Darwin's theory

Recondite49 · 25-10-2014 02:08PM

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.

Brian Shanahan · 25-10-2014 02:19PM

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 02:23PM

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.

Brian Shanahan · 25-10-2014 02:29PM

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 02:29PM

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 02:30PM

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

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 02:32PM

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 02:33PM

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.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 02:37PM

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 02:39PM

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 02:42PM

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 02:46PM

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 02:48PM

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 02:50PM

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.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 02:53PM

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 02:54PM

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 02:55PM

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 02:56PM

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

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 03:01PM

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?

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 03:04PM

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 03:05PM

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 03:05PM

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.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 03:06PM

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."

Selective quoting of the definition there old man.

The quote in full :

"NOUN
1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

Delirium · 25-10-2014 03:06PM

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?".

let us use actual definitions, rather than one that suits you.

god:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

so there we go, Zeus is a god, Thor is a god on so on.

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

you stated that because God doesn't require a creator, he must exist. There are alpha generations of gods in various mythologies. By your own rules, Roman/Greek/Indian etc. gods must also exist.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 03:06PM

housetypeb wrote: »

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."?

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

Delirium · 25-10-2014 03:08PM

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

you omitted item 2 in the definition of a god on your linked page.

god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 03:08PM

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of God
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God

...for Christians and members of other monotheistic religions.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 03:10PM

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

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?

The flaw is in the selective and prejudical definition of the word God. Its simply 'God exists therfore God exists' again.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 03:16PM

SW wrote: »

let us use actual definitions, rather than one that suits you.

god:

so there we go, Zeus is a god, Thor is a god on so on.

you stated that because God doesn't require a creator, he must exist. There are alpha generations of gods in various mythologies. By your own rules, Roman/Greek/Indian etc. gods must also exist.

The existence of multiple gods does not deny the existence of a single god, we first need to understand why multiple god exist? when people go to war they pray to a specific "god of war" when they want to get married to pray to the god of marriage and love.
Zeus, Odin and so one are names given by human to define each of these gods and what they do, however am saying that these gods are a single god whom the people gave names to based on what they need from him.

Defender OF Faith · 25-10-2014 03:23PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Who needs logic when you have blind faith, eh?

So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

Darwin's theory

Comments