, like, say, the sun, that will be the new center) and from itself.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes One Above All's post
16-06-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:44 AM)EvolutionKills 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?

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?
You complicate things too much. I'm not suggesting I can prove something is eternal. I'm simply saying it is more probable than something coming out of nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 02:12 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 01:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?
You complicate things too much. I'm not suggesting I can prove something is eternal. I'm simply saying it is more probable than something coming out of nothing.

Something being eternal is much less plausible than something coming from nothing. At least we have evidence (ie big bang) of something coming from nothing. There is no evidence of anything eternal, and no evidence that anything in our universe will exist eternally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:25 AM
God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 01:14 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(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?

Animism specifically, but Confucianism and Buddhism (except folk) have no deities, and Judaism didn't even become monotheistic with an omnimax deity until 1800 BCE.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:28 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 02:12 AM)childeye Wrote:  I'm not suggesting I can prove something is eternal. I'm simply saying it is more probable than something coming out of nothing.

You can say that it's more probable than something coming from nothing, sure. That doesn't make it true. If you want to convince us (or anyone), *justify* how you can say this. That's where the 'overcomplication' comes in.

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, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 02:37 AM by childeye.)
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 02:04 AM)One Above All Wrote:  What's your data that you used to deduce such a probability?

0+0=0.
Quote:Which "everything" that "came from nothing" did you analyze, and which "something" that's "eternal" did you analyze? How much higher is the probability? 1%? 2%? 30%? This stuff matters!
This doesn't even make sense to me. How can I analyze which "everything" that came from nothing when everything never came from nothing and everything includes every which everything? You can't analyze something eternal from a temporal existence.

Quote:1 - Go on Wikipedia and search "Virtual particles", realize that there's no such thing as "nothing", and that things can and do appear randomly out of "nowhere".
Of course there's no such thing as nothing by definition. It doesn't exist. That is my point. I'm not interested in what appears from nowhere since it might have come from somewhere.
Quote:2 - Try to find reputable scientists who will tell you "We know where the Universe came from, and it came from nothing"
I wouldn't believe any scientist who said they know where the universe came from.
Quote:3 - Watch "A Universe from Nothing" on Youtube, while keeping in mind that what Mr. Krauss is saying is that, while we don't know where the Universe came from, it can come from "nothing".
Already read that in the bible. Please pardon the semantics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 02:34 AM
RE: God is not a religion, religion is man made.
(16-06-2014 02:29 AM)childeye Wrote:  This doesn't even make sense. How can I analyze which "everything" that came from nothing when everything never came from nothing and everything includes every which everything. You can't analyze something eternal from a temporal existence.
So you can't study or analyze it but you can make statements about it? Sounds like your God.

Quote:Already read that in the bible.
Le sigh...

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: