Darwin's theory

Pherekydes · 25-10-2014 12:03pm

floggg wrote: »

For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence.

Pretty reasonable position, no?

Ridiculous! We saw Sauron at the start and then that big eye thingy...

More evidence than for JC's god anyway...

floggg · 25-10-2014 12:05pm

Since J C loves math games so much, can any number crunchers come up with a rough analysis if whether it would be possible to go from Noah's family to today's population (bearing in mind stuff like infant and maternal mortality rates, lack of medical care, etc.

According to this website, the flood supposedly happened 4000 years ago - http://creation.mobi/the-date-of-noahs-flood

Is 4000 years enough to go from five or six people to 7 billion?

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 12:17pm

SW wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense other that as a personal preference for chosen deity. Just saying "I think it's more likely that one, rather than multiple, entity created the universe and humanity".

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.

SW wrote: »

And that's before you get past why it makes more sense for their to be a god rather than not.

I would disagree. I don't think it's rational to accept the existence of reality creating deity, when we have no evidence to support it. People can believe what they want but that doesn't mean that it's rational.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

FYP.

Whats your rational or logical reason there is a god, other then a faith based reason?

The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 12:19pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him so it's much simpler to believe in just one god.

The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA

Edit: To clarify a bit, there is literally no point whatsoever using a logical argument against 'You can't have something from nothing, except when it fits my argument'.

Dan_Solo · 25-10-2014 12:30pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The belief in god doesn't require evidence

Speak for yourself mate.

housetypeb · 25-10-2014 12:38pm

One could say that belief in gods evolved,our early ancestors conjured up gods to explain things they didn't understand,like thunder etc.
Over time they invested all the powers from many local gods into one supreme god, doesn't make it true though.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 12:55pm

housetypeb wrote: »

One could say that belief in gods evolved,our early ancestors conjured up gods to explain things they didn't understand,like thunder etc.
Over time they invested all the powers from many local gods into one supreme god, doesn't make it true though.

This is called a genetic fallacy which is an illogical argument against an idea based on the origin of the idea, our early ancestors believed in god to explain what they couldn't understand and overtime they came to believe in one god (origin) hence it's not true (conclusion) I wrote a post earlier on how a believe in god is a rational belief and that there are really no good reason as to why he doesn't exist which I invite you to read if your looking to have a beneficial discussion that we both might benefit from.

Ignoring all these trolls at the bottom that cant think of writing a logical articulated response to the points at hand and resort to writing comments such as these instead:

floggg wrote: »

For the same reason I don't believe in Sauron - ni matter how well written the book is, there is zero credible objectively verifiable evidence in support of his existence.

Pretty reasonable position, no?

floggg wrote: »

Lol.

From a rational and logical point of view, a pantheon of gods is just as likely as there being one single God.

In fact, a pantheon of gods would at least explain the inconsistency between all the actions, events and emotions attributed to deities.

There is little logic in a loving forgiving God who drowns the entire human population in a flood, save for one family who must inbreed to repopulate the earth.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA

Edit: To clarify a bit, there is literally no point whatsoever using a logical argument against 'You can't have something from nothing, except when it fits my argument'.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Speak for yourself mate.

Bipolar Joe · 25-10-2014 12:59pm

I genuinely do like to have conversations about this stuff, but when your argument is "X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!" I know you're not the droid I'm looking for. The idea that one God is more logical than more than one because more than one would mean he needed help is also a leap in logic. I have more pairs of pants than one. That does not mean my pants need help.

We call that one a "Strawman." It got popular there recently.

catallus · 25-10-2014 1:05pm

That the wisdom that comes to us through the awful grace of God is rejected by so many who are blinded by the splendour of his creation is ironic.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 1:06pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This is called a genetic fallacy which is an illogical argument against an idea based on the origin of the idea, our early ancestors believed in god to explain what they couldn't understand and overtime they came to believe in one god (origin) hence it's not true (conclusion) I wrote a post earlier on how a believe in god is a rational belief and that there are really no good reason as to why he doesn't exist which I invite you to read if your looking to have a beneficial discussion that we both might benefit from.

Ignoring all these trolls at the bottom that cant think of writing a logical articulated response to the points at hand and resort to writing comments such as these instead:

We're not making a logical argument because you aren't either. Your entire argument falls apart logically when you make claims like 'nothing comes from nothing except when I say it does'. To accuse others of using fallacious arguments when your premise is based on a fallacy is ridiculous.

Just because you think your post is a meaningful and rational argument doesn't mean that it is. You're asking people to provide evidence for their claims, while stating that your own don't need evidence. There's no way to argue against that. I assume if someone does give evidence you'll just move the goalposts anyway.

There are no really good reasons to say any gods don't exist, based on your logic at least. Why do you accept this particular one. Why not Odin? Or Ra?

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 1:11pm

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I genuinely do like to have conversations about this stuff, but when your argument is "X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!" I know you're not the droid I'm looking for. The idea that one God is more logical than more than one because more than one would mean he needed help is also a leap in logic. I have more pairs of pants than one. That does not mean my pants need help.

We call that one a "Strawman." It got popular there recently.

ah I think you missed when I said
"Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.

Can you also explain to me what do you mean by saying:
""X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!"
Since i cant understand how what I wrote below correspond with such an argument.
"the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I also want to make it clear that am not looking for a debate or an argument but rather a discussion to see whether the belief in a god is rational or not, since the psychology of a debate is like a sports competition, and no one likes to lose. So even if you make a good point, the other person isn't going to congratulate you. They are thinking about revenge.

Delirium · 25-10-2014 1:17pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

ah I think you missed when I said
"Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.
.

That's the definition of the Christian god, not a god, so that's not an argument against multiple gods.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 1:17pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

We're not making a logical argument because you aren't either. Your entire argument falls apart logically when you make claims like 'nothing comes from nothing except when I say it does'. To accuse others of using fallacious arguments when your premise is based on a fallacy is ridiculous.

I stopped reading here since you clearly demonstrated your short attention span and inability to read with understanding since I clearly said
" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."
Read again and tell me where did i say that?

Squeedily Spooch · 25-10-2014 1:26pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.

The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

You're saying it's irrational to believe something can come from nothing, yet it's totally logical a god can just magic themselves into existence, aka come from nothing. Right.

It might make more sense to YOU that there's one all powerful creator of everything (who doesn't know when fig trees are in season), to me that makes less sense than the idea we just happened through a right place right time scenario. Is that so terrfying, that we're here by beautiful chance and not on purpose? There's a humility to that, I don't think the world was created for me nor do I think or hope there's an eternity of forced worship awaiting me after I kick the bucket, that is utterly petrifiying to me.

If you're happy to spend eternity in an abusive relationship you can't escape, more power to you, I'll take blissful unawareness.

Grayson · 25-10-2014 1:31pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.

The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

The first reason is referred to as the cosmological argument. It's most common form is the one supplied by Thomas Aquinas. It's basic premise is that each effect can be related to a previous cause. And that cause has a previous cause etc and we can regress back to the original cause. Aquinas referred to God as the Unmoved Mover. That which created the universe but was not created himself.
There's two problems with this. lets first of all say that we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from? the logic which supports this argument says that something can't come from nothing, there has to be an ultimate cause. God solves that, but then using the same logic we have to ask where did god come from? Religious people can't supply an answer there. they use logic to get to that point and then abandon it.

The second problem is that there can be an infinite regress. mathematically it's been proven that an infinite regress can exist. That means there doesn't have to be what Aristotle would refer to as an efficient cause.

Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.

This is the maddest bit.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

yep. God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.

But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong. It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.

BTW, there have been plenty of bad people who have been very successful throughout history.

I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that i may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)

Bipolar Joe · 25-10-2014 1:44pm

Two or more Gods doesn't mean one of them needed help. Maybe the other ones sat around watching Grey's Anatomy or something, while one of them did all the work.

You said:

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

You set up an argument, that you can't get something from nothing, then you destroy your own argument by saying that no one created God. If no one created God, he came from nothing. So, if that's your logic, then I'd rather talk with someone who can at least have their own arguments make sense and remain consistent within the same paragraph. You don't seem to be able to do that, because either you didn't think it through or you're trolling.

Chunners · 25-10-2014 2:02pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.

Grayson · 25-10-2014 2:05pm

Chunners wrote: »

Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.

There is so much wrong with that.

You say that our universe is expanding into "Space" that exists outside it and then say that it's true nothingness. Which one is it?

Recondite49 · 25-10-2014 2:08pm

Grayson wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that.

You say that our universe is expanding into "Space" that exists outside it and then say that it's true nothingness. Which one is it?

It would seem the nothingness itself is expanding. I have always thought of it in terms of a rubber band being stretched, though perhaps it's a poor analogy. Still as a religious person don't forget that the argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy i.e just because YOU don't understand how fully how a Universe filled with mostly nothingness can expand, doesn't mean axiomatically that it must have been created by God.

As counter intuitive as this may sound if certain Theocratic parties had their way we wouldn't even be allowed to speculate on the origins of the Universe beyond what's written in scriptural dogma.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:09pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I stopped reading here since you clearly demonstrated your short attention span and inability to read with understanding since I clearly said
" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."
Read again and tell me where did i say that?

I'm assuming you're taking the piss at this point but just in case; you literally say it right there. You say god came from nothing right after saying nothing can come from nothing. It's taking moving the goalposts to a whole new level. 'Your thing can't come from nothing, but my thing can. If you want to discuss this on a serious level you're going to have to do so on a level playing field with stationary goalposts, and stop throwing a huff and refusing to read posts every time someone points out a gaping hole in your argument.

Can we have J C back instead? At least he was capable of articulating his nonsense in a somewhat coherent manner.

Brian Shanahan · 25-10-2014 2:19pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And why don't you believe in a God? can you give me a good reason why?

I don't beleive because of the two best reasons possible:

1) There is not one shred of evidence for the existence of any being which could possibly be designated god.
2) There is conclusive evidence that all the beings designated by humans as gods are imaginary.

Until this changes the most logical position a person can take on the existence of gods is to assume they don't exist, because given our current knowledge of the universe that is by far the most likely answer.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:23pm

Grayson wrote: »

we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from?

Asking such question doesn't make sense as it's like asking "what is the cause of the first cause", the logic it self can get you all the way to god but once you try to go past god the premises of the argument falls apart as you have reached the uncreated creator asking who created something that's uncreated does not make any rational sense.

Grayson wrote: »

Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.

Denying the existence of Moses means that your telling the Jews they have been an imaginary ghost for the past millennia, Moses lived more then 3000 years ago it's very difficult to trace the origin of a single man to prove whether he existed or no after such a long period but the legacy and the religion attributed to him proves that long ago a man by the name of Moses existed.

Grayson wrote: »

But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.

I find it difficult to believe that someone like Jesus who is celebrated to this day and age had a mental disorder otherwise the people of his time would of noticed this and he would not have gained the status he have today.

Grayson wrote: »

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
yep. God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.

I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.

Grayson wrote: »

I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that I may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)

Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence?
Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.

However you can see that as an atheist you really have no good reason not to believe in a good other then trying to exercise your person choice and freedom not to believe in one.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:26pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

However you can see that as an atheist you really have no good reason not to believe in a good other then trying to exercise your person choice and freedom not to believe in one.

I certainly can't see that based on the facts you've presented. Care to elaborate?

Brian Shanahan · 25-10-2014 2:29pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it:
3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events.

And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 2:29pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can we have J C back instead? At least he was capable of articulating his nonsense in a somewhat coherent manner.

He was ?

He might have been claiming to articulate a reasoned debate, but abandons the pretence when reason breaks down for him and regresses to undebatable empty religious rhetoric.

J C wrote: »

God is outside of man-made religions ... He will give each person (of all religions and none) the choice of being Saved or not ... of choosing eternal spiritual life or not.

J C wrote: »

The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.

Chunners · 25-10-2014 2:30pm

Grayson wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that.

You say that our universe is expanding into "Space" that exists outside it and then say that it's true nothingness. Which one is it?

No I said it was true nothingness, now that our universe exists within it it is no longer nothingness but is still, but for our universe, empty enough that we can expand into it

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:30pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it:
3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events.

And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.

An intellectually honest creationist. Heh. Good one.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:31pm

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

He was ?

He might have been claiming to articulate a reasoned debate, but abandons the pretence when reason breaks down for him and regresses to undebatable empty religious rhetoric.

Well, he mostly used decent English, which is a significant step up from the current drivel :pac:

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:32pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm assuming you're taking the piss at this point but just in case; you literally say it right there. You say god came from nothing right after saying nothing can come from nothing. It's taking moving the goalposts to a whole new level. 'Your thing can't come from nothing, but my thing can. If you want to discuss this on a serious level you're going to have to do so on a level playing field with stationary goalposts, and stop throwing a huff and refusing to read posts every time someone points out a gaping hole in your argument.

Can we have J C back instead? At least he was capable of articulating his nonsense in a somewhat coherent manner.

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

Brian Shanahan · 25-10-2014 2:33pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it:
3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events.

And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.

One thing I forgot, no matter how likely my third option is, the fact that it exists and is a plausible explanation for the qu'ran is a complete and emphatic destruction of the argument you posit in the post I responded to. The fact that there are other valid alternative explanations that you are either unwilling or unable to consider is enough to invalidate your argument, simply because you are arguing without full possession of the facts, or plausibilities.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:35pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

FFS. 'Because God' is not an explanation. If you are stating that nothing can come from nothing then logically that must include God. Unless you're stating that God isn't a thing, in which case you've proven, using your own logic, that he doesn't exist.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:37pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it:
3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events.

And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.

The only thing I cited from Mohammed life was an authentic battle recorded in history which have happened before so option 3 is a good demonstration of your ignorance take the time to search before you replay my friend

Delirium · 25-10-2014 2:39pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

that's some wonderful circular logic: "God is the uncreated creator of everything and asking what is the cause of the first cause is flawed because it's God".

I would say it's flawed thinking not to question what created God or why does it have to be God as the explanation for everything. If someone isn't religious, it makes no sense to just accept the biblical account for the origin of reality.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:42pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

FFS. 'Because God' is not an explanation. If you are stating that nothing can come from nothing then logically that must include God. Unless you're stating that God isn't a thing, in which case you've proven, using your own logic, that he doesn't exist.

I answered you already about how this would be illogical and unless you can come up with a counter argument to the one I said below you wont be making any sense
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

Uncle Ruckus · 25-10-2014 2:46pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it.

" the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic

I'm sorry but that's a joke of an argument. You justify the need for a deity by claiming a deity is necessary as a first cause to explain the existence of the Universe. By that logic a deity needs a first cause. If a deity can come from nothing, as you claim, then by your logic the same can apply to the Universe.
Moreover, going by your username I'm assuming the deity you believe to have created the Universe is the Judeo-Christian Deity-Yaweh/Jehovah, which makes your claim even more absurd.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:48pm

SW wrote: »

that's some wonderful circular logic: "God is the uncreated creator of everything and asking what is the cause of the first cause is flawed because it's God".

I would say it's flawed thinking not to question what created God or why does it have to be God as the explanation for everything. If someone isn't religious, it makes no sense to just accept the biblical account for the origin of reality.

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 2:50pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

i.e.

Proof that God exists :

God exists.
Therefore God exists.
QED.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:50pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

I think statements like this are proof we definitely weren't designed by anything intelligent.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:51pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I answered you already about how this would be illogical and unless you can come up with a counter argument to the one I said below you wont be making any sense
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"

Yet you also say nothing can come from nothing. Your claims are completely contradictory.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:53pm

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's a joke of an argument. You justify the need for a deity by claiming a deity is necessary as a first cause to explain the existence of the Universe. By that logic a deity needs a first cause. If a deity can come from nothing, as you claim, then by your logic the same can apply to the Universe.

You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

Moreover, going by your username I'm assuming the deity you believe to have created the Universe is the Judeo-Christian Deity-Yaweh/Jehovah, which makes your claim even more absurd.

Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?

Delirium · 25-10-2014 2:54pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

and that's why it's circular reasoning.

It does nothing to prove or support your claim. You could easily say all the Greek/Roman/Indian etc. gods exist because the first gods had no creator.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 2:55pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yet you also say nothing can come from nothing. Your claims are completely contradictory.

Or if a God can come from nothing. Then the universe can come from nothing.
Creationists cant have it both ways - which is what they need to justify their belief. But the above leaves them with an intractable problem. So they leave reason behind and get caught in an infinite illogical loop of their own making.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 2:56pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think statements like this are proof we definitely weren't designed by anything intelligent.

Your statement if anything shows your defeat and inability to point out the flaw in my statement because there's no flaw in it however you are either
a) to thick headed to understand
b) you lived your life as an atheist and want to die this way and hence don't want anything or anyone to change your mind no matter how clear the evidence or the proof is

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 2:56pm

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Or if a God can come from nothing. Then the universe can come from nothing.
Creationists cant have it both ways - which is what they need to justify their belief. But the above leaves them with an intractable problem. So they leave reason behind and get caught in an infinite illogical loop of their own making.

Yes, exactly. You can't impose a rule on one theory and exclude another from it.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 3:00pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your statement if anything shows your defeat and inability to point out the flaw in my statement because there's no flaw in it however you are either
a) to thick headed to understand
b) you lived your life as an atheist and want to die this way and hence don't want anything or anyone to change your mind no matter how clear the evidence or the proof is

I'm noticing a trend with the creationists in this thread: they ask people to point out flaws in their logic, then when people inevitably do, they just pretend it never happened. Sound arguing tactic.

a) I think that's pretty rich coming from the person whose entire argument is 'god because god'.

b) Not at all, look through my posts in this thread. I was born a Catholic and would believe there was a God if the evidence was there. It isn't though, no matter how much you want it to be.

Edit: I'm also not against people following whatever faith they like. Just don't go around trying to convince people it's a more logical conclusion than proven science and expect to be taken even remotely seriously.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 3:01pm

SW wrote: »

and that's why it's circular reasoning.

It does nothing to prove or support your claim. You could easily say all the Greek/Roman/Indian etc. gods exist because the first gods had no creator.

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Doctor Jimbob · 25-10-2014 3:04pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Even assuming that does logically qualify as proof (spoiler alert:

it doesn't

), there still isn't a shred of evidence that said creator is the one supported by your particular branch of mythology.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 3:04pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm noticing a trend with the creationists in this thread: they ask people to point out flaws in their logic, then when people inevitably do, they just pretend it never happened. Sound arguing tactic.

a) I think that's pretty rich coming from the person whose entire argument is 'god because god'.

b) Not at all, look through my posts in this thread. I was born a Catholic and would believe there was a God if the evidence was there. It isn't though, no matter how much you want it to be.

You never did point out a single flaw in my logic instead you kept going in circles about how if everything had a cause then what created god and I have said that God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?

housetypeb · 25-10-2014 3:05pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Lets take a look at the definition of a god
"the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".

I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?

Where did you get the idea that he's "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."?

Uncle Ruckus · 25-10-2014 3:05pm

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?

I'm not sure you have a comprehensive grasp of logic. You are arbitrarily assigning traits to your deity without any regard for logical consistency. Believing in an impersonal deity without evidence is absurd. Believing in a personal and specific deity who takes an active interest in this pale blue dot is anthropomorphising an already poor explanation for the existence to the Universe. In addition, when one considers the vast amount of deities which humanity has believed in over the aeons claiming a specific deity as an explanation for the Universe makes your claim even more statistically absurd.

Darwin's theory

Comments