Godly speculation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(31-01-2015 05:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-01-2015 08:12 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  It's all in my head.

Then you're definitely not right in the head. Weeping

[Image: wolf.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(04-02-2015 02:17 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  VERY good article, thanks. I could take "singularity" out but note the article asks if I myself was a singularity or merely smaller. Once I was a blastocyst and so on but my existence has a finite point. The universe may have one or may not. My questions still stick in my craw and the problem is this--yes, the god of the gaps is used too often by theists and in all kinds of situations, but in cosmology I still have both the Law of Conservation of Matter and the expansion of the universe to deal with. Will science know all the answers soon? Perhaps.

What should we call the argument against the god of the gaps when it is wielded to our detriment? Here's a Cambrian explosion and mass extinction, and etc. that is possibly explained by a world catastrophe like the Genesis flood (I say, "possibly"). Mind you, the Bible does not record a date for the flood, just the length of its duration and initial recession.

Now what I'll say next will sound implausible. But if an unknown sentient race of beings were around way back when or were visiting Earth or whatever you want to say added stele and etc. describing the Flood... the Bible was written millennia before modern science excavated the Cambrian explosion, etc.

What we can and should do is logically and carefully compare Genesis and the science. The problem is the "No, any gap but God!" thing. That may not be unreasonable in my Genesis example but it is unreasonable IMO if we are looking at Genesis and cosmology. The Bible even describes the expansion of the universe itself, something I find endlessly compelling.

Umm, no. The bible uses a derived Babylonian myth to construct silly things like firmaments, man coming from dust, the sun and stars underneath the dome of the firmament, water coming from the windows of heaven opening and providing rain to the Earth and so on.
It's nothing more than a myth of the times in which it was constructed. Science uses more precise terms so to convey actual meaning, the bible provides vague terms so you can supply your own meaning.

Where are we going with this? We both know the "dust" in Hebrew is the same red clay you can find all over the Southern U.S. today, which is rich in carbon, the building blocks of life. And etc. to the other stuff, but what I'm attempting to do is to give you room to teach me--make me a naturalist, by filling in the gaps without god regarding these two amended thoughts:

Since the universe has no prime mover how was the Big Bang universe expanded? By what type of external or internal catalyst?

Of if it is steady state/oscillating composed of matter and energy, how did matter and energy get composed (since conservation of matter and energy says it can neither be added nor removed)?

Again, I'm trying, still to do some gedanken here and would appreciate your thoughts since you will certainly not put god in these gaps.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(05-02-2015 03:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 02:17 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Umm, no. The bible uses a derived Babylonian myth to construct silly things like firmaments, man coming from dust, the sun and stars underneath the dome of the firmament, water coming from the windows of heaven opening and providing rain to the Earth and so on.
It's nothing more than a myth of the times in which it was constructed. Science uses more precise terms so to convey actual meaning, the bible provides vague terms so you can supply your own meaning.

Where are we going with this? We both know the "dust" in Hebrew is the same red clay you can find all over the Southern U.S. today, which is rich in carbon, the building blocks of life. And etc. to the other stuff, but what I'm attempting to do is to give you room to teach me--make me a naturalist, by filling in the gaps without god regarding these two amended thoughts:

Since the universe has no prime mover how was the Big Bang universe expanded? By what type of external or internal catalyst?

Of if it is steady state/oscillating composed of matter and energy, how did matter and energy get composed (since conservation of matter and energy says it can neither be added nor removed)?

Again, I'm trying, still to do some gedanken here and would appreciate your thoughts since you will certainly not put god in these gaps.
Remember when I said the bible uses vague terms so you can supply your own meaning? You just did that. I knew you were going to want to squeeze your god in there somewhere, I suspected you weren't being honest.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
06-02-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(05-02-2015 04:27 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 03:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Where are we going with this? We both know the "dust" in Hebrew is the same red clay you can find all over the Southern U.S. today, which is rich in carbon, the building blocks of life. And etc. to the other stuff, but what I'm attempting to do is to give you room to teach me--make me a naturalist, by filling in the gaps without god regarding these two amended thoughts:

Since the universe has no prime mover how was the Big Bang universe expanded? By what type of external or internal catalyst?

Of if it is steady state/oscillating composed of matter and energy, how did matter and energy get composed (since conservation of matter and energy says it can neither be added nor removed)?

Again, I'm trying, still to do some gedanken here and would appreciate your thoughts since you will certainly not put god in these gaps.
Remember when I said the bible uses vague terms so you can supply your own meaning? You just did that. I knew you were going to want to squeeze your god in there somewhere, I suspected you weren't being honest.

Repeating: Yes, I put god in those gaps. Here's your chance to explain how it did happen using natural sciences, cosmology, quantum physics, whatever you like. I'm purposely bringing it to you to NOT put god there. If you can offer plausible explanations, I will reform my theology, witnessing and thoughts about creation. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(06-02-2015 12:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 04:27 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Remember when I said the bible uses vague terms so you can supply your own meaning? You just did that. I knew you were going to want to squeeze your god in there somewhere, I suspected you weren't being honest.

Repeating: Yes, I put god in those gaps. Here's your chance to explain how it did happen using natural sciences, cosmology, quantum physics, whatever you like. I'm purposely bringing it to you to NOT put god there. If you can offer plausible explanations, I will reform my theology, witnessing and thoughts about creation. Thanks.

Your stupidity seems boundless. The gap remains a gap until there is something with evidence to fill it. You can't just make shit up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-02-2015, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2015 02:29 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Godly speculation
(06-02-2015 12:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 04:27 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Remember when I said the bible uses vague terms so you can supply your own meaning? You just did that. I knew you were going to want to squeeze your god in there somewhere, I suspected you weren't being honest.

Repeating: Yes, I put god in those gaps. Here's your chance to explain how it did happen using natural sciences, cosmology, quantum physics, whatever you like. I'm purposely bringing it to you to NOT put god there. If you can offer plausible explanations, I will reform my theology, witnessing and thoughts about creation. Thanks.

No you won't, you're not really asking honest questions, the burden of proof is on you to prove your silly assertions. A natural explanation will always be the default position until you produce actual evidence for this mythical god of yours.
I already pointed out the ridiculous claim of the bible saying men were created from dust and you did your dishonest interpretation stunt to hand-wave away the ridiculous assertion that the ignorant bible writers made. The bible is full of the patently ridiculous and you'll continue your hand-waving to go on believing this absurd book of myth.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
07-02-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Also, and this is more of a philosophical aside, if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

The science of experience taught me I AM is the prime mover; science of physics through conservation laws indicates distributed intelligence over a network for the entropic win. And no, I despise myself; prolly where problems develop from revealed religion the egos of the prophets.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(06-02-2015 12:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 04:27 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Remember when I said the bible uses vague terms so you can supply your own meaning? You just did that. I knew you were going to want to squeeze your god in there somewhere, I suspected you weren't being honest.

Repeating: Yes, I put god in those gaps. Here's your chance to explain how it did happen using natural sciences, cosmology, quantum physics, whatever you like. I'm purposely bringing it to you to NOT put god there. If you can offer plausible explanations, I will reform my theology, witnessing and thoughts about creation. Thanks.

I going to put Enki, the Sumerian god in those gaps, here's why:

Enki creates man from clay and blood, Enki then changes man's language to several from one language, The council of gods then sends a deluge to destroy mankind but Enki tells Ziusudra (who is replaced by Gilgamesh in a later retelling of the myth) to build a boat to save mankind.

These Sumerian myths predate the biblical myth by over a millennium, when it tells of Enki creating man from clay, is this the truth? When the council of gods decides to destroy mankind with a flood, did this literally happen? When Enki gives instructions to Ziusudra/Gilgamesh to build a boat to save mankind, did this really happen?

Did the bible really happen, but the ancient Sumerian myths that predate the biblical myths by over a thousand years didn't happen?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
08-02-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

Q, even IF you could prove a prime mover, on what grounds are you assuming that it even wants/needs your worship?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(07-02-2015 12:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Also, and this is more of a philosophical aside, if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

The science of experience taught me I AM is the prime mover; science of physics through conservation laws indicates distributed intelligence over a network for the entropic win. And no, I despise myself; prolly where problems develop from revealed religion the egos of the prophets.

ALL HAIL THE HOUSE OF CANTOR!!!!! At least I have proof of your existance.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: