The Big Bang

[neo of the mind]

He did no such thing. He only extended your argument, and you missed the point.



We have already done that. You still miss burntgorilla's point entirely.

You cite causality - recognizing an effect, you imply a cause (God). Your argument fails, because when applied to God, you cannot provide a cause.

My answer to his "extension" of what created God was answered in the link I gave. He then said, "It doesn't successfully answer Gorilla's challenge."
Which resulted in my response that He makes the determination of what is a successful point and therefore I can never "win" in a debate.

YOU apply it to God falsely when it shoudn't be. Again read the link. You will then disagree with this and say it is wrong.

We are then back to square one again. I won't let you guys determine right or wrong or what's a successful argument, based on you just saying it is so. I know that would be easier for you if people did that.

[Strel]

There are rules to logic, and to debate.

You do not seem to want to abide by them.

Post #247 explains why the information behind your link does not help you.

[neo of the mind]

There are rules to logic, and to debate.

You do not seem to want to abide by them.

TELL ME WHAT FREAKIN RULE I am breaking by giving evidence and not accepting that it is wrong BASED SOLELY on somebody else just saying so?

1. I gave a link.
2. He simply states that I was not succesfull in the challenge.
3. I disagree with his assessment, especially since he doesn't say why I am wrong.


So, just because he states I am not successful I am supposed to give up at that point and concede, based soley on him saying I failed.

Is that what you want?

It's not going to happen and you can bring up stuff that has nothing to do with the issue all you want to obscure the obvious.

EDIT: and the link I posted refutes Post #247 in my opinion.

[brainpan]

EDIT: and the link I posted refutes Post #247 in my opinion.We won't play that game either. It is your argument, so you must support it right here. It is not up to us to chase down your links in order to tell you what it is you mean.

So moving right along. What part of your link addressed Gorilla's concerns that I will kindly repost for your conenience?

"It made the interesting point that if the laws of thermodynamics exist in this universe, then a god wouldn't have to follow those rules, because it isn't in that universe. However, this begs the question as to what the god is in before it creates the universe.

Also, surely it would follow that if this god is made up of some kind of energy, which it surely must, then it cannot enter the universe, as that would create new energy in the universe."

[neo of the mind]

LOL, like the link I gave has 300 pages to read or something. Well, here you go, what are you going to whine about next. As you can see the question is the first sentence and everything after that is the answer.



Critics who have asked "if God created the universe, who created Him?" miss the following points. First, they have unconsciously granted to the Law of Causality the very property of self-existence (that is, an eternal, uncreated nature) that they are presuming God couldn’t have. A being who created the universe and the laws within it, who pre-existed them, would not be slave to those laws. And since the Law of Causality is a statement about relationships between multiple entities, the law could not even exist until one entity began the act of creating another one (at which point it would implicitly come to exist). Finally, most atheists who use this argument grant to the universe the exact property of self-existence that they deny God. They either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing. However, this latter position violates the unity principle – that a valid law of science that is found to apply anywhere, applies everywhere and to everything in the universe, including the universe as a whole.

The only position that appears to be consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics, the unity principle and causality is that the universe was created by a self-existent external agent not subject to the laws operational in the universe it created.

[brainpan]

Critics who have asked "if God created the universe, who created Him?" miss the following points. First, they have unconsciously granted to the Law of Causality the very property of self-existence (that is, an eternal, uncreated nature) that they are presuming God couldn’t have.For the love! :rolleyes:

First of all, laws are nothing more than observations of how existence behaves. They are not "real" in the sense the author implies. Furthermore, the only thing granted to the Law of Causality is done so for the sake of argument.
A being who created the universe and the laws within it, who pre-existed them, would not be slave to those laws.And you're right back to begging the question again. There is no evidence that such a being could exist.
Finally, most atheists who use this argument grant to the universe the exact property of self-existence that they deny God. They either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing.I haven't heard the argument that the universe came from nothing. I guess I need to consult "most atheists." :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

For the love! :rolleyes:

First of all, laws are nothing more than observations of how existence behaves. They are not "real" in the sense the author implies. Furthermore, the only thing granted to the Law of Causality is done so for the sake of argument.
And you're right back to begging the question again. There is no evidence that such a being could exist.
I haven't heard the argument that the universe came from nothing. I guess I need to consult "most atheists." :rolleyes:

The author does not imply the Law is "real", he states that there are those that presume the law to have always been in effect but can not presume that God has always been in existence.

The evidence is the Universe, which had a cause and that cause could only be God. Dispute the evidence all you want, but you can't say there is no evidence.

Well, I don't know where you have been, but if Atheists don't believe in a God that created everything, then that leaves self creation, which is something from nothing.

[brainpan]

The author does not imply the Law is "real", he states that there are those that presume the law to have always been in effect but can not presume that God has always been in existence. But if he doesn't, the analogy is fatally flawed. Either way, he loses on that point.
The evidence is the Universe, which had a cause and that cause could only be God.A meaningless and illogical statement that cannot be supported by evidence.
...you can't say there is no evidence.I can. There is no valid evidence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is admittedly one of the better "goddidit" arguments, but in the end it doesnt lead to positive proof of anything.
Well, I don't know where you have been, but if Atheists don't believe in a God that created everything, then that leaves self creation, which is something from nothing.There is no reason to conclude there was ever a "nothing" in the first place.

[neo of the mind]

But if he doesn't, the analogy is fatally flawed. Either way, he loses on that point.
A meaningless and illogical statement that cannot be supported by evidence.
I can. There is no valid evidence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is admittedly one of the better "goddidit" arguments, but in the end it doesnt lead to positive proof of anything.
There is no reason to conclude there was ever a "nothing" in the first place.

Your total refutation to everything is your sole exclamation that everything is insufficent. That fact that you give this papal proclamation alone, contrary to what you think and what I have stated before is not sufficient.

[sub_zer0]

Your total refutation to everything is your sole exclamation that everything is insufficent. That fact that you give this papal proclamation alone, contrary to what you think and what I have stated before is not sufficient.

I think the monkey for his avatar, says a lot.

[brainpan]

Your total refutation to everything is your sole exclamation that everything is insufficent. That fact that you give this papal proclamation alone, contrary to what you think and what I have stated before is not sufficient.Quit retreating to a meta discussion. If anything is not resolved to your satisfaction, I am willing to address it in further detail.

PS- As others have pointed out, I am not the inventer of logic, you can stop with the absurd "papal proclamation" Strawman Fallacy any time.

[neo of the mind]

Quit retreating to a meta discussion. If anything is not resolved to your satisfaction, I am willing to address it in further detail.

PS- As others have pointed out, I am not the inventer of logic, you can stop with the absurd "papal proclamation" Strawman Fallacy any time.

LOL, I didn't say you were the inventor of logic, just that you think your determination of what is logical or what is valid should just be accepted at face value.

I don't have any unresolved issues. You are the one that does not have resolution on anything. I presented evidence of my statements, you say they are not valid, I say they are. Nothing changed as far as I am aware of. I still believe in God and that he created everything and you still believe whatever it is you believe in or probably more correctly, what you don't have evidence to believe in, so therefore you believe in nothing. If you actually believe in something, you have not stated it yet, I guess you don't want your beliefs to be known so that they can not be scrutinized and you don't have to prove anything, just sit back and state that everybody else has to prove everything. Then when they attempt to do so, you just say it's not sufficient and everybody has to shut up under your self appointed authority.

[sub_zer0]

LOL, I didn't say you were the inventor of logic, just that you think your determination of what is logical or what is valid should just be accepted at face value.

I don't have any unresolved issues. You are the one that does not have resolution on anything. I presented evidence of my statements, you say they are not valid, I say they are. Nothing changed as far as I am aware of. I still believe in God and that he created everything and you still believe whatever it is you believe in or probably more correctly, what you don't have evidence to believe in, so therefore you believe in nothing. If you actually believe in something, you have not stated it yet, I guess you don't want your beliefs to be known so that they can not be scrutinized and you don't have to prove anything, just sit back and state that everybody else has to prove everything. Then when they attempt to do so, you just say it's not sufficient and everybody has to shut up under your self appointed authority.

Exactly why I don't take his bait on his created topics.

[neo of the mind]

brainpan:

All of us accept your forfeiture of the argument. Game over.

[sub_zer0]

*snicker*

[Dangerrmouse]

*snicker*

The level of "debate" reaches a new low.

[steveksux]

I think the monkey for his avatar, says a lot.I think the fact that the "monkey" beats you like a rented mule in every argument so far says a lot more.

Randy

[steveksux]

LOL, I didn't say you were the inventor of logic, just that you think your determination of what is logical or what is valid should just be accepted at face value.You don't have to take his word for it. These are standard rules of debating and logic. They used to hide information like that in books on debating and logic if you wish to check him on it. I bet they're even available on the internet.

Randy

[steveksux]

I'm sorry have you observed it?I haven't observed you make a credible argument. That doesn't mean its impossible, or that it couldn't happen once in 20 billion years or so if you survive that long.

If you're only argument is always going to boil down to nobody observed it, its ridiculous, idiotic, ignorant, sophomoric and a total waste of everyones time. Thanik you very much. Be sure to come back when you turn 13.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

The level of "debate" reaches a new low.

That's crazy isn't it? How my comment could be used by a different person without the same reaction. It's called a double standard and there are plenty of people on here that sink to this level almost every post.

You must not see it when it comes from them or you.

[neo of the mind]

You don't have to take his word for it. These are standard rules of debating and logic. They used to hide information like that in books on debating and logic if you wish to check him on it. I bet they're even available on the internet.

Randy

LOL. It is not standard debating practice to think you can make a statement such as "Your point is invalid." and leave it at that without anything substative to back it up. That is what some here do and it doesn't fly.

Now if you return with a comment such as "You have not successfully refuted my statement.", then you have committed once again this same form of non-debate.

That is what the argument is about, even though you and others continue to make it out to be something procedural.

[neo of the mind]

I haven't observed you make a credible argument. That doesn't mean its impossible, or that it couldn't happen once in 20 billion years or so if you survive that long.

If you're only argument is always going to boil down to nobody observed it, its ridiculous, idiotic, ignorant, sophomoric and a total waste of everyones time. Thanik you very much. Be sure to come back when you turn 13.

Randy


Atheists listen up, no more can you use the tactic of no empirical data to refute the existence of God, because it is ridiculous, idiotic, ignorant, sophomoric and a total waste of everyones time.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't apply to you.

[Dangerrmouse]

It applies to everyone. Why do you find such particular difficulty with it?

[neo of the mind]

It applies to everyone. Why do you find such particular difficulty with it?

Do you have empirical data to back those statements up? LOL.

[Dangerrmouse]

Thats a very sub-like comment.... :lol:

[Dangerrmouse]

That's crazy isn't it? How my comment could be used by a different person without the same reaction. It's called a double standard and there are plenty of people on here that sink to this level almost every post.

You must not see it when it comes from them or you.

This is Neo's response to my comment (p270) on a post from sub.....They are starting to blur together..

[neo of the mind]

This is Neo's response to my comment (p270) on a post from sub.....They are starting to blur together..


Do you have empirical data to support this so called blur?

[Dangerrmouse]

It's all in the posts "dude". "lol"

[neo of the mind]

It's all in the posts "dude". "lol"

I will repeat the mantra...You point is not valid. I have stated it therefore it's a fact now.

[Dangerrmouse]

I will repeat the mantra...You point is not valid. I have stated it therefore it's a fact now.

Whereas I make the valid point that "you point is not valid" makes no sense.

Red shifting would indicate that the contents of the expanding universe are currently moving apart, yes?

[steveksux]

Atheists listen up, no more can you use the tactic of no empirical data to refute the existence of God, because it is ridiculous, idiotic, ignorant, sophomoric and a total waste of everyones time.

Oh, that's right, it doesn't apply to you.The argument in question is "It hasn't been observed". If "It hasn't been observed" is a valid way to disprove something exists, kiss your God goodbye. He's been disproved.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

The argument in question is "It hasn't been observed". If "It hasn't been observed" is a valid way to disprove something exists, kiss your God goodbye. He's been disproved.

Randy

No, no, no... The fact there is existence, life, the universe is proof of God. So kiss my God hello!

[JoeR]

There is existence, therefore there is a God is not in any way logical.

[sub_zer0]

There is existence, therefore there is a God is not in any way logical.

Sure it is, just look at from somebody elses point of view but your own.

Creation does imply a Creator... Everywhere I look I see complex design.

[steveksux]

No, no, no... The fact there is existence, life, the universe is proof of God. So kiss my God hello!You haven't observed God. He doesn't exist. That's your stand on the big bang and evolution. Enjoy your own petard.

Randy

[JoeR]

Sure it is, just look at from somebody elses point of view but your own.

Creation does imply a Creator... Everywhere I look I see complex design.

People tend to see that sort of thing when it isn't really there. Our minds work by creating patterns (gross oversimplification of course). Your perception is proof of absolutely nothing unless you can back it up.

[brainpan]

This is Neo's response to my comment (p270) on a post from sub.....They are starting to blur together..Jesus would probably hope for a more respectable effort than that.

[brainpan]

LOL, I didn't say you were the inventor of logic, just that you think your determination of what is logical or what is valid should just be accepted at face value.It's not true, and I invite you again to raise a credible objection to my determination at any time. Simply whining about "papal proclamations" and such doesn't qualify. It doesn't look as though you want a resolution as much as an excuse to retreat from discussions you probably can't win.I presented evidence of my statements, you say they are not valid, I say they are. Nothing changed as far as I am aware of.I don't think Kalam is valid, at the very least, because there is no logical reason to introduce God into it's conclusion.
I still believe in God and that he created everything and you still believe whatever it is you believe in...Thanks for sharing, but that's not the point of the discussion. My arguments in this thread say nothing about the actual existence of God, that wasn't my intent. You can't provide evidence of god(s), and that's all I care about here, as for personal belief and everything else, go in peace.

[Dangerrmouse]

Sure it is, just look at from somebody elses point of view but your own.

Creation does imply a Creator... Everywhere I look I see complex design.

My POV is different than his, and I see no design. If there were such a thing I see incompetence, such as nipples on a man, everywhere.

You infer a god from your perception of "reality", but you have not directly observed it as you demand of us. By your own standards it cannot exist.

[melchizedek22]

My POV is different than his, and I see no design. If there were such a thing I see incompetence, such as nipples on a man, everywhere.

You infer a god from your perception of "reality", but you have not directly observed it as you demand of us. By your own standards it cannot exist.
Nipples on a man is proof that Eve was taken out of Adam!

[melchizedek22]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but on this forum, a private forum, we are looking for civil debate.

BTW, isn't the greatest commandment to love your neighbor as yourself?
the Mathew 10 vs 34 is a response to Rev Boyds ,quote about losing the cross because of the Sword!I have been civil debating,unless you blame me for starting this thread that got Hijacked? :sorry:

[burntgorilla]

LOL, like the link I gave has 300 pages to read or something. Well, here you go, what are you going to whine about next. As you can see the question is the first sentence and everything after that is the answer.



Critics who have asked "if God created the universe, who created Him?" miss the following points. First, they have unconsciously granted to the Law of Causality the very property of self-existence (that is, an eternal, uncreated nature) that they are presuming God couldn’t have. A being who created the universe and the laws within it, who pre-existed them, would not be slave to those laws. And since the Law of Causality is a statement about relationships between multiple entities, the law could not even exist until one entity began the act of creating another one (at which point it would implicitly come to exist). Finally, most atheists who use this argument grant to the universe the exact property of self-existence that they deny God. They either deny the First Law of Thermodynamics and believe the universe came into existence from nothingness, or believe that it is itself self-existing. However, this latter position violates the unity principle – that a valid law of science that is found to apply anywhere, applies everywhere and to everything in the universe, including the universe as a whole.

The only position that appears to be consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics, the unity principle and causality is that the universe was created by a self-existent external agent not subject to the laws operational in the universe it created.

Just for your benefit, the bits I wrote, which were then quoted for you, were actually in response to that passage, so responding to my points by then repeating the passage that they address is a bit useful.

Have fun, people.

[neo of the mind]

I don't think Kalam is valid, at the very least, because there is no logical reason to introduce God into it's conclusion.


and you continue to prove my point. You say my evidence is not valid because you don't find it logical and that's it, end of story.

Well, I disagree with your logic and think it is very logical for a person to think that a being, such as a God, as humans can comprehend, is the cause of everything.

So, we are back to the beginning again.

[neo of the mind]

My POV is different than his, and I see no design. If there were such a thing I see incompetence, such as nipples on a man, everywhere.

You infer a god from your perception of "reality", but you have not directly observed it as you demand of us. By your own standards it cannot exist.


Actually it is you and your group that is stuck on having to see God face to face in order to believe in his existence. God has shown himself directly and more plainly to people as described in the Bible many times. When he has plainly done this, like in exodus and in the person of Jesus, there were still those, even though he showed wonderous miracles in their faces, still did not beleive.

So now, like then, even if he showed himself plainly to people, which I don't doubt, would include some on this forum, the result would be the same.

So for the most part, the existence of God, to most of us, is limited to the observance of what he does, like the wind, versus seeing him plainly.

[Dangerrmouse]

...
So now, like then, even if he showed himself plainly to people, which I don't doubt, would include some on this forum, the result would be the same.

So for the most part, the existence of God, to most of us, is limited to the observance of what he does, like the wind, versus seeing him plainly.

Spooky! Twice in two days you reply to a response directed to your alter ego..... :rolleyes:

Once again, HE insists on the "must be observed" standard, which he (or you) cannot meet yourselves. "We" only seek a level playing field....

Yet again, logic belongs to no-one. It is a tool for sorting truth from garbage. A statement is either logical, or it is not. Recently in your cases, mostly not, but the possibility of change exists...

[JD3]

the Mathew 10 vs 34 is a response to Rev Boyds ,quote about losing the cross because of the Sword!I have been civil debating,unless you blame me for starting this thread that got Hijacked? :sorry:

I am still not sure I follow you, but there is a thread on Boyd in the Society froum.

[steveksux]

and you continue to prove my point. You say my evidence is not valid because you don't find it logical and that's it, end of story.

Well, I disagree with your logic and think it is very logical for a person to think that a being, such as a God, as humans can comprehend, is the cause of everything.

So, we are back to the beginning again.
Then you believe in Ra the Sun God? Why does the "evidence" that drives your belief point to God rather than Zeus, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It doesn't. The answer is that in reality your beliefs drive the evidence not the other way around.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Then you believe in Ra the Sun God? Why does the "evidence" that drives your belief point to God rather than Zeus, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It doesn't. The answer is that in reality your beliefs drive the evidence not the other way around.

Randy

Perhaps now you realize why you believe in evolution despite the unobservable nature of it.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Perhaps now you realize why you believe in evolution despite the unobservable nature of it.

Look up Gregor Mendel.

[sub_zer0]

Look up Gregor Mendel.

Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20 1822 - January 6, 1884) was a Christian monk, creationist, and scientist who is often called the "father of genetics" for his study of the inheritance of biological traits in pea plants.

What is your point?

[neo of the mind]

Spooky! Twice in two days you reply to a response directed to your alter ego..... :rolleyes:

Once again, HE insists on the "must be observed" standard, which he (or you) cannot meet yourselves. "We" only seek a level playing field....

Yet again, logic belongs to no-one. It is a tool for sorting truth from garbage. A statement is either logical, or it is not. Recently in your cases, mostly not, but the possibility of change exists...


I guess you didn't read my post, I said the exact opposite.

As far as logic, what is logical to you, may not be logical to me. You can not make that determination for another person by just saying it is or it isn't.

[neo of the mind]

Then you believe in Ra the Sun God? Why does the "evidence" that drives your belief point to God rather than Zeus, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It doesn't. The answer is that in reality your beliefs drive the evidence not the other way around.

Randy


No, I don't believe in any of them and I covered your statements about Zeus, Ra and the Flying Spagetti Monster before. You failed to respond to that.

Game over. You lose.

[Alvin T. Grey]

In 1900 Mendel's work was at last recognised by three independent investigators. One of these being the Dutch botanist, Hugo De Vries. But it was still not until the early 1920s and early 1930s that the full significance of his work was recognised particularly in relation to evolutionary theory. As a result of years of research in population genetics, investigators were able to demonstrate that the Darwinian theory of evolution could be described in terms of the change in gene frequency of Mendelian pairs of characteristics in a population over successive generations.

All of Mendel's work on genetics was based on Observation of traits in Pea Plants. Mendel chose these because they reproduce quickly, and have different charactoristics from plant to plant.
Similar work has been carried out with fruit flies, for much the same reason.

[sub_zer0]

In 1900 Mendel's work was at last recognised by three independent investigators. One of these being the Dutch botanist, Hugo De Vries. But it was still not until the early 1920s and early 1930s that the full significance of his work was recognised particularly in relation to evolutionary theory. As a result of years of research in population genetics, investigators were able to demonstrate that the Darwinian theory of evolution could be described in terms of the change in gene frequency of Mendelian pairs of characteristics in a population over successive generations.

All of Mendel's work on genetics was based on Observation of traits in Pea Plants. Mendel chose these because they reproduce quickly, and have different charactoristics from plant to plant.
Similar work has been carried out with fruit flies, for much the same reason.

Has the pea plant or fruit fly ever turned into anything other than what they already were? Has the fruit fly turned into a bee? NO!

Those observations you are speaking of within Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occured within species, it only occurred within limits.

Although we know that Mendel was interested in , and read Origin of Species before 1865, we have no evidence that he thought the specifics of Darwin's theory particularly relevent to his experiments with peas.

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWgloss.html#evolution

[Equinox]

You are both so colossally incorrect that it is difficult to know where to begin...


...but I know where it will end - in another futile effort by the educated posters of the board to educate the uneducatable.

I'm thinking the same thing.

[Equinox]

So which cosmology do you subscribe to ...Ptolemaic? ...Copernican? ...

The attack of the flat earthers. :D

[neo of the mind]

as the thread takes another swerving turn off the road....

[neo of the mind]

Originally Posted by Strel
You are both so colossally incorrect that it is difficult to know where to begin...


...but I know where it will end - in another futile effort by the educated posters of the board to educate the uneducatable.

I'm thinking the same thing.

What? That the quote doesn't make any sense considering that by default, you CAN'T educate the uneducatable.

Maybye the educated in question need more education. LOL

[sub_zer0]

Originally Posted by Strel
You are both so colossally incorrect that it is difficult to know where to begin...

...but I know where it will end - in another futile effort by the educated posters of the board to educate the uneducatable.

What? That the quote doesn't make any sense considering that by default, you CAN'T educate the uneducatable.

Maybye the educated in question need more education. LOL

Perhaps they need to realize that they can't prove a universal negative such as that there is no God. All this talk about logic and such yet atheist's really have nowhere to stand.

[Dangerrmouse]

Let's agree that the evidence on the god question is less than the evidence on the Werewolf question....

ps is the Universe expanding or contracting?

[sub_zer0]

Let's agree that the evidence on the god question is less than the evidence on the Werewolf question....

ps is the Universe expanding or contracting?

Let's not, and you first prove the universal negative of no God.... Please do! Until you do the existence of God is more proven than the non-existence of God as you can NEVER prove a universal negative.

The proof of God is the universe and all in it, however that is not proof of no God.

[Dangerrmouse]

The universe is held to be expanding. Red shifts show that everything is moving away from everything else, broadly speaking...

[neo of the mind]

Let's agree that the evidence on the god question is less than the evidence on the Werewolf question....

ps is the Universe expanding or contracting?

Yeah, that's it a Werewolf created the Universe.

[Dangerrmouse]

The likelihood is similar to your god having done it. Your suggestion that it was a Werewolf is nearly humourous.

[steveksux]

No, I don't believe in any of them and I covered your statements about Zeus, Ra and the Flying Spagetti Monster before. You failed to respond to that.

Game over. You lose.Where? I saw no response. If it was so convincing, lets hear it again.

Randy

[JoeR]

Has the pea plant or fruit fly ever turned into anything other than what they already were? Has the fruit fly turned into a bee? NO!

What part of that sort of thing takes so long as to be impossible to practically be observed by human beings don't you understand? There needs to be a smiley bashing its head into a brick wall.

Your point about not being able to prove a negative is laughable. Of course you can't prove a negative, which is what everyone shouts from the roof tops every top you have requested someone to do so! The burden of proof lies on your end, and there is none, which frankly makes sense since otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point for your whole religion to rely on faith.

You just cover your ears and repeat existence is proof as if that is an a priori fact. Hint: it isn't.

[neo of the mind]

Where? I saw no response. If it was so convincing, lets hear it again.

Randy

Post #236 was my response.

[sub_zer0]

What part of that sort of thing takes so long as to be impossible to practically be observed by human beings don't you understand? There needs to be a smiley bashing its head into a brick wall.

Thats how I feel when people rely on assumptions that have never been observed by science and call creationism un-scientific.

Your point about not being able to prove a negative is laughable. Of course you can't prove a negative, which is what everyone shouts from the roof tops every top you have requested someone to do so! The burden of proof lies on your end, and there is none, which frankly makes sense since otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point for your whole religion to rely on faith.

You just cover your ears and repeat existence is proof as if that is an a priori fact. Hint: it isn't.

Sure it is, creation leaves none with an excuse.

[Alvin T. Grey]

There is one Joe, it looks like this
:banghead:

[brainpan]

Sure it is, creation leaves none with an excuse.For the uninitiated, this basically means: The absurd myth known popularly as "Christianity" is self-evident. Those who do not believe in it are liars and deserving of an eternal torment in God's torture chamber.

[steveksux]

Post #236 was my response.Ok, must have missed it, was kind of busy for a few days. wasn't ignoring it on purpose....

Randy

[steveksux]

ok, well if that is your attempt at convincing me of an alternative then you have failed. Tell me about the Flying Spaghetti Monster...why should I worship it over Jesus? That would go the same for all the others.

Again, as far as everything being a result of "purely natural processes", what caused the processes to occur if it was not God? You've missed the point completely.

You claim that existence proves there was a creator, and it must be God. The problem is, even if that were a valid argument, there are dozens, probably hundreds of various Gods that could have done it. You need to prove why your God is the one that did it, and not the others. What evidence do you have that your God is responsible for creation, not the others? How do you prove that they didn't even work together on it?

The law of causality is what I hold up to you and others.And I to you. Prove it was YOUR particular God that did the creating. Not Buddha. Not Zeus. Not Ra. Not the Flying Spaghetti monster. Even if we accept your assertion of a supernatural explanation for the creation of the Universe, you still fall far short of anything resembling evidence that it was your God rather than some other current or formerly worshipped God that was responsible.

Answer to that or your just wasting time.Balls in your court. For the sake of argument, I'll pretend the universe had a supernatural cause. Prove which God caused it. Or even with this massive head start, you're still wasting time.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

You've missed the point completely.

You claim that existence proves there was a creator, and it must be God. The problem is, even if that were a valid argument, there are dozens, probably hundreds of various Gods that could have done it. You need to prove why your God is the one that did it, and not the others. What evidence do you have that your God is responsible for creation, not the others? How do you prove that they didn't even work together on it?

And I to you. Prove it was YOUR particular God that did the creating. Not Buddha. Not Zeus. Not Ra. Not the Flying Spaghetti monster. Even if we accept your assertion of a supernatural explanation for the creation of the Universe, you still fall far short of anything resembling evidence that it was your God rather than some other current or formerly worshipped God that was responsible.

Balls in your court. For the sake of argument, I'll pretend the universe had a supernatural cause. Prove which God caused it. Or even with this massive head start, you're still wasting time.

Randy

The argument up to this point has been whether the universe came about by God or for no reason. I have been told it is not a valid argument, so going to the next step doesn't seem to make sense.

[steveksux]

The argument up to this point has been whether the universe came about by God or for no reason. I have been told it is not a valid argument, so going to the next step doesn't seem to make sense.
Just as well, you'd lose... ;)

Randy

[burntgorilla]

The argument up to this point has been whether the universe came about by God or for no reason. I have been told it is not a valid argument, so going to the next step doesn't seem to make sense.

Yes, but this is a hypothetical argument now. Well, for us it is, but for you it's what really happened, I suppose. If the universe was created by a supernatural being, how do you know which one? They all seem to claim the honour.

[neo of the mind]

Just as well, you'd lose... ;)

Randy

Maybe so, but sometimes when you lose, you win and when you win, you lose.

[steveksux]

Maybe so, but sometimes when you lose, you win and when you win, you lose.I think I understand where you're coming from here. No, there is no evidence that God did it rather than Buddha, Ra, et. al...

But as long as someone's God did it, if you chose the right God, you lose this debate for lack of evidence, but win in the end. Not a bad trade.

Its a very hard line to straddle in these sorts of debates. A rational debate requires evidence and logic, and this subject exists on faith. How to insist on rigor and reason without appearing to disparage religious beliefs. Perhaps these sorts of arguments are doomed from the start. The two sides operate on completely different ground rules, what is admissible and accepted as evidence.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

But then if you believe in the Christian god, and it turns out that it was actually done by some Hindu gods, wouldn't they get pretty pissed off at you?

[neo of the mind]

But then if you believe in the Christian god, and it turns out that it was actually done by some Hindu gods, wouldn't they get pretty pissed off at you?

I'll just be reincarnated as a lower life form. Do they get pissed off at anything?

[steveksux]

I'll just be reincarnated as a lower life form. Do they get pissed off at anything?Sounds more like a passive agressive thing rather than actually pissed off. "We're not pissed, but we'll make you come back as a lower life form..."

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

Sounds more like a passive agressive thing rather than actually pissed off. "We're not pissed, but we'll make you come back as a lower life form..."

Randy

For Hindus, it's your karma which determines what you're reincarnated as, not the gods per se. Karma is closer to a natural law than the judgement of the gods (e.g. if you walk off the edge of a cliff, you fall because of gravity, not because God is angry at you).

[JoeR]

But then if you believe in the Christian god, and it turns out that it was actually done by some Hindu gods, wouldn't they get pretty pissed off at you?

Hindu's believe that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain, so probably not.

[Art of War]

As I was taught matter was created by energy moving at the speed of light,slowing down and collecting against itself creating matter,after the big bang

Matter and energy for all intesive purposes are one in the same. Nethier can be created nor destroyed just converted into different forms.

[burntgorilla]

Hindu's believe that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain, so probably not.


I like that idea.

[sub_zer0]

I like that idea.

Of course you do. That idea is new age man, killer! lol

[Dangerrmouse]

Of course you do. That idea is new age man, killer! lol

3,000 years old is "new age"?

[neo of the mind]

No it's new because people with traditionally a western religious background are looking to eastern spirituality like it's something "new".

[Dangerrmouse]

The idea remains 3,000 years old, while the Beatles, among others, were not the first to seek enlightenment in the east in the 1960's, so that is not new either....

[neo of the mind]

The idea remains 3,000 years old, while the Beatles, among others, were not the first to seek enlightenment in the east in the 1960's, so that is not new either....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

I think this answers it quite well and coresponds to subs comment.

[Dangerrmouse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

I think this answers it quite well and coresponds to subs comment.

Wrong on both counts, try again.

[sub_zer0]

Wrong on both counts, try again.

JoeR states:
Hindu's believe that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain, so probably not.

burntgorilla states:
I like that idea.

Now, neo posted a perfect definition of the term New Age in its applicability to the ideal of, "different paths up the same mountain," Dangerrmouse.

Wikipedia:
Rather than following the lead of an organised religion, "New Agers" typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of the worlds religions, also including shamanism, neopaganism and occultism.

This perfectly summarizes my point. So you are wrong Dangerrmouse.

[Dangerrmouse]

On the contrary, your response to BG's comment was

Of course you do. That idea is new age man, killer! lol

I pointed out that the idea is, and remains 3,000 years old.

Your diversion into the selective definition of "New Age" merely illustrates that you omit the scientific psychological and ecological factors normally associated with it, so it is not germane to the point at issue.

Still wrong on both counts, one more try!

[sub_zer0]

On the contrary, your response to BG's comment was

I pointed out that the idea is, and remains 3,000 years old.

And I state that idea is called New Age today.

[burntgorilla]

And all that is completely irrelevant, because I don't like it because it's New Age or whatever, so, once again, I have no idea what sub is trying to say. I just think it's a good idea because it discourages divisiveness between religions.

[JoeR]

Sub is trying to discount the idea by associating it with new age movements because those movements are often perceived as strange, wishy washy, made up of drugged up hippies and beacuse a "new" idea presumably can't carry as much weight as an ancient idea when it comes to religions.

So in short, a logical fallacy of guilt by association.