Why Only Christianity?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2011, 06:21 PM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 04:58 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Well, okay, can you please prove me wrong?
Haven't had a decent debate in a while.

I believe the burden of proof here is on you. Prove yourself right. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FrankenStang's post
05-08-2011, 07:09 PM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 04:48 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  Nothing is wrong with engagement, but when a guy asked why you attack the people that believe in magical fairies and wants to know why you don't engage in disproving Zues, Thor, Pink unicorns and the boogieman, then I think it's now just rabble that should be cast aside not worthy of a talk.

What I think I am trying to say is, I am tired of all these low level talks that go on this forum. They are just plain stupid. You have some idiot creationist that comes on this forum with a structure for a god built with toothpicks and you all attempt to bring state of the art construction equipment in here to try and tear it down.

Okay, i can understand that. Haven't been here all that long, so i may be too keen. Can see how it would grow wearisome to read the same futile arguments day after day. Like that construction simile, btw - v. classy.

So can i still keep the sneer if i only point it at deists?

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2011, 10:24 PM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 06:21 PM)FrankenStang Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 04:58 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Well, okay, can you please prove me wrong?
Haven't had a decent debate in a while.

I believe the burden of proof here is on you. Prove yourself right. Smile

To put it simply, electrons can not just decide "Oh crap, someones observing me, better stop acting like a wave and start acting like matter again." Someone, more like something, has to control that. If there was no constant observer to keep things in check, parts of the Universe we can not see would behave as waves (all matter does) and everything would be everywhere at the same time. As was observed in the two split experiment, the default state of what we consider matter is actually a wave. Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2011, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2011 11:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?

Only thing wrong with that is that it don't require some omnipotent being to keep shit together, any old GirlyMan observing will suffice.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 01:23 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2011 03:14 AM by Efrx86.)
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  To put it simply, electrons can not just decide "Oh crap, someones observing me, better stop acting like a wave and start acting like matter again." Someone, more like something, has to control that. If there was no constant observer to keep things in check, parts of the Universe we can not see would behave as waves (all matter does) and everything would be everywhere at the same time. As was observed in the two split experiment, the default state of what we consider matter is actually a wave. Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?

By "observing the whole universe" do you mean this being is observing every single thing in it, observing some electrons arbitrarily or just choosing which electrons to observe? If it observes every single electron in the whole universe at the same time there would be no electrons acting like waves. So it's probably one of the latter two. Then, what are the laws, or the protocols this being follows that govern which electrons are observed and which aren't? Does God play dice here? Einstein says it doesn't. Hawking says it does.

I don't know jack about quantum mechanics. I don't know jack about wave-particle duality. So my opinion is very amateur. Still, the uncertainty, and what you said about it being "more of a necessity than a fact" makes it seem like a God of the Gaps argument to me. You said "Honestly, there is no real test for seeing if the quantum influence is intentional, because highly unlikely events can be attributed to chance or divine intervention. All I know is that electrons can not make decisions on their own, and somehow a choice of where the electron goes is made." It could be a natural law that we haven't discovered yet, perhaps because of some flaw during the observation process; who knows, maybe we're doing it wrong. It may actually be an omnipotent being, strange as it might seem. Will we ever know this law or set of laws? Can we discover if this being exists? Or is the answer unknowable? Wouldn't agnosticism be a more reasonable stance than outright claiming the behavior of the electrons is proof that there is such a being? I can't put my finger on it really.

By the way,

(05-08-2011 08:18 AM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  I might not have to prove it, that will be done or not for me. There are actually a lot of scientists who believe in "my" God. Thanks.

(05-08-2011 04:58 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  This isn't a purple unicorn or a pink elephant. This is a belief held among various members of the scientific community based on observing an actual event. This is a real thing, there are FACTS behind it.

To avoid simply passing this off as an appeal to authority (which creationists love to use), I'm genuinely interested in reading up about this a little more. Do you have any links about the whole "observer god" belief from those scientists? Like the article from SA you said you'd post if you found it. I'd like to read those articles and find out how do they reach that conclusion, rather than keeping it at "I don't know". As far as I understand, science uses a naturalistic approach: it deals only with natural phenomena and assumes that everything has a natural explanation, even if we don't know it yet, so I find it to be an extraordinary claim for scientists, speaking as such and not as people with a personal belief, to claim that anything could be the work of a supernatural entity.

The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. "God did it." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. - George Carlin

Whenever I'm asked "What if you're wrong?", I always show the asker this video: http://youtu.be/iClejS8vWjo Screw Pascal's wager.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Efrx86's post
06-08-2011, 06:17 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  To put it simply, electrons can not just decide "Oh crap, someones observing me, better stop acting like a wave and start acting like matter again."
Why can't they? How do you know they can't? Why is an intelligent, telepathic electron - much better, a network of intelligence among electrons - less probable than an omnipotent external intelligence?

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 08:19 AM
RE: Why Only Christianity?
Hey there 'An_Actual_Theist'

You do know that you only described one theory about the universe in your first post, one theory that is not very supported.

Either way, this theory, however vague and improbable, actually has SOME EVIDENCE for it. Your god does not even have one scrap of evidence suggesting that he/she exists.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like monkeyshine89's post
06-08-2011, 01:37 PM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 08:18 AM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  
(03-08-2011 09:57 AM)Sus Barbatus Wrote:  First of all, the arguments supporting the God of Islam, for example, are just as ridiculous as the arguments supporting the God of Christianity, (which I suppose could be argued as the same God). The reason why I, personally, talk more about Christianity is simply because that's what I'm surrounded by more than anything else, as an American living in the midwest.

Having said that, I think you'll find that most atheists here will be happy to point out why any belief in a god or gods, be it deist, pantheist, or theist is completely absurd and contrary to reality and/or completely unnecessary.

Your belief sounds, at the very least and by the little information you've given, to fit into the latter category as of right now. Completely unnecessary. But like the above poster I'm open to hearing you elaborate.

If YOU actually understood what I am saying, you would realize that God is more of a necessity in this case then a fact. Watch this video (below) to get an explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
The two schools of thought are either the universe multiples into two every time electrons have to make a "choice". And I do not think that spontaneous creation of matter and energy is more likely then a universal conscience, a.k.a God.

God of the gaps argument. From what you've been saying, because you don't know or understand fully why particles behave in this way...therefore God. That's absolutely absurd.
Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 02:13 PM
 
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(05-08-2011 10:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?

Only thing wrong with that is that it don't require some omnipotent being to keep shit together, any old GirlyMan observing will suffice.

Unfortunately, you can not see every part of the Universe at once nor can the rest of humanity. If objects went everywhere at once like the observations suggest, things would appear to teleport and move on their own -- an event that we have not observed yet. And socks don't count.
(06-08-2011 01:23 AM)Efrx86 Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  To put it simply, electrons can not just decide "Oh crap, someones observing me, better stop acting like a wave and start acting like matter again." Someone, more like something, has to control that. If there was no constant observer to keep things in check, parts of the Universe we can not see would behave as waves (all matter does) and everything would be everywhere at the same time. As was observed in the two split experiment, the default state of what we consider matter is actually a wave. Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?

By "observing the whole universe" do you mean this being is observing every single thing in it, observing some electrons arbitrarily or just choosing which electrons to observe? If it observes every single electron in the whole universe at the same time there would be no electrons acting like waves. So it's probably one of the latter two. Then, what are the laws, or the protocols this being follows that govern which electrons are observed and which aren't? Does God play dice here? Einstein says it doesn't. Hawking says it does.

I don't know jack about quantum mechanics. I don't know jack about wave-particle duality. So my opinion is very amateur. Still, the uncertainty, and what you said about it being "more of a necessity than a fact" makes it seem like a God of the Gaps argument to me. You said "Honestly, there is no real test for seeing if the quantum influence is intentional, because highly unlikely events can be attributed to chance or divine intervention. All I know is that electrons can not make decisions on their own, and somehow a choice of where the electron goes is made." It could be a natural law that we haven't discovered yet, perhaps because of some flaw during the observation process; who knows, maybe we're doing it wrong. It may actually be an omnipotent being, strange as it might seem. Will we ever know this law or set of laws? Can we discover if this being exists? Or is the answer unknowable? Wouldn't agnosticism be a more reasonable stance than outright claiming the behavior of the electrons is proof that there is such a being? I can't put my finger on it really.

By the way,

(05-08-2011 08:18 AM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  I might not have to prove it, that will be done or not for me. There are actually a lot of scientists who believe in "my" God. Thanks.

(05-08-2011 04:58 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  This isn't a purple unicorn or a pink elephant. This is a belief held among various members of the scientific community based on observing an actual event. This is a real thing, there are FACTS behind it.

To avoid simply passing this off as an appeal to authority (which creationists love to use), I'm genuinely interested in reading up about this a little more. Do you have any links about the whole "observer god" belief from those scientists? Like the article from SA you said you'd post if you found it. I'd like to read those articles and find out how do they reach that conclusion, rather than keeping it at "I don't know". As far as I understand, science uses a naturalistic approach: it deals only with natural phenomena and assumes that everything has a natural explanation, even if we don't know it yet, so I find it to be an extraordinary claim for scientists, speaking as such and not as people with a personal belief, to claim that anything could be the work of a supernatural entity.

Its not online, I will scan it out of my magazine and put it here.
As to your first point, I'm not claiming to be an expert either, and the basic consensus among the scientific community is either it is a metaphysical issue or their is a multiverse. The problem with both is that it is impossible to test either and it comes down to speculation. But the way I see it, the fact that we can observe something to change its behavior implies directly that conscience has an effect on a sub-atomic scale, because observing an object does nothing else to an object except make the photons it reflects hit our eyes or the "eye" of a recording device. So it is either a God or subatomic particles can think.
(06-08-2011 01:37 PM)Sus Barbatus Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 08:18 AM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  
(03-08-2011 09:57 AM)Sus Barbatus Wrote:  First of all, the arguments supporting the God of Islam, for example, are just as ridiculous as the arguments supporting the God of Christianity, (which I suppose could be argued as the same God). The reason why I, personally, talk more about Christianity is simply because that's what I'm surrounded by more than anything else, as an American living in the midwest.

Having said that, I think you'll find that most atheists here will be happy to point out why any belief in a god or gods, be it deist, pantheist, or theist is completely absurd and contrary to reality and/or completely unnecessary.

Your belief sounds, at the very least and by the little information you've given, to fit into the latter category as of right now. Completely unnecessary. But like the above poster I'm open to hearing you elaborate.

If YOU actually understood what I am saying, you would realize that God is more of a necessity in this case then a fact. Watch this video (below) to get an explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
The two schools of thought are either the universe multiples into two every time electrons have to make a "choice". And I do not think that spontaneous creation of matter and energy is more likely then a universal conscience, a.k.a God.

God of the gaps argument. From what you've been saying, because you don't know or understand fully why particles behave in this way...therefore God. That's absolutely absurd.
The basic consensus among the scientific community is either it is a metaphysical issue or their is a multiverse. The problem with both is that it is impossible to test either and it comes down to speculation. But the way I see it, the fact that we can observe something to change its behavior implies directly that conscience has an effect on a sub-atomic scale, because observing an object does nothing else to an object except make the photons it reflects hit our eyes or the "eye" of a recording device. So it is either a God or subatomic particles can think.

(06-08-2011 08:19 AM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Hey there 'An_Actual_Theist'

You do know that you only described one theory about the universe in your first post, one theory that is not very supported.

Either way, this theory, however vague and improbable, actually has SOME EVIDENCE for it. Your god does not even have one scrap of evidence suggesting that he/she exists.
As to your first point, I'm not claiming to be an expert either, and the basic consensus among the scientific community is either it is a metaphysical issue or their is a multiverse. The problem with both is that it is impossible to test either and it comes down to speculation. But the way I see it, the fact that we can observe something to change its behavior implies directly that conscience has an effect on a sub-atomic scale, because observing an object does nothing else to an object except make the photons it reflects hit our eyes or the "eye" of a recording device. So it is either a God or subatomic particles can think.

(06-08-2011 08:19 AM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Hey there 'An_Actual_Theist'

You do know that you only described one theory about the universe in your first post, one theory that is not very supported.

Either way, this theory, however vague and improbable, actually has SOME EVIDENCE for it. Your god does not even have one scrap of evidence suggesting that he/she exists.
Here is the proof, (my own words, copied from another post)
The basic consensus among the scientific community is either it is a metaphysical issue or their is a multiverse. The problem with both is that it is impossible to test either and it comes down to speculation. But the way I see it, the fact that we can observe something to change its behavior implies directly that conscience has an effect on a sub-atomic scale, because observing an object does nothing else to an object except make the photons it reflects hit our eyes or the "eye" of a recording device. So it is either a God or subatomic particles can think.
(06-08-2011 06:17 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  To put it simply, electrons can not just decide "Oh crap, someones observing me, better stop acting like a wave and start acting like matter again."
Why can't they? How do you know they can't? Why is an intelligent, telepathic electron - much better, a network of intelligence among electrons - less probable than an omnipotent external intelligence?
Honestly, that could be another possibility.
Assuming that idea is right, that would mean that:
a) Conscience awareness can transcend basic laws of physics
b) Conscience awareness can exist outside of the vessel of the human body.
c) Conscience does not die with us, so there is an afterlife of sorts.
Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2011 04:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why Only Christianity?
(06-08-2011 02:13 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 10:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-08-2011 10:24 PM)An_Actual_Theist Wrote:  Some omnipotent being is observing the whole universe to keep it intact. That is my proof. So whats wrong with that?

Only thing wrong with that is that it don't require some omnipotent being to keep shit together, any old GirlyMan observing will suffice.

Unfortunately, you can not see every part of the Universe at once nor can the rest of humanity.

Don't need to. They're just probability waves until they collapse once observed. We gradually make the universe manifest as we observe it. Until it's observed it only exists as probability waves. We're the ones making the world just by virtue of us looking at it.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: