Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
is it not a bit narrow minded to be looking for irrefutable evidence?
You will have to take that up with someone who has asked you for some. But my own answer would be contextual. The level of evidence should scale with the context and the subject being discussed.
However you will note I have never asked for any such thing myself. What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
You simply have even attempted to move to offer any.
For me "evidence" is not a thing, but a process. And a simple one at that. It goes as follows:
1) State clearly what you are claiming.
2) List clearly the things you think support the claim in 1)
3) Explain exactly and clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim in 1.
So for example in one of your posts when you replied to the question "Where is the evidence" and the reply was simply "Everywhere".... this reply dodges BOTH step 1 and 3 in the process I adumbrate above. And it barely does 2 at all.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You will have to take that up with someone who has asked you for some. But my own answer would be contextual. The level of evidence should scale with the context and the subject being discussed.
However you will note I have never asked for any such thing myself. What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
You simply have even attempted to move to offer any.
On the contrary, Festus has offered up a few things, which stands in stark contrast to his claim that he won't or can't. That those things he's offered in support of his argument don't withstand scrutiny (I'm kicking myself for missing the fact that his science20 article doesn't list the study it's talking about) doesn't then mean he hasn't tried.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You will have to take that up with someone who has asked you for some. But my own answer would be contextual. The level of evidence should scale with the context and the subject being discussed.
However you will note I have never asked for any such thing myself. What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
You simply have even attempted to move to offer any.
For me "evidence" is not a thing, but a process. And a simple one at that. It goes as follows:
1) State clearly what you are claiming.
2) List clearly the things you think support the claim in 1)
3) Explain exactly and clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim in 1.
So for example in one of your posts when you replied to the question "Where is the evidence" and the reply was simply "Everywhere".... this reply dodges BOTH step 1 and 3 in the process I adumbrate above. And it barely does 2 at all.
1) God exists
2) our existence, the universe and life itself.
3) Balance of probablility and the known laws of the universe suggests that chance is not a factor. All experiments designed to show the opposite require and rely on the interference of humans.
If someone can show me a money who can write Shakespeare's complete works I'll review number 3. But I will also have to factor in the fact that someone created a typewriter for the monkey, and that Shakespeare's works are actually complete.0 -
1) God exists
2) our existence, the universe and life itself.
3) Balance of probablility and the known laws of the universe suggests that chance is not a factor. All experiments designed to show the opposite require and rely on the interference of humans.
If someone can show me a money who can write Shakespeare's complete works I'll review number 3. But I will also have to factor in the fact that someone created a typewriter for the monkey, and that Shakespeare's works are actually complete.
2) is false, since our existence, the universe and life itself are all things that are within space-time (well, the universe actually IS space-time, if we're going to be precise here). You've stated earlier that your god is "outside time", so you can't use space-time as evidence for something that is beyond it. It'd be like saying "Here's a sandbox full of sand, it's evidence of there being a white 22-story apartment complex 350 yards away to the east".
1) is not true or false, since you don't define what you mean by the word God. So we don't know even what the hell it is you're positing.
3) you talk about chance...when to the best of my recollection, none of the rest of us here debating you have brought up chance as a counter for your claim.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »On the contrary, Festus has offered up a few things, which stands in stark contrast to his claim that he won't or can't. That those things he's offered in support of his argument don't withstand scrutiny (I'm kicking myself for missing the fact that his science20 article doesn't list the study it's talking about) doesn't then mean he hasn't tried.
Free will allows me to change my mind. Did you even look up the scientists or the articles to verify that they exist and science20 didn't just make it up?
Or is the lack of evidence of sources in the article sufficient for you to dismiss it out of hand as you dismiss everything else.
Do your own research and stop expecting everything to be handed to you on a plate.
Do atheists actually exist? Probably or possible not. I even found evidence that the Richard Dawkins probably does not exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b3EP4pB_3E0 -
Advertisement
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »doesn't then mean he hasn't tried.
I have seen nothing. By all means point out to me anything you feel I have missed, or restate it in your own words.1) God exists
See that is not really "clear" for a start given the vagaries of the definitions people have for this word. Are we agreeing my definition is the one we are working with here? "An intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe"?2) our existence, the universe and life itself.
For me this is not evidence for 1, but a restatement of 1. That is to say we find ourselves in this universe and we do not know why. ONE of the explanations is "god". But since "god" is the explanation of the question, you can not then use the question as evidence for the explanation.
Otherwise this is a bit like answering "What evidence have you the accused murdered the victim" with "The victim was murdered".Balance of probablility and the known laws of the universe suggests that chance is not a factor.
Then you need to do a LOT more here by showing your workings of the probabilities. You can not simply assert probability is on your side and act like that holds water. You have to actually show your workings and how you reached this conclusion.
Otherwise you are offering assertion as evidence. And assertion is not evidence. At all. Even a little bit.
However even then you are on weak ground because simple establishing something is unlikely, does not mean it did not happen. Establishing something is likely, does not mean it did.
The issue for establishing your probability however, and why I would not buy your argument at this time, is you simply do not have enough details to do it. We simply do not have a working explanation for the universe at this point, so you can not offer a probability as to it happening. As such, I suspect you are simply making it up.
Take the probability of drawing an Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards for example. You simply could not work out the probability of this without knowing BOTH how many cards are in the deck AND how many of them are the Ace of spades.
Yet relative to this our ignorance about the universe is vast, yet you presume to tell me what the probabilities are???0 -
Free will allows me to change my mind. Did you even look up the scientists or the articles to verify that they exist and science20 didn't just make it up?
Or is the lack of evidence of sources in the article sufficient for you to dismiss it out of hand as you dismiss everything else.
Yes, if someone is making an extraordinary claim, and offers NO evidence, then I will dismiss it. I only have a finite amount of time to live my life. I shouldn't have to go to great lengths to find evidence against claims in order for me to not believe something. If you're going to ask why I'm still here...simple, I find the topic fascinating and like it when I'm proven wrong. So far, on this topic, I haven't been.
So then you're admitting that the article you cited has no evidence or sources. If so...why believe it? It makes the claim of "There are no atheists", but doesn't back it up with evidence and here you are confirming it. Why do you believe it?
He's offered the science20 article he linked to earlier, the one talking about how there are no atheists. It's bad evidence since it doesn't withstand scrutiny, but he did offer something.nozzferrahhtoo wrote:I have seen nothing. By all means point out to me anything you feel I have missed, or restate it in your own words.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »See that is not really "clear" for a start given the vagaries of the definitions people have for this word. Are we agreeing my definition is the one we are working with here? "An intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe"?
This is the Christianity forum. I'll leave you to figure out the rest.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »For me this is not evidence for 1, but a restatement of 1. That is to say we find ourselves in this universe and we do not know why. ONE of the explanations is "god". But since "god" is the explanation of the question, you can not then use the question as evidence for the explanation.
Otherwise this is a bit like answering "What evidence have you the accused murdered the victim" with "The victim was murdered".
I cannot see how it is a restatement of 1) I was asked to present my evidence and my thinking. I have done so.
I'll try to make it simpler. God exists. Why do we question this? We question this because we are capable of forming the question. Can we find the answer? Yes, by asking the right questions, and not being dismissive of any or all the possible answers.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then you need to do a LOT more here by showing your workings of the probabilities. You can not simply assert probability is on your side and act like that holds water. You have to actually show your workings and how you reached this conclusion.
No I don't. The probabilities are in the research papers. I don't have to convince you. You have to convince yourself and if you won't do the research yourself I won't do it for you. The numbers stack up for me.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Otherwise you are offering assertion as evidence. And assertion is not evidence. At all. Even a little bit.
is that any different to the atheistic presentation?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »However even then you are on weak ground because simple establishing something is unlikely, does not mean it did not happen. Establishing something is likely, does not mean it did.
Is that not why it is called faith?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The issue for establishing your probability however, and why I would not buy your argument at this time, is you simply do not have enough details to do it. We simply do not have a working explanation for the universe at this point, so you can not offer a probability as to it happening. As such, I suspect you are simply making it up.
please yourself. When I see a scientist reproduce a universe somewhere or reproduce life somewhere in the manner in which they suppose it happened with no outside intervention I will review further.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Take the probability of drawing an Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards for example. You simply could not work out the probability of this without knowing BOTH how many cards are in the deck AND how many of them are the Ace of spades.
Yet relative to this our ignorance about the universe is vast, yet you presume to tell me what the probabilities are???
I didn't tell you what the probabilities are so no presumption on my part.
Toss a coin 50 times. What is the probability that you will get heads 50 times in a row?
How long is a genome sequence? Recompute the coin toss experiment with the equivalent number of coins.
put a monkey in a room with a typewriter. What is the probability that he will eventually type out Shakespear's complete works?
Put increasing numbers of monkeys and typewriters in the room and recompute.
You don't need the actually numbers if you understand probability unless you are actually designing the experiment to conduct it.
Did Schrodinger use a real cat and a real radioactive source? If he didn't why should we believe anything he said on the matter?0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »He's offered the science20 article he linked to earlier, the one talking about how there are no atheists. It's bad evidence since it doesn't withstand scrutiny, but he did offer something.
probably no atheists. If you are going to continue to misrepresent what is in the article I will continue to dismiss everything you post.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »the one talking about how there are no atheists. It's bad evidence since it doesn't withstand scrutiny, but he did offer something.
An argument that atheists do not exist is not an argument for the existence of a god. When I said he did not offer anything.... I mean specific to the question there is a god.
Fatuous nonsense about atheists not existing is as irrelevant as it is nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is the Christianity forum. I'll leave you to figure out the rest.
Empty answer. I asked you a straight forward, direct, and polite question. This is the level of response I get in return. Have some decorum please.
Not to mention the fact that there is great diversity in how people on this forum would define "god" so your answer is as useless as it is deflective and empty.
It was a simple yes-no question. Does my definition fit what you are claiming, or not. Have the decorum to answer maturely please.I cannot see how it is a restatement of 1)
That is odd given I just explained exactly how and why it is. I am happy to repeat myself. AGAIN: The fact is we exist in the universe and we are alive. The fact is we want to discuss as a species why this is. The fact is that "god" is one of those explanations.
Therefore using Life and the Universe as evidence for god is begging the question. It is not answering the question or evidencing your answer for it. The Universe and Life is the question to which "god" is the purported answer in your view. Therefore the Universe and Life are not themselves evidence for that answer. The question is not evidence for the answer to the question.God exists. Why do we question this?
I question it because you have not substantiated it in ANY way. You have merely asserted it as fact. Assertion does not a fact make.No I don't.
Except yes, yes you do. You can not simply invent fantasy probabilities to support what you claim. If you are going to claim something is improbably then it is very much incumbent upon you to show the workings for this and how you came to that conclusion.The probabilities are in the research papers.
You made no such citation in your post anywhere.if you won't do the research yourself I won't do it for you. The numbers stack up for me.
Then cite them. No one falls for the "Go find my evidence for yourself" canard any more that I know of.is that any different to the atheistic presentation?
You will have to take it up with whoever it is you think you are talking about. All I have said so far is that your claim is unsubstantiated. And it is. That is MY presentation. If you want to talk about anyone elses presentation, have at them. Leave me out of it.Is that not why it is called faith?
No idea what faith has to do with it. You made a specific claim about probability. I am merely pointing out you have not established the assertion about probability you have made, nor shown why it is relevant given that even if you did establish something to be unlikely, or likely, that does not mean it did or did not happen that way. You still have to do the substantiation work you have thus far failed at.please yourself. When I see a scientist reproduce a universe somewhere or reproduce life somewhere in the manner in which they suppose it happened with no outside intervention I will review further.
More of your deflection. I am asking if you can substantiate YOUR claim on THIS thread and you deflect to making comments about OTHER peoples claims ELSEWHERE.I didn't tell you what the probabilities are so no presumption on my part.
That is the problem. You did not tell us the actual probabilities. You simply declared, based on nothing and no citation, what they imply. Which is exactlz the issue I am highlighting so it is nice of you to admit it here.
You are making implications based on the "probabilities" without referencing or citing ANY of them.Toss a coin 50 times. What is the probability that you will get heads 50 times in a row?
Low, but it happens in a statistically large set. That is the issue with discussing "probabilities" in large set contexts like our universe. The multipliers are large. In the same way that it is a LOW probability you will with the lotto in 2015 but there is a statistically much higher probability, to the point of near certainty, that SOMEONE will.How long is a genome sequence? Recompute the coin toss experiment with the equivalent number of coins.
Misleading false analogy from you there which might be convincing or influential on someone who has not been trained in Evolutionary Biology or Statistics. Alas I have been trained in both. And comparing the genome to coin tosses on any level is a misleading misrepresentation of reality of an egregious degree.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Fatuous nonsense about atheists not existing is as irrelevant as it is nonsense.
I read science20 and New Scientist every week primarily for the "fatuous nonsense" it contains. Every article and every weekly periodical reinforces my belief in God as much as the sacraments, prayer and daily observation of the world and the cosmos do.
There is a chance I might be meeting the editor of New Scientist later this week. If that comes off are you ok for me to quote you?
Perhaps you can point me towards science sources that contain less fatuous nonesense. I need to broaden my source list.0 -
I read science20 and New Scientist every week primarily for the "fatuous nonsense" it contains. Every article and every weekly periodical reinforces my belief in God as much as the sacraments, prayer and daily observation of the world and the cosmos do.
If you say so, but your consistent inability to lay out substantiation for such claims calls into question what you think you are reading in such articles, or how you think it supports such a position.If that comes off are you ok for me to quote you?
If you want to quote me saying that the assertion Atheists do not exist is fatuous nonsense then you are more than welcome to do so. You can even stick Gmail at the end of my username and give it to such a person who is then more than welcome to make arrangements, at their expense, to have me say it to their face too.Perhaps you can point me towards science sources that contain less fatuous nonesense. I need to broaden my source list.
Perhaps you can drop the crass implication that commenting that a single claim in a source is fatuous nonsense is a comment on the quality of the source as a whole.
But I would recommend reading actual peer reviewed science journals, as I do, rather than simply blogs with opinions. This, for example, is not exactly the height of scientific journalism. Replete with grammar errors and tongue in cheek nonsense. And I am not finding much in the way of references or citations on any articles on that site.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Empty answer. I asked you a straight forward, direct, and polite question. This is the level of response I get in return. Have some decorum please.
Not to mention the fact that there is great diversity in how people on this forum would define "god" so your answer is as useless as it is deflective and empty.
It was a simple yes-no question. Does my definition fit what you are claiming, or not. Have the decorum to answer maturely please.
It was an empty question that was done to death at the start of this thread. This is the Christianity forum so take it as read. Your flawed definition and other gods can be debated on A&A. Stop trying to introduce your own bias.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is odd given I just explained exactly how and why it is. I am happy to repeat myself. AGAIN: The fact is we exist in the universe and we are alive. The fact is we want to discuss as a species why this is. The fact is that "god" is one of those explanations.
Therefore using Life and the Universe as evidence for god is begging the question. It is not answering the question or evidencing your answer for it. The Universe and Life is the question to which "god" is the purported answer in your view. Therefore the Universe and Life are not themselves evidence for that answer. The question is not evidence for the answer to the question.
Perhaps I am too simple for you.
Perhaps you can present other reasons for the Big Bang and the origin of life.
I cannot deal with the italicized part as my answer is in 3 but you seem to be saying the answer is in 2 which is confusing my simple mind.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I question it because you have not substantiated it in ANY way. You have merely asserted it as fact. Assertion does not a fact make.
Are we limiting ourselves to facts and ignoring thought and reason?
Given human nature I would have thought that unreasonable.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except yes, yes you do. You can not simply invent fantasy probabilities to support what you claim. If you are going to claim something is improbably then it is very much incumbent upon you to show the workings for this and how you came to that conclusion.
Not enough time or space but I believe I presented reasonable examples via thought experiment elsewhere.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You made no such citation in your post anywhere.
Of course not - I don't do spoon feeding.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then cite them. No one falls for the "Go find my evidence for yourself" canard any more that I know of.
I'm not saying that I'm saying go find your own evidence. My evidence works for me. the only evidence that will work for you is your own.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You will have to take it up with whoever it is you think you are talking about. All I have said so far is that your claim is unsubstantiated. And it is. That is MY presentation. If you want to talk about anyone elses presentation, have at them. Leave me out of it.
What I am saying is the atheistic claim is equally unsubstantiated.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No idea what faith has to do with it. You made a specific claim about probability. I am merely pointing out you have not established the assertion about probability you have made, nor shown why it is relevant given that even if you did establish something to be unlikely, or likely, that does not mean it did or did not happen that way. You still have to do the substantiation work you have thus far failed at.
Faith has everything to do with it. Faith in God and faith in your arguments. Not to mention faith in the mathematical assumptions required for maths to work.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »More of your deflection. I am asking if you can substantiate YOUR claim on THIS thread and you deflect to making comments about OTHER peoples claims ELSEWHERE.
Of course it's deflection. Do you really think I want you to find God?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is the problem. You did not tell us the actual probabilities. You simply declared, based on nothing and no citation, what they imply. Which is exactlz the issue I am highlighting so it is nice of you to admit it here.
You are making implications based on the "probabilities" without referencing or citing ANY of them.
You're welcome
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Low, but it happens in a statistically large set. That is the issue with discussing "probabilities" in large set contexts like our universe. The multipliers are large. In the same way that it is a LOW probability you will with the lotto in 2015 but there is a statistically much higher probability, to the point of near certainty, that SOMEONE will.
And what is the probability that someone will create life from raw ingredients with minimal intervention?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Misleading false analogy from you there which might be convincing or influential on someone who has not been trained in Evolutionary Biology or Statistics. Alas I have been trained in both. And comparing the genome to coin tosses on any level is a misleading misrepresentation of reality of an egregious degree.
Possible but I have a similar training and it works for me.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »If you say so, but your consistent inability to lay out substantiation for such claims calls into question what you think you are reading in such articles, or how you think it supports such a position.
If you want to quote me saying that the assertion Atheists do not exist is fatuous nonsense then you are more than welcome to do so. You can even stick Gmail at the end of my username and give it to such a person who is then more than welcome to make arrangements, at their expense, to have me say it to their face too.
Perhaps you can drop the crass implication that commenting that a single claim in a source is fatuous nonsense is a comment on the quality of the source as a whole.
But I would recommend reading actual peer reviewed science journals, as I do, rather than simply blogs with opinions. This, for example, is not exactly the height of scientific journalism. Replete with grammar errors and tongue in cheek nonsense. And I am not finding much in the way of references or citations on any articles on that site.
The article does not say that atheists do not exist. This is an assertion made by another poster to score a cheap point.
The article says that atheists might not exist and gives a reasonable argument, admittedly from a journalistic bent.
Searching for related articles using a search engine does yield the existence of papers that support the contentions in the article.
Regardless of what you think describing sources of light entertainment such as science20 or New Scientist is insulting and demeaning to the journalists and editors of said publications.
of course we could dismiss these publications out of hand and thereby remove sources of science journalism for the next generation of scientists. That is probably a good thing, yes.0 -
It was an empty question that was done to death at the start of this thread.
It was an adult and polite and direct conversation to which you gave a fatuous response devoid of decorum. The simple fact is that there are so many definitions of "god" on this forum alone, let alone this thread, that it pays to be sure of the exact one the person you are talking to is operating under.
But you can not win with you people. When I do NOT clarify meticulously with someone I am conversing with what THEY mean by god they pull me up on this too. Damned if you do, damned if you do not, but clearly asking a simple, direct, clear and honest question is not going to get a similar response from someone like you. "Golden Rule" or not.This is the Christianity forum so take it as read.
You can take what you want as read. As I said I will not be so presumptuous given the diversity in views on the definition. Try it yourself sometime. Start a thread in this forum on exactly what you and your cohort think they mean by "god" and see if you get a nice happy slappy unanimous agreement thread, or will there be a diversity of opinion resulting in at least one argument.
Hint: There is exactly such a thread over on the City Data forum if you wish to preview the result you are likely to get.Your flawed definition and other gods can be debated on A&A.
More of your substance free commentary then? You simply assert it to be flawed without addressing it, rebutting it, commenting on it or correcting it.Stop trying to introduce your own bias.
Stop pretending I did things I did not. I have done no such thing. I merely attempted to ascertain a working definition of "god" so we would not be talking past each other. You dodged the attempt and are now pretending that I am the one with the problem, not you.Perhaps I am too simple for you. Perhaps you can present other reasons for the Big Bang and the origin of life.
Perhaps you are but no one is beyond help and I am happy to have a mature conversation on the topic and help you out if you wish to match that level of decorum as the Golden Rule the Christian Cohort espouses suggests you might.
This thread however is about the existence of god, so a discussion on OTHER explanations for the origin of life is off topic. Just more deflecting from you I fear.
We are evaluating "god" as the hypothesis and a discussion of other hypothesis therefore is just a dodge. Even if I had no such explanations to offer, that does not for one moment lend credence to yours. Offering someone elses LACK of explanation for X as evidence for YOUR explanation for X is a fallacious approach.I cannot deal with the italicized part as my answer is in 3 but you seem to be saying the answer is in 2 which is confusing my simple mind.
That is why I used a simple analogy. You would not present the fact the victim was murdered as evidence that the accused was the murderer. That is a re-statement of the problem as evidence for the answer. It does not work.
If "god" is the explanation you offer for the universe and life then simply citing "the universe and life" as substantiation for the explanation.Are we limiting ourselves to facts and ignoring thought and reason?
You might be but I am clearly not. Or at least it would be clear if you were actually reading anything I wrote. Perhaps I can restate my position AGAIN and you might read it this time:
What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
Does that paragraph not specifically mention reason??? Or did you simply not notice??Not enough time or space but I believe I presented reasonable examples via thought experiment elsewhere.
I am not elsewhere. I am here discussing it with you. If you want to bring an elsewhere into this then a link citation, or a quotation, would be a start. "Elsewhere" is of no workable use to me.
But you are just supporting assertion with assertion now. "Not enough time and space" meaning what? Not enough for what? How much is required? How did you calculate what was required (X) what was available (Y) and ascertain X > Y. Show your workings.Of course not - I don't do spoon feeding.
Substantiation of the claims you make is not "spoon feeding" and your attempt to paint it as such is just another in your dodge-MO approach to this conversation.I'm not saying that I'm saying go find your own evidence. My evidence works for me. the only evidence that will work for you is your own.
Except that IS what you are saying. You are refusing to offer evidence and saying I should go find it myself. You either can substantiate your claims, or you can not. Simple as that. Which is it?What I am saying is the atheistic claim is equally unsubstantiated.
There is nothing unsubstantiated about pointing out that the claim there is a god is currently a claim you are making without any supporting argument, evidence, data or reasoning.Faith has everything to do with it.
"Faith" is just the cop out you offer in place of substantiation. You are essentially just telling us "I believe it.... because I believe it".Of course it's deflection.
Some honesty from you at least.You're welcome
I offered no thanks, nor have I seen anything to offer any for. You are just being willfully facetious now.And what is the probability that someone will create life from raw ingredients with minimal intervention?
About the same as you being able to link the relevance of your question to the topic of the thread.Possible but I have a similar training and it works for me.
Would be nice if you demonstrated it. You know by doing things like citation, referencing, showing your workings, offering your evidence, and all the things that such scientific training and methodology entails.The article says that atheists might not exist and gives a reasonable argument, admittedly from a journalistic bent.
I see no such reasonable argument in the article. I see some playing with words in some linguistic acrobatics and little else.Searching for related articles using a search engine does yield the existence of papers that support the contentions in the article.
I noticed that which is why I was compelled to call the reliability of this source into question and look at other articles on the site, which turned out to be similarly nonsense and poor.
The author(s) of the site in your little link do appear to like using phrases like "Im not lying" and "that is not a joke". They also like phrases like "They point to studies" without referencing or citing any of them. In fact given the similarity between their posts and yours, for lack of arguments, evidence and citations, I find myself wondering if you are connected to that site in some way.Regardless of what you think describing sources of light entertainment such as science20 or New Scientist is insulting and demeaning to the journalists and editors of said publications.
My comment was about a claim made in that publication. I insulted no journalists. You appear to be another in the long line of people who misconstrue an attack on an idea or claim, as an attack on the person who holds/makes them. I respect people, not ideas. So you can pocket the attempt to fabricate a personal attack I never made.
As I said however, if you wish to inform such a person of my comments and my email address I am happy to discuss it with them. Even face to face, assuming it is at their expense.of course we could dismiss these publications out of hand
YOU can if you wish. I certainly have done no such thing nor suggested anyone else might.
What I do always suggest is you never treat ANY publication as a gospel and you engage in the scientific process of peer review and verification. I would also recommend broadening your reading material to actual scientific journals not pop-culture periodicals and blog opinion pieces.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It was an adult and polite and direct conversation to which you gave a fatuous response devoid of decorum. The simple fact is that there are so many definitions of "god" on this forum alone, let alone this thread, that it pays to be sure of the exact one the person you are talking to is operating under.
But you can not win with you people. When I do NOT clarify meticulously with someone I am conversing with what THEY mean by god they pull me up on this too. Damned if you do, damned if you do not, but clearly asking a simple, direct, clear and honest question is not going to get a similar response from someone like you. "Golden Rule" or not.
I know this is a "special" thread but when have I ever presented another God? Even in my most recent posts I have said there is God.
Trying to define God or suggest there are other gods is a tired and cliched atheist McGuffin that I have no interest in. There is God and that's it and He's the one I am concern with. If there is any confusion there is the forum charter.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You can take what you want as read. As I said I will not be so presumptuous given the diversity in views on the definition. Try it yourself sometime. Start a thread in this forum on exactly what you and your cohort think they mean by "god" and see if you get a nice happy slappy unanimous agreement thread, or will there be a diversity of opinion resulting in at least one argument.
Hint: There is exactly such a thread over on the City Data forum if you wish to preview the result you are likely to get.
What do you mean by "your cohort"? Should I be offended?
Been there, done that and I accept there are differences between the pre-denominational Christians and those who protest. Not interested in City Data. In this forum I can argue from a Christian perspective with the knowledge that the moderators respect Christianity.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
More of your substance free commentary then? You simply assert it to be flawed without addressing it, rebutting it, commenting on it or correcting it.
it would take too long.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Stop pretending I did things I did not. I have done no such thing. I merely attempted to ascertain a working definition of "god" so we would not be talking past each other. You dodged the attempt and are now pretending that I am the one with the problem, not you.
A) i'm not pretending and b) you attempted to use an old atheistic definition of a god that does not resemble God thereby introducing bias.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »This thread however is about the existence of god, so a discussion on OTHER explanations for the origin of life is off topic. Just more deflecting from you I fear.
How would it be off topic if there is a contention that God created the Universe and created Life. Granted it's a different point of attack but still points to the existence of God.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We are evaluating "god" as the hypothesis and a discussion of other hypothesis therefore is just a dodge. Even if I had no such explanations to offer, that does not for one moment lend credence to yours. Offering someone elses LACK of explanation for X as evidence for YOUR explanation for X is a fallacious approach.
I'm not looking for credence. But haven't you and others here been demanding material evidence to support the existence of an immaterial God?
Equally I could be asking for your evidence but in reality I know you haven't got any so I don't bother.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »That is why I used a simple analogy. You would not present the fact the victim was murdered as evidence that the accused was the murderer. That is a re-statement of the problem as evidence for the answer. It does not work.
If "god" is the explanation you offer for the universe and life then simply citing "the universe and life" as substantiation for the explanation.
Nah, you've lost me again. I think it's because the analogy is not like for like.
Also I'm having problems with this word "substantiation". I think it is something to do with the nature of material evidence.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You might be but I am clearly not. Or at least it would be clear if you were actually reading anything I wrote. Perhaps I can restate my position AGAIN and you might read it this time:
What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
Does that paragraph not specifically mention reason??? Or did you simply not notice??
it's a small screen.
Let me state my reason. In face of the odds required for life to arise spontaneously through unproven and unsustantiated abiogenesis it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of life had a cause. Given human nature and the scriptural record it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible has merit with the implication that God is the cause.
With due regard to the Big Bang it is reasonable to conclude it had a cause and given that the only entity that can exist before and outside of time is God it is reasonable to conclude that if the Big Bang had a cause and it is unreasonable to conclude it did not have a cause then that cause could reasonable be God.
Can we dispense with the rest?
Now, in case you haven't figured it out I am not interested in debating the existence of God. He exists. Any citations are useless. Besides, finding God is an exercise one must complete on ones own.
What I want to know, and it is the same question I have put to others here and gotten no answer, is this:
Why do you not want to find God?0 -
Festus, after reading the messages you have posted while I was gone, I have made a decision.
I am no longer debating with you. You have refused to substantiate your points, give evidence or do anything at all (beyond link to the science20 article) to justify your claims. All I see from you is you saying "I won't define my terms (what I think the word God means) because this is the christianity forum", completely ignoring the problem that christianity is NOT one single homogeneous religion: it has thousands of branches and denominations. What you, a catholic, think the word God means, could be completely different to what an eastern orthodox, a southern baptist, an evangelical etc think it means.
I also have to take into consideration this
This then shows to us all that you have no interest at all in actually convincing anyone of what it is you believe. You just want to stand on the virtual street corner, bellow what it is you believe and then just refuse to substantiate it. It also demonstrates what looks like extreme greed on your part - you've got your relationship with and evidence for your god, but like a toddler, you don't want to share this with anyone. Only once before have I seen such thinking: with the Westboro Baptist Church.Of course it's deflection. Do you really think I want you to find God?
I wash my hands of you. Unless you are going to take the time and effort to justify your claims, I don't want to talk to you again.
Good day.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you'll find that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is the definition of God. They may differ in details but unless they have left the christian creed behind like say JW's or Morons then this is not a point of disagreement. JW's and mormons are not orthodox christian and strictly speaking are not christian at all.RikuoAmero
completely ignoring the problem that christianity is NOT one single homogeneous religion: it has thousands of branches and denominations. What you, a catholic, think the word God means, could be completely different to what an eastern orthodox, a southern baptist, an evangelical etc think it means.0 -
I think you'll find that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is the definition of God. They may differ in details but unless they have left the christian creed behind like say JW's or Morons then this is not a point of disagreement. JW's and mormons are not orthodox christian and strictly speaking are not christian at all.
Not so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
There are branches of christianity which don't recognise Jesus to be divine. Also what you said about JW's and mormons smacks of No True Scotsman (or No True Christian) as I like to call it.0 -
I know this is a "special" thread but when have I ever presented another God?
Have I claimed you did? No. I merely claimed that when talking with a theist it is wise to establish that THAT theist means by god. Otherwise you risk talking past them or having a biased definition of "god". So I ALWAYS check that we are on the same page. And I do so directly, clearly and politely.
Your response to that was NOT direct, clear or polite. As I said damned if you do, damned if you do not with you people. When I do not establish what the other person means by "god" I get accused of bias and worse. When I DO do so I get the kind of whinging we see from you.Trying to define God or suggest there are other gods is a tired and cliched atheist McGuffin that I have no interest in.
That is just tosh from you. As I said I am having a discussion with you about whether there is a god or not. For me "evidence" is not a thing, but a process. And a simple one at that. It goes as follows:
1) State clearly what you are claiming.
2) List clearly the things you think support the claim in 1)
3) Explain exactly and clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim in
So for step 1 to be complete I need to know exactly what _you_ mean by "god". Not what anyone else on the forum means. Just you.
Seems you can not even do that. Nor are you capable, seemingly, or telling me why my definition is not the one we can work with given it describes the god of the major monotheisms perfectly.What do you mean by "your cohort"? Should I be offended?
So this is to become an english lesson too? Fair enough. Cohort "a group of people with a shared characteristic.". I am referring to you and people like you. If you can find cause for offense in there then so be it, but you are really digging deep to play the offence card now.it would take too long.
I will add that to your cop out excuse list then.i'm not pretending
Except yes, yes you are, given I did not do anything of the sort of thing you are pretending I did.you attempted to use an old atheistic definition of a god that does not resemble God thereby introducing bias.
No I attempted to establish YOUR definition of god AND I offered my own. You avoided, and are continuing to avoid, engaging with either approach. Dodge is your MO here.How would it be off topic if there is a contention that God created the Universe and created Life. Granted it's a different point of attack but still points to the existence of God.
Odd, I just explained how it is off topic. This is not a thread about biological evolution or abiogenesis. It is a thread about whether god exists or not. One can not get to the merits of a hypothesis by deflecting to discussing other hypotheses.
Nor does a lack of other hypotheses at a given time lend credibility to any hypothesis you might propose. Exclusivity is not evidence.I'm not looking for credence. But haven't you and others here been demanding material evidence to support the existence of an immaterial God?
I did no such thing. I am not sure how often you wish me to paste the same thing before you stop to actually read it but I am happy to do so again:
What I DO ask is for any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
Can you point to where in that sentence I limit the discourse to "material evidence" exactly? Or would you like to pick your words back out of my mouth?Equally I could be asking for your evidence but in reality I know you haven't got any so I don't bother.
Can you even point to a claim I made for which I did not offer evidence? Or will you, like above, be asking me to evidence claims you have shoved in my mouth that I never actually espoused by myself???Nah, you've lost me again. I think it's because the analogy is not like for like.
Analogy does not need to be like for like, it merely needs to highlight the point being made. If analogy is difficult for you I can repeat my point using no analogy at all.
The point again is that the default from where we start is that we exist here in this universe and we wish to know why.
Several hypotheses can be offered for this, including the idea a god exists and created us. But the question being answered by postulating this god is STILL why we are here in this universe.
So when you offer our existence here in this universe as evidence for "god" you are offering the QUESTION as evidence for the ANSWER.
If you can perhaps let me know which part of that very basic and clear set of points you are specifically having the difficulty with, I can help you further with it.Also I'm having problems with this word "substantiation".
Back to being an English lesson then. It means to support your contention and assertion with more than just contention and assertion. That is, it means to support your claims with argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Not merely to dodge requests for this or to simply declare (using words like "faith") that you simply believe it because you believe it.
Is the concept of supporting your arguments so alien to you? That in a thread that is specifically designed for "debate" that you might be required not just to make points, but SUPPORT them somehow too?`
Perhaps it is not "substantiation" or "cohort" I need to be explaining the meaning of to you but the word "debate"?Let me state my reason. In face of the odds required for life to arise spontaneously through unproven and unsustantiated abiogenesis it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of life had a cause.
I already pointed out the problems with this line of thought, but you avoided engaging with the points I made. I am happy to repeat them. The failure of your reasoning is threefold. Any one of which is a torpedo but all three in unison is atomic.
1) You have failed to establish what those odds actually are or how you arrived at them. In fact my contention is you not only have not done so, you are incapable of doing so, because to do so we would first have to fully understand the process before you can calculate the probability that process could occur.
2) Just because something has a low probability does not mean it did not happen. Because the trial set is large. The universe is massive. And we run therefore that experiment a multitude of times. So even if the probability were established to be low, the multiplier on that probability is enormous. To use your own example: The odds of flipping an unweighted coin 50 times and getting the same result 50 times is miniscule. If you run that experiment 1 billion times however, the odds look pretty good indeed.
3) In the spirit of occams razor merely postulating an equally unlikely explanation with added levels over what we know already, to explain an unlikely event, gets you nowhere. You end up in infinite regress and worse.Given human nature and the scriptural record it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible has merit with the implication that God is the cause.
Given human nature your face if green and you have a pineapple in your ear.
Simply typing "Given human nature" before a sentence does not make the claim magically correct. What _exactly_ are you claiming about human nature that leads to this conclusion.
You seem to think throwing claims about "human nature" and "probability" and such without actually adding substance to what you mean by such things simply does the argument for you. It does not. At all. Given WHAT about human nature exactly?With due regard to the Big Bang it is reasonable to conclude it had a cause
No. Not reasonable at all. I have never heard or seen a working model of causality that does not have a temporal element to it. And given "time" is one of the attributes that came to be after the "big bang" we have no reason to assume "time" was an attribute FOR the big bang. Therefore limiting yourself to temporal causality as a line of reasoning is simply fallacious.
I have some sympathy for your limitation here. I share it. We as a species evolved in a temporal universe and we are constrained to thinking in those terms. Our entire language is couched in it, dripping and seeping with it. Engaging in thought processes without thinking in those terms is massively problematic and most people can not do it. Let alone have the language for it. Mathematics is the language for it.
But to stop making so many errors, so often, you need to make that attempt. To divest yourself of the notion of temporal causality and "cause" when attempting to discuss subjects for which we have no reason to think it applies.Now, in case you haven't figured it out I am not interested in debating the existence of God.
No one is forcing you to. I invite you merely to read the title of the thread closely and slowly and debate with yourself the wisdom of you being on the thread at all. You are welcome to withdraw at any time.He exists.
You have failed to establish or lend any credence of any sort to this assertion so far.Any citations are useless.
So far in my experience 100% of the people who declare evidence or citation to be useless.... are people who simply do not have any to offer. No surprise therefore that they would weasel out of the utility of offering any.Why do you not want to find God?
I never espoused any such position. This MO of you acting like I say or do or think things I never espoused is really lacking in decorum. I am merely evaluating the merits (none so far) or the claim there is one.
It is not, therefore, that I do not WANT to find a god.... it is that until such time as I have any reason AT ALL to suspect there is one..... the question of seeking contact or a relationship with it.... is meaningless to me. For all the sense you make with your question (which is to say: None) I might as well be asking you why you do not want to seek audience with Santa Claus, Thor, or to find a way to go to the end of your garden and commune with the fairies.I think you'll find that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is the definition of God.
Hard to say this is true. The definition I offered, for example, is one that perhaps 98% of Christians and Muslims I have had discourse with are perfectly happy to accept as accurate. Yet some, including Festus, strongly disagree with it. So by proxy they disagree with those monotheists that do agree with it.
Yet Festus is seemingly constitutionally incapable of laying out what part of it he feels is wrong either. So perhaps you are right and he does actually accept it to, but does not want to grant any common ground with me at all so is merely disagreeing knee jerk with everything I offer merely for the sake of doing so. As if any concession to common ground is somehow a "loss" on his part or a "win" on mine when it is no such thing.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No I attempted to establish YOUR definition of god AND I offered my own. You avoided, and are continuing to avoid, engaging with either approach. Dodge is your MO here.tommy2bad View wrote:I think you'll find that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is the definition of God.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Hard to say this is true. The definition I offered, for example, is one that perhaps 98% of Christians and Muslims I have had discourse with are perfectly happy to accept as accurate. Yet some, including Festus, strongly disagree with it. So by proxy they disagree with those monotheists that do agree with it.
Do you not see your own bias. you attempt to tell me who God is and offer your own definition. Why on earth would you want to offer your own definition?
Because the definition of God is not one you can work with.
No matter which definition I would provide you would find an angle or a dodge to weasle in yet another atheist cliche. This is clearly demonstrated by your comment "and I offered my own"
How can the definition of God from a self professed atheist be anything other than a straw man?
This is obvious from your response to mine on the Big Bang. You want a god that is temporal. This is evidenced by you telling me that my argument fails because I am assuming time was an element to it when I clearly did not. You assumed that for me. Then you return to your passive aggressive approach and want me to "divest" myself.
I told you before, I am not interested in debating with people who have bought a lie and are now trying to convince themselves it is true.
I asked you why do you not want to find God and you your answer was that you did not espouse such a position. I don't care whether or not your espoused such a position, I want to know why you do not want to find God. If the question is meaningless to you try making it mean something.0 -
What I said wrote:With due regard to the Big Bang it is reasonable to conclude it had a cause and given that the only entity that can exist before and outside of time is God it is reasonable to conclude that if the Big Bang had a cause and it is unreasonable to conclude it did not have a cause then that cause could reasonable be God.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No. Not reasonable at all. I have never heard or seen a working model of causality that does not have a temporal element to it. And given "time" is one of the attributes that came to be after the "big bang" we have no reason to assume "time" was an attribute FOR the big bang. Therefore limiting yourself to temporal causality as a line of reasoning is simply fallacious.
if you disagree with my reasoning tell me why the Big Bang happened?
For me everything has a cause, including the big Bang. If you believe the Big bang had no cause - explain your reasoning.
For me the cause of the Big Bang must be something that exists outside of time. Why? Because time began with the Big Bang.
If you believe I am limiting myself to temporal causality despite my original statement please demonstrate how I am doing that.0 -
Do you not see your own bias. you attempt to tell me who God is and offer your own definition.
The bias is yours as you ignore entirely (again) what I JUST said in the last post.
I will repeat it:
I attempted to establish YOUR definition of god AND I offered my own.Why on earth would you want to offer your own definition?
To find a point of agreement between us from where we can move forward. I asked for YOUR understanding of it and offered mine. In this way we can highlight the differences and be aware of them in order that we avoid any misunderstandings.
Clearly as YOU are the one claiming god exists then YOUR definition is the one that is important, but you are refusing to offer one. Referring instead to the forum and it's charter.
Why you are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to do this is not clear. Perhaps the vaguer you maintain your rhetoric the harder you think it will be to pin down and respond to your points. Not honest, but at least understandable. It is a tactic I have observed innumerable times from the Theistic cohort.
A second reason I offer my own is to offer a convienience to you. If you had found, as many monotheists I have had discourse with in the past, that my definition matched your own, you could simply have said so and proceeded quickly onwards. This has saved much time in the past, so I find it wise to repeat my definition in future conversations to offer that option in the future. I do it all the time. I will continue to do so despite your whinging.No matter which definition I would provide you would find an angle or a dodge to weasle in yet another atheist cliche.
So now you are not only not offering a definition, you are presuming to imagine and then inform me of what my reaction to the definition you are not offering will be. Honesty is quickly draining out of your side of the discourse here.
Do not presume to inform me of what my reaction will be to an event you are ensuring will never happen. Until you offer a definition you have _no idea_ what my response will be to it. So stop imagining one and putting it in my mouth for me. This need you have to insert opinions and words in my mouth in on ongoing basis is likely only to damage your credibility, not mine.How can the definition of God from a self professed atheist be anything other than a straw man?
One does not need to believe something exists in order to offer definitions for it. In fact we do this all the time. Before we observed it in practice, for example, we had strong definitions of the Higgs Boson.
However you have not established that my definition is a straw man. You simply assert that it might be so. You have refused stringently to reference it, refer to it, discuss it or rebut it. You clearly have issue with the definition I have offered, but have refused point blank and entirely to adumbrate the issue. Exactly what part of the definition I offered does not match the god espoused by the vast majority of Christian adherents?This is obvious from your response to mine on the Big Bang. You want a god that is temporal.
I indicated no such constraint or desire. At all. Anywhere. So once again I am using the metaphorical tooth pick to extract your words from my mouth.
What I DID say is that if you are going to discuss the origin of the universe in termporal causality terms.... you need to be made aware that we have no basis at this time in science for doing so.I am assuming time was an element to it when I clearly did not. You assumed that for me.
No. It really was you. Because it was you declaring the universe needs to have a "cause" and "cause" itself implies this. Because we have not got a model of causality at this time that does not have a time element. Our entire concept of causality is based on time.
Now if you want to offer a model of causality without time as an element then I would be agog to hear it, and I wish you well in your running for the Nobel Prize that such a model is likely to put you into contention for.I told you before, I am not interested in debating with people who have bought a lie and are now trying to convince themselves it is true.
You have not established any lie at this point.I want to know why you do not want to find God. If the question is meaningless to you try making it mean something.
I answered your question. If you can not ask me a meaningful question, it is not up to me to force a square peg of meaning into the round hole you provide. As I said, ask yourself why you do not wish to find a way to commune with the fairies at the end of your garden.if you disagree with my reasoning tell me why the Big Bang happened?
That is currently an open question at this time. So let us not drift into "God of the gaps" arguments here. We are still currently exploring hypotheses for this question, and clearly your idea of "god" is one of those many hypotheses, even if it currently resides on the "entirely unsubstantiated" shelf.For me everything has a cause, including the big Bang.
And as I said that is merely thinking constrained by the human condition. Temporal causality is all we have experience of. We know time as an attribute came about with the Big Bang however. And just because thinking of the Big Bang without the element of time is clearly really really difficult for us, nigh impossible outside the language of mathematics, this does not mean we can simply ignore that constraint in order to fall back on simpler "First Cause" arguments for god.
It really is this simple:
1) If you want to discuss causality you need time.
2) We have no reason to think "Time" was an attribute "before" the Big Bang. In fact even the concept of "before" the big bang is wonky.
3) Therefore the first cause argument, or your rehashing of it, simply does not apply at this time.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I said that is merely thinking constrained by the human condition. Temporal causality is all we have experience of.
We know time as an attribute came about with the Big Bang however.
And just because thinking of the Big Bang without the element of time is clearly really really difficult for us, nigh impossible outside the language of mathematics,
this does not mean we can simply ignore that constraint in order to fall back on simpler "First Cause" arguments for god.
It really is this simple:
1) If you want to discuss causality you need time.
2) We have no reason to think "Time" was an attribute "before" the Big Bang. In fact even the concept of "before" the big bang is wonky.
3) Therefore the first cause argument, or your rehashing of it, simply does not apply at this time.
Forgive me for getting rid of the tripe as I want no further accusations of whinging.
I disagree with you as regards the thinking. Before the Big Bang there was whatever was there before the Big Bang which did not include time.
From the moment of the Big Bang time and everything else in the universe came into existence including I repeat time. As the Big Bang existed in time it must have a cause.
Rather than get into these long quotation circle jerks I ask this question:
Did the Big Bang have a cause and if so what?0 -
Forgive me for getting rid of the tripe as I want no further accusations of whinging.
Just another cop out excuse to ignore whole swaths of my post(s). You do have quite the variety of them.I disagree with you as regards the thinking. Before the Big Bang there was whatever was there before the Big Bang which did not include time.
We do not know if it did or not. We currently have no reason to think so. But right now our science only reaches back to milliseconds after the big bang. "Before" this we simply do not know.
But my point is simple. IF you accept "before" the big bang there was no time THEN you can not discuss "first cause" because causality requires time.... and you just said there was none.
As I said however if you want to construct a model, likely mathematical, for causality without a temporal element, then I.... and much of the world of science.... are likely agog to see your results.Did the Big Bang have a cause and if so what?
I already addressed this in the previous post which you have decided not to reply to or, I suspect, even read.
The answer is we currently simply do not know. Science is certainly helping us head in the right direction of finding out, with the work of people at places like CERN, and of Theoretical Physicists in the world of Laurence Krauss.
But right now the answer is simple. We simply do not know. And as with all areas of ignorance this very quickly becomes the playground of religious thought and purveyors of "We do not know, therefore god" styles of "thinking".0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Just another cop out excuse to ignore whole swaths of my post(s). You do have quite the variety of them.
please, no more whinging.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We do not know if it did or not. We currently have no reason to think so. But right now our science only reaches back to milliseconds after the big bang. "Before" this we simply do not know.
perhaps you don't. Try using your imagination.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But my point is simple. IF you accept "before" the big bang there was no time THEN you can not discuss "first cause" because causality requires time.... and you just said there was none.
my point is simpler. If the universe had a beginning then it had a cause.
Did the universe have a beginning?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The answer is we currently simply do not know. Science is certainly helping us head in the right direction of finding out, with the work of people at places like CERN, and of Theoretical Physicists in the world of Laurence Krauss.
Is that an appeal to the future? Is that not fallacious?
Deal with the evidence. The universe exists. It had a beginning. If it had a beginning it had a cause.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But right now the answer is simple. We simply do not know. And as with all areas of ignorance this very quickly becomes the playground of religious thought and purveyors of "We do not know, therefore god" styles of "thinking".
Insulting rhetoric noted.
What is wrong with saying God created the Universe?0 -
Advertisement
-
Deal with the evidence. The universe exists. It had a beginning. If it had a beginning it had a cause.
Let's say it had a cause, then what caused it? Scientists say, we don't know yet, creationist say god. But what caused god? Why does he get the exception to walk free? So if god does not need a cause, why do you assume the universe need a cause? When it was god, was it just one, maybe more, is it still alive, has it died, has it been replaced since by another god?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement