The god argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2012, 02:16 AM
RE: The god argument.
We are made of Why...





It's the priests, man, the priests! It was all fiction to me until god showed up and made me a prophet; now I'm just comedic fiction. I AM - the creator. The insanity of the prophets, a duality of simultaneity over sequence; the alpha to the omega through the one who writes/speaks/ trods the path of tao.

Idiocy mandates identity to god.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2012, 02:51 AM
 
RE: The god argument.
(03-01-2012 05:00 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Ive been watching loads of interviews, debates and youtube videos lately
and ive noticed that theists base their assumption of god on 1 argument.

what created the universe, fine tuning of the universe, we came from nothing.

basically all i hear from them is, "i dunno what did it therefore god must've done it."

The fact is, the universe has to have a cause that is itself not part of the universe. There's no other way to see it. That means there must be something eternal that created the singularity, if you will, that expanded into the universe.

But that singularity, in order to form into a universe that would stay a universe, had to have basic parameters. So, that implies design. I'm sorry, but it does, and that implies that the cause of the universe had what we think of as intelligence.

And here's the thing: The universe seems to have an order about it. Even evolution seems to have a design to it, that is species evolve to a perfect adaptation to their environment. And then there are all these mercies in nature that evolution just shouldn't have produced.

And then there are personal experiences. I have had three very dramatic (or what I would consider dramatic) instances of precognition. I’ve seen faith heal people. My own life seems to have a purpose, and when I look back on it, it seems as if my whole life has been designed to lead me into a competence for that purpose. Now, I realize none of that would convince you of a spiritual realm or metaphysical component to life, but it convinces me. And it convinces a lot of others who have had similar experiences.

So, it's not like it's somehow irrational to believe in God. In fact, it's almost impossible to deny his existence. Granted, some people can argue his existence better than others. Religious people arguing from religion are only good for those who agree with their religion. It makes no sense for a minister to argue Christianity to an atheist. One would have to believe in God first, before even talking about the truths of Jesus Christ.

And keep this in mind. I’ve seen Christians put up atheists who stutter, or seem mildly out of touch or very unprepared just so they can make them look stupid. I’ve seen atheists do the same thing by having a biologist or philosopher debating a preacher. It’s a stupid tactic. If you want a real debate, you’d have to have say, Richard Dawkins debating Anthony Flew.
Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2012, 03:21 AM
RE: The god argument.
Mention idiots, and here they come... Big Grin

If you ain't a prophet, you're a priest. I'm a prophet; faith healing just happens 'round this fool. I hafta ask... What else you got? Correlation not causation. Neck, in other words.

Yeah, Christianity is so superfly the thread of prophecy skipped town, to Mohammed, to I... improving all the way... got the holiday jingles going. Tongue

So Mohammed is the Prophet, I'm the atheist; and you're the what again? Priest?

You are Ordered; such is life. If you're sane, then you're not a prophet; that's the test. I'm certified; Holy Spirit from the source ain't about sanity, and prophet is always atheist... do you even read that book, or have it spoon-fed? Play it by the numbers, you'll get more sense out of it. One - god - created/heavens/earth - three - four/YHWH.

0/1/2/3 is the sequence, what confuses the sequence is time. My 4 of "I love my Gwynnies" is 1/0/2/3 - note the disruption in sequence. It is not a story about Order, it is a story about Love - unless of course, you're a priest; and you just want to order others.
(04-01-2012 02:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  The fact is, the universe has to have a cause that is itself not part of the universe.

Wrong. Period. Fool. Yeah, the fool who knows god with his mind, not with his heart. You're being Christian without sola fides. Wanna prove something? Nail yourself to a cross. Die. Come back; we'll nail you to the cross. Big Grin

Extra helping of asshole this morning in the Johnny. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
04-01-2012, 06:42 AM
RE: The god argument.
(04-01-2012 02:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:00 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  Ive been watching loads of interviews, debates and youtube videos lately
and ive noticed that theists base their assumption of god on 1 argument.

what created the universe, fine tuning of the universe, we came from nothing.

basically all i hear from them is, "i dunno what did it therefore god must've done it."

The fact is, the universe has to have a cause that is itself not part of the universe. There's no other way to see it. That means there must be something eternal that created the singularity, if you will, that expanded into the universe.

No, there doesn't have to be a cause if the universe has always been.
Also, the latest science is that there was no singularity. Keep up.

Quote:But that singularity, in order to form into a universe that would stay a universe, had to have basic parameters. So, that implies design. I'm sorry, but it does, and that implies that the cause of the universe had what we think of as intelligence.

No, what the parameters are or were implies nothing at all; they are whatever they are.

Quote:And here's the thing: The universe seems to have an order about it. Even evolution seems to have a design to it, that is species evolve to a perfect adaptation to their environment. And then there are all these mercies in nature that evolution just shouldn't have produced.

The key word is "seems". There is the appearance of design until you look more closely, then the appearance disappears. Evolution by natural selection explains all of the adaptation.
Please explain the mercies, because the profligacy, death, and pain seem to be in the forefront.

Quote:And then there are personal experiences. I have had three very dramatic (or what I would consider dramatic) instances of precognition. I’ve seen faith heal people. My own life seems to have a purpose, and when I look back on it, it seems as if my whole life has been designed to lead me into a competence for that purpose. Now, I realize none of that would convince you of a spiritual realm or metaphysical component to life, but it convinces me. And it convinces a lot of others who have had similar experiences.

Once again - PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Quote:So, it's not like it's somehow irrational to believe in God. In fact, it's almost impossible to deny his existence. Granted, some people can argue his existence better than others. Religious people arguing from religion are only good for those who agree with their religion. It makes no sense for a minister to argue Christianity to an atheist. One would have to believe in God first, before even talking about the truths of Jesus Christ.

It is, in fact, irrational to believe in gods. However, it is natural. You may be mistaking natural for rational.

Quote:And keep this in mind. I’ve seen Christians put up atheists who stutter, or seem mildly out of touch or very unprepared just so they can make them look stupid. I’ve seen atheists do the same thing by having a biologist or philosopher debating a preacher. It’s a stupid tactic. If you want a real debate, you’d have to have say, Richard Dawkins debating Anthony Flew.
There have been any number of very good debates with both sides well represented.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-01-2012, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2012 08:25 AM by scientician.)
RE: The god argument.
(04-01-2012 02:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  And here's the thing: The universe seems to have an order about it. Even evolution seems to have a design to it, that is species evolve to a perfect adaptation to their environment. And then there are all these mercies in nature that evolution just shouldn't have produced.

Just want to point out that your idea of perfect adaptation is flawed. Think of a whale. They live in the freaking ocean and they don't have gills. Does that seem perfect? Evolution explains how these adaptations arise: Natural selection occurs from what is already there. If I design something new I do just that. If I were the first to design a watch I wouldn't take a wall clock and put a wrist band on it, would I? No, I would build a new one, not modify what was built already. Evolution has no purpose and it certainly does *not* seem to have design to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2012, 09:01 AM
RE: The god argument.
egor just repeated the arguments.
I dunno what done it so god must've done it
amd that god talks to me while i sleep and touches me with his holy ghost and sent
jesus to save humanity and send people to torture and burn for eternity.
But he loves you, and he needs money!

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jackrabbit's post
04-01-2012, 10:45 AM
RE: The god argument.
(04-01-2012 06:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, there doesn't have to be a cause if the universe has always been.
Also, the latest science is that there was no singularity. Keep up.

Whadda mean, no singularity? You're not fulla that stringiness, are ya?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: The god argument.
(04-01-2012 10:45 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(04-01-2012 06:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, there doesn't have to be a cause if the universe has always been.
Also, the latest science is that there was no singularity. Keep up.

Whadda mean, no singularity? You're not fulla that stringiness, are ya?

No, string theory is an interesting model, but no evidence - yet.

Quote:Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards-in-time: in Hawking's original formulation, it guaranteed that the Big Bang has infinite density. Hawking later revised his position in A Brief History of Time (1988) where he stated "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe" (p50). This revision followed from quantum mechanics, in which general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. Hence general relativity cannot be used to show a singularity.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-01-2012, 11:16 AM
RE: The god argument.
@Egor
There was no "before the universe existed." All space and time came into existence at once, therefore it is irrelevant to discuss a "before time" that predates the initial expansion of the universe because no space or time existed prior to that point in space/time.

As for the supposed "design" of the universe and all things in it...look at a crystal, like a snowflake. Completely naturally forming, yet it has a regular pattern to it that is consistent for the same chemical formula. No design. We can see it happen in laboratories. So, if you have some actual evidence for design (other than something an actual human designed or another animal designed, such as an anthill), I would love to see it, as I have yet to see a single shred of actual evidence for design.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2012, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2012 11:43 AM by kim.)
RE: The god argument.
(04-01-2012 02:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  The fact is, the universe has to have a cause that is itself not part of the universe. There's no other way to see it. That means there must be something eternal that created the singularity, if you will, that expanded into the universe.

Though the relevance of singularity is ... as Chas pointed out... on the outs, you've still missed the point simply in how you've misused it.

In calculus, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability -or the application of derivative. In calculus, the derivative is a measure of how a function changes as its input changes. Basically, a derivative can be thought of as how much one quantity is changing in response to changes in some other quantity; for example, the derivative of the position of a moving object with respect to time is the object's instantaneous velocity.
However arcane, there is some interesting thought going on there.... let's just leave out that pesky word "cause" for a bit....

(04-01-2012 02:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  But that singularity, in order to form into a universe that would stay a universe, had to have basic parameters. So, that implies design. I'm sorry, but it does, and that implies that the cause of the universe had what we think of as intelligence.

And... ball dropped. Who says the universe stays a universe? We are able to view parts of the universe that no longer exist. Whatever the universe is, it is not defined and does not have to have parameters... and frankly, it wouldn't be very godlike if it did, now would it?

Ego, Ego, Ego R, you do your faith far more harm than good when you say stupid shit. Come on man, think. Even bringing up a junked bit of singularity and the universe, you could pose a fairly decent argument for the possibility of your belief in god, but you not only choose to covet your ignorance but try to persuade others to wallow in it as well. If your beliefs have any value, you degrade them by ignoring the greatest opportunity around you; curiosity.

The universe is indeed quite elegant... but no one who's mind is as closed as yours seems equipped to explain it's design.
_______________
Quote:No, string theory is an interesting model, but no evidence - yet.

Now... don't be messing with m'strings... I likes m'stringys!! [Image: 11.gif] Strings is m'devil work.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: