Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[RD2191]

Answer the question, fatty.

[DMC]

I'm one. We've gone over that already. I'm much farther down the non-religious scale than most atheist in this thread. I know quite a few, actually. A bunch of young folks nowadays grow up that way.

Now you're working on a gradient. You've not called yourself "non-religious", but have said "further down on the religious scale" whatever that means. Doesn't it just mean you believe a god exist but you couldn't care less?

[DMC]

Answer the question, fatty.
That's Mouse's troll. Get your own.

[xmas1997]

Some people who have the capacity and tendency for critical and abstract thought don't abide seasoned, wanton ignorance very well, especially from theists who pretend to "embrace science" and don't even understand the basic tenets of science. The multiplier there is when said theist can quote the Bible verbatim but misuses terms like "theory".

You don't have a clue as to what I embrace or do not embrace. That just shows how truly ignorant and moronic you really are to make such a definitive statement without any proof whatsoever.
You don't know me, or anyone I know, so everything you are telling me about myself is a vain attempt to malign and misrepresent, and is tantamount to a venomous lie.
The author called it a theory and since you seem to hold yourself up to be more qualified than he, a molecular geneticist, then you must be speaking out your ass, Mr. armchair geneticist.
Your not much different than those who say they know more than Pop about basketball, all the while growing fatter and fatter stuffing your face with cheap beer and potato chips in your faded armchairs.

[Chinook]

Now you're working on a gradient. You've not called yourself "non-religious", but have said "further down on the religious scale" whatever that means. Doesn't it just mean you believe a god exist but you couldn't care less?

Sort of. I mean that I believe god exists but has no affect on the universe. Clock- maker theory.

As far as religion goes, I am past the antipathy stage you all are stuck in and am firmly in the academic stage. I don't see religion as a poison, but rather just a useful elements for folks who need it.

[DMC]

You don't have a clue as to what I embrace or do not embrace. That just shows how truly ignorant and moronic you really are to make such a definitive statement without any proof whatsoever.
You don't know me, or anyone I know, so everything you are telling me about myself is a vain attempt to malign and misrepresent, and is tantamount to a venomous lie.
The author called it a theory and since you seem to hold yourself up to be more qualified than he, a molecular geneticist, then you must be speaking out your ass, Mr. armchair geneticist.
Your not much different than those who say they know more than Pop about basketball, all the while growing fatter and fatter stuffing your face with cheap beer and potato chips in your faded armchairs.

There's ample evidence here that you don't understand even basic science terminology. It's as if you learned everything you think you know about science from a theology website.

The author has not had his "theory" peer reviewed. If he called it a law, would you have used that term instead? The author has had 10 years to replicate his findings and his peers would have been happy to attempt to replicate them. Instead he capitalized on theist zealotry and published a knee jerk book targeted at the pseudoscience majors.

[DMC]

Sort of. I mean that I believe god exists but has no affect on the universe. Clock- maker theory.

As far as religion goes, I am past the antipathy stage you all are stuck in and am firmly in the academic stage. I don't see religion as a poison, but rather just a useful elements for folks who need it.

You can see it for whatever makes you feel better. The watch maker analogy (again, not a theory) is fallacious. The only reason you know a watch was made by anyone at all is because you have the convenience of having seen a watch. Were you walking down the street and passing by forest and weeds, then you come across a manicured lawn and a home, you'd think you just entered an area that was created by someone because it's not like the forest and the weeds, but then you're here saying the forest and the weeds were created by someone because it's not like what... exactly?

[Chinook]

You can see it for whatever makes you feel better. The watch maker analogy (again, not a theory) is fallacious. The only reason you know a watch was made by anyone at all is because you have the convenience of having seen a watch. Were you walking down the street and passing by forest and weeds, then you come across a manicured lawn and a home, you'd think you just entered an area that was created by someone because it's no the forest and the weeds, but then you're here saying the forest and the weeds were created by someone because it's not what... exactly?

You're confusing what I said with the watch analogy for intelligent design. You asked for my mythos, not my reasoning behind having such mythos.

[DMC]

You're confusing what I said with the watch analogy for intelligent design. You asked for my mythos, not my reasoning behind having such mythos.

So what "clock maker theory" are you referring to? Surely you're not equating deism with theism, at least not in these discussions. It's evident that the theists here are not deists. If your god is absent, why do you consider it to be a god? By what reasoning do you even allow that a god ever existed? Which god?

[xmas1997]

How can you wholeheartedly embrace science "in varying degrees"?

A blatant attempt to distort, malign, and misrepresent. Typical of people like you on this site. I won't generalize you with the other atheists on here because you give them a bad name. You reflect the fanatical elements of whoever you represent.
Below was what I said IN THE PROPER CONTEXT that you vainly attempt to distort.

This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.

In bold was the proper reference, and was a description of MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON, thus the "VARYING degrees, since no two of us have the exact SAME degree.
Your hostile attitude neither merits, nor warrants, nor deserves further discussion because you prove you have no idea of the meaning of the word.
The last point I have for you would force me to lower myself to your level to tell you, and that is beneath me.

[Chinook]

So what "clock maker theory" are you referring to? Surely you're not equating deism with theism, at least not in these discussions. It's evident that the theists here are not deists. If your god is absent, why do you consider it to be a god? By what reasoning do you even allow that a god ever existed? Which god?

I've described myself as a deist before, yes. I don't want to be associated with any mythos they're creating now, so I'm reluctant to keep doing so. Deism as I first heard of it best describes my views, but it's not a club I'm part of.

And anyway, if you do understand there is a large sect of nonreligious theist to such an extent that you're trying to hive them out of the discussion, why did you act ao skeptical earlier?

Any talk of "your god" demonstrates the false equivalency between religion and theism you've made in your mind. I have no further mythos outside of that world-view. I don't apply attributes to god or moral guidelines. I don't believe in any causal chain outside the one scientists are piecing together.

[xmas1997]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge faggot/douche, tbh.

:lmao

I think we have another one here who definitely has some deep rooted issues like the one last night, because he certainly is ranting instead of trying to discuss this in a rational reasonable civil manner.
That is his loss, because I saw it all already last night.

[spurraider21]

Show of hands, who here has observed a monkey evolving into a man? Or a fish into a reptile?
:rolleyes nice trolling attempt in the midst of an actual discussion

[RD2191]

:rolleyes nice trolling attempt in the midst of an actual discussion
If I have to bring out the banana/peanut butter I will.

[xmas1997]

If I have to bring out the banana/peanut butter I will.

:lmao:rollin:lol

[RD2191]

Seriously though

DMC-Huge racist faggot.
Blake-Cuck, overall annoying douche.
RandomGuy-Not too bad but also a douche.
phyzik-I'm pretty sure this dude has mental problems.

[DMC]

I've described myself as a deist before, yes. I don't want to be associated with any mythos they're creating now, so I'm reluctant to keep doing so. Deism as I first heard of it best describes my views, but it's not a club I'm part of.

And anyway, if you do understand there is a large sect of nonreligious theist to such an extent that you're trying to hive them out of the discussion, why did you act ao skeptical earlier?

Any talk of "your god" demonstrates the false equivalency between religion and theism you've made in your mind. I have no further mythos outside of that world-view. I don't apply attributes to god or moral guidelines. I don't believe in any causal chain outside the one scientists are piecing together.

I don't consider deism part of theism. I also consider it to be the last thread of god belief that a person holds to when they are afraid to let go entirely, before they acknowledge to themselves and others that a god isn't required in order to have the universe. Basically if the universe can exist without a god, no god is needed so using parsimony, no god exists. I've never seen a deist even remotely attempt to describe the god they claim to believe exist(ed).

If you believe a god created the universe and set it in motion, you absolutely believe in a causal chain.

[DMC]

A blatant attempt to distort, malign, and misrepresent. Typical of people like you on this site. I won't generalize you with the other atheists on here because you give them a bad name. You reflect the fanatical elements of whoever you represent.
Below was what I said IN THE PROPER CONTEXT that you vainly attempt to distort.

This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.

In bold was the proper reference, and was a description of MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON, thus the "VARYING degrees, since no two of us have the exact SAME degree.
Your hostile attitude neither merits, nor warrants, nor deserves further discussion because you prove you have no idea of the meaning of the word.
The last point I have for you would force me to lower myself to your level to tell you, and that is beneath me.

Wholeheartedly implies 100%. There are no varying degrees.

You, Mouse, Cosmored (aka Mouse), Avante (aka Mouse 2) and a couple others here have worn out the "misuse of terminology" troll. That's me allowing that you're not as uneducated as you appear to be.

[pgardn]

Who here has seen a hydrogen atom drop from an excited state to the ground state.

I have not.

So I don't believe one has any relation to the other.
Excellent logic.

[DMC]

Who here has seen a hydrogen atom drop from an excited state to the ground state.

I have not.

So I don't believe one has any relation to the other.
Excellent logic.

I think Heisenberg did, but I'm no certain about it.

[spurraider21]

Who here has seen a hydrogen atom drop from an excited state to the ground state.

I have not.

So I don't believe one has any relation to the other.
Excellent logic.
anybody who has ever looked at the sun

http://i.imgur.com/j74SykU.gif

[spurraider21]

Heisenberg did.
ah, but where?

[Chinook]

I don't consider deism part of theism. I also consider it to be the last thread of god belief that a person holds to when they are afraid to let go entirely, before they acknowledge to themselves and others that a god isn't required in order to have the universe. Basically if the universe can exist without a god, no god is needed so using parsimony, no god exists. I've never seen a deist even remotely attempt to describe the god they claim to believe exist(ed).

If you believe a god created the universe and set it in motion, you absolutely believe in a causal chain.

I said no casual chain OTHER than the one scientists are trying to form. We all believe in causal chains, and folks who don't believe in divine intervention are bound to one chain to explain everything. I'm with those people.

Deism is part of theism. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. Theism is the belief that god exists. Deists believe god exists. Therefore, deists are theists.

As far as your judgment of deists go, we just disagree. You believe what you do about it because you still equate religion and theism. Therefore, you see deism as being close to the border of atheism atheism. But I don't think that's the case. Rather, I think it fills one of the four squares in the cross-plot of religion/non-religion and theism/atheism.

[pgardn]

So what "clock maker theory" are you referring to? Surely you're not equating deism with theism, at least not in these discussions. It's evident that the theists here are not deists. If your god is absent, why do you consider it to be a god? By what reasoning do you even allow that a god ever existed? Which god?

That would be the blind clock maker.

Human judgement of biological complexity implies a creator.
Because it's an easy explanation. Even if others that do not require magic exist.

[Chinook]

anybody who has ever looked at the sun

http://i.imgur.com/j74SykU.gif

Indeed. The real question is who's actually seeing two plus two equalling four?

[DMC]

I said no casual chain OTHER than the one scientists are trying to form. We all believe in causal chains, and folks who don't believe in divine intervention are bound to one chain to explain everything. I'm with those people.

If you believe a god initiated the big bang, you believe in a causal chain. I am curious though, why just one god? Where did the god go? What makes you think there was ever a god to begin with?


Deism is part of theism. It's not a matter of individual interpretation. Theism is the belief that god exists. Deists believe god exists. Therefore, deists are theists.

Deism is part of theism like atheism is a belief. You technically do not even believe a god exists, just that one once did. If you believe a god exists now, where does the god reside, what contact have you had with the god, what evidence do you have, what doctrine, what rationale other than some smart men who were too ahead of their time to call themselves atheists were claiming to be deists?


As far as your judgment of deists go, we just disagree. You believe what you do about it because you still equate religion and theism. Therefore, you see deism as being close to atheism. But I don't think so. Rather, it fills one of the four squares in the cross-plot of religion/non-religion and theism/atheism.
No it doesn't. Fundamentally it's a notion that you harbor that an entity either exists now that's basically irrelevant or that one once existed that's still irrelevant. It's not grounded in reason and science, and it's just a weaker version of the god of the gaps approach.

If we laid all our cards on the table, the majority of us have doubts about all of it, and none of us have an absolute certainty regarding deities. Some of us however are ok with admitting that we require more evidence than we've seen to actually profess a belief in the existence of something as extraordinary as a god.

[pgardn]

anybody who has ever looked at the sun

http://i.imgur.com/j74SykU.gif

You are seeing the light energy given off, not the atom changing states.
And it's more fusion, hydrogen to helium.
But point well taken.

[RD2191]

"reason" I came from a fish. :lol

[pgardn]

I think Heisenberg did, but I'm no certain about it.

He did not see this.

He helped model it mathematically.

[DMC]

He did not see this.

He helped model it mathematically.

I think he saw it but didn't actually know it's velocity, or he knew it's velocity but closed his eyes... something to that effect.

[DMC]

"reason" I came from a fish. :lol
You came from a vagina that smelled like a fish. Not the same thing.

[spurraider21]

I think Heisenberg did, but I'm no certain about it.
hah, i beat you to the edit :lol

[RD2191]

You came from a vagina that smelled like a fish. Not the same thing.
How would you know that? You enjoy smelling fishy vaginas?

[DMC]

hah, i beat you to the edit :lol
I still fucked it up

[DMC]

How would you know that? You enjoy smelling fishy vaginas?
Cause I'm your dad.

[pgardn]

These guys think you have to see a fish turn into a reptile...

There is actually a lot more evidence to see this, than a hydrogen atom changing states.
But you never see these guys arguing about hydrogen atoms, or water molecules, which they have never seen.

[RD2191]

Cause I'm your dad.
:violin

[DMC]

These guys think you have to see a fish turn into a reptile...

There is actually a lot more evidence to see this, than a hydrogen atom changing states.
But you never see these guys arguing about hydrogen atoms, or water molecules, which they have never seen.

It doesn't matter what the unwashed, uneducated believe. Burgers aren't going to flip themselves.

[DMC]

:violin
mijo

[RD2191]

These guys think you have to see a fish turn into a reptile...

There is actually a lot more evidence to see this, than a hydrogen atom changing states.
But you never see these guys arguing about hydrogen atoms, or water molecules, which they have never seen.
Where did water come from?

[RD2191]

mijo
:cry

[Chinook]

If you believe a god initiated the big bang, you believe in a causal chain. I am curious though, why just one god? Where did the god go? What makes you think there was ever a god to begin with?

Deism is part of theism like atheism is a belief. You technically do not even believe a god exists, just that one once did. If you believe a god exists now, where does the god reside, what contact have you had with the god, what evidence do you have, what doctrine, what rationale other than some smart men who were too ahead of their time to call themselves atheists were claiming to be deists?

No it doesn't. Fundamentally it's a notion that you harbor that an entity either exists now that's basically irrelevant or that one once existed that's still irrelevant. It's not grounded in reason and science, and it's just a weaker version of the god of the gaps approach.

I don't think you get what I am saying about chains. I do believe in one. It's the same one you believe in. It's not a special one like it is in religions.

You can't seem to understand the separation. It's not a hard concept to get, really. Where did god go? Were does a programmer go when they're letting their simulation run? Just because god started it, doesn't have to mean he's constantly tinkering with it.

Again, you keep being stubborn in or equivalency of religion and theism. So you don't understand that there are four genera or belief generated by these dichotomies. You keep insisting there are two by misrepresenting the third genus. You haven't even addressed the fourth genus of atheistic religion. You're missing the entire structure of the issue, which is as bad of a folly as anyone in this thread has made.

[RD2191]

These guys think you have to see a fish turn into a reptile...

There is actually a lot more evidence to see this, than a hydrogen atom changing states.
But you never see these guys arguing about hydrogen atoms, or water molecules, which they have never seen.
Will anyone ever be able to observe a fish to a reptile?

[spurraider21]

Where did water come from?
poseidon, you dumbfuck

[spurraider21]

Will anyone ever be able to observe a fish to a reptile?
did anybody observe your grandfather giving birth to you?

[RD2191]

poseidon, you dumbfuck
Fuck. I should of known.

[RD2191]

did anybody observe your grandfather giving birth to you?
Yes, a bird was there and saw it all go down.

[pgardn]

I think he saw it but didn't actually know it's velocity, or he knew it's velocity but closed his eyes... something to that effect.

Human eyes can't see atoms.

You are correctly thinking about assessing its position indirectly thereby screwing with its momentum, so you can't assess this quantity. One can only indirectly measure one or the other.

but...

These guys think you have to see an ape like animal turn into a human for it to be so...
They can't believe anything unless they personally witness the event.
Good luck with that.

[pgardn]

poseidon, you dumbfuck

:lol

[RD2191]

Human eyes can't see atoms.

You are correctly thinking about assessing its position indirectly thereby screwing with its momentum, so you can't assess this quantity. One can only indirectly measure one or the other.

but...

These guys think you have to see a ape like animal turn into a human for it to be so...
They can't believe anything unless they personally witness the event.
Good luck with that.
Not true at all. I believe in God and I've never seen him.

[spurraider21]

Not true at all. I believe in God and I've never seen him.
http://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2014/06/29906170001_3624585928001_Screen-Shot-2014-06-16-at-4-44-20-AM.jpg

your move :wakeup

[RD2191]

http://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2014/06/29906170001_3624585928001_Screen-Shot-2014-06-16-at-4-44-20-AM.jpg

your move :wakeup
:pctoss

[pgardn]

Robert.

I have you on ignore.

So I can only see your posts when others quote you.
So sorry.

So it's fine for you to believe in things you can't see. You get to choose which phenomena to believe in, but have never actually seen. That's cool. It's your choice. Water as H2O, you have never seen this. But I get the feeling you believe it. Two hydrogen atoms bound to one oxygen.
But living things are the poof phenomena, all made specially on their own. No other explanations will do.

Cool. You don't like Evolution's implications. So it did not happen. Every living thing was specially created on its own.
Its your choice. No one can make you believe anything you don't choose to believe. DMC and Spurraider can't enter your head and flip a switch. Unless you see them do it, or not.

[DMC]

I don't think you get what I am saying about chains. I do believe in one. It's the same one you believe in. It's not a special one like it is in religions.

You can't seem to understand the separation. It's not a hard concept to get, really. Where did god go? Were does a programmer go when they're letting their simulation run? Just because god started it, doesn't have to mean he's constantly tinkering with it.

Again, you keep being stubborn in or equivalency of religion and theism. So you don't understand that there are four genera or belief generated by these dichotomies. You keep insisting there are two by misrepresenting the third genus. You haven't even addressed the fourth genus of atheistic religion. You're missing the entire structure of the issue, which is as bad of a folly as anyone in this thread has made.

The programmer goes into another room, a measurable, knowable and provable room. The programmer himself is knowable. Science doesn't posit that a god started the big bang. That would be the gap I am referring to.

It's as nonsensical to say god did it then left as it is to say god did it and wants you to behave a certain way, simply because there's no logical explanation for the existence of the god in the 1st place and you must make a magical allowance for the god to exist outside of the laws that govern everything else. So you have everything, or the logical, then you have the god, or the illogical. Where did the god go? You seem to be satisfied with thinking it magically slipped into nothing. Does it still exist? Why is it considered by you to be a god instead of just a different form of life?

[Blake]

A blatant attempt to distort, malign, and misrepresent. Typical of people like you on this site. I won't generalize you with the other atheists on here because you give them a bad name. You reflect the fanatical elements of whoever you represent.
Below was what I said IN THE PROPER CONTEXT that you vainly attempt to distort.

This doesn't happen with me and my Christian or other theistic faiths and my atheistic brethren, nor with other religious people either.
We all get along and respect each other and our beliefs, or disbelief, just fine.
Plus we all study and respect the value of science in our lives too.
In fact most of us wholeheartedly embrace science in our lives in varying degrees.

In bold was the proper reference, and was a description of MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON, thus the "VARYING degrees, since no two of us have the exact SAME degree.
Your hostile attitude neither merits, nor warrants, nor deserves further discussion because you prove you have no idea of the meaning of the word.
The last point I have for you would force me to lower myself to your level to tell you, and that is beneath me.

He quoted you word for word.

Damn you're a sensitive pussy.

[xmas1997]

You are an idiot with major reading comprehension problems.
Right there in BOLD is my proof that I am referring to more than one person (plural), not just me (singular), thus since none of us values science in exactly the same way, that in no way keeps each of US from each having OUR own "different" and particular wholehearted embracements of science.
I also used the word "US" in the sentence to denote the "PLURAL", since there are MANY of US (my friends and I), with no two "wholehearted embracements exactly alike", thus they vary from each other, hence the "varying degrees", idiot!
You don't have to get so mad about it and make it such an issue, but that is your way.


EDIT: You habitually make these misquotes!.
You habitually ridicule.
You habitually distort what people say.
You habitually never ADD anything positive and constructive to any thread topic.
You habitually lie.
And you habitually make stupid after stupid statements.
Thus you habitually troll, and that is the sum total of what you do on this site, and probably in life as well since this site is a microcosm of your life the macrocosm!
That is why you are a joke and a laughing stock to intelligent posters! :lol
Live with it.

[Chinook]

The programmer goes into another room, a measurable, knowable and provable room. The programmer himself is knowable. Science doesn't posit that a god started the big bang. That would be the gap I am referring to.

It's as nonsensical to say god did it then left as it is to say god did it and wants you to behave a certain way, simply because there's no logical explanation for the existence of the god in the 1st place and you must make a magical allowance for the god to exist outside of the laws that govern everything else. So you have everything, or the logical, then you have the god, or the illogical. Where did the god go? You seem to be satisfied with thinking it magically slipped into nothing. Does it still exist? Why is it considered by you to be a god instead of just a different form of life?

The programmers location means nothing to the simulation. It can't measure something like that because it is outside itself. That's the point. You think I am arguing that god is/was in the universe and then left. I am more of the mind that god was never here in that sense, just like a programmer is never in his own simulation.

I think it's clear you don't understand what the word logical really means. You keep tying it to empiricism. (I don't observe god; therefore it's logical to withhold the belief that god exists.) But logic has nothing to do with empiricism. It is a much more powerful form of knowledge than science is.

You demonstrated that by making your false equivalency between religionists and theists. Doing so is illogical, no matter what you've observed, since the words don't mean the same thing. Unless two things are exactly equal, then making decisions on them leads to four outcomes. That is a mathematically demonstrable principle. Your arguments aren't.

[Blake]

:madrun :cry :madrun :cry

[Blake]

The programmers location means nothing to the simulation. It can't measure something like that because it is outside itself. That's the point. You think I am arguing that god is/was in the universe and then left. I am more of the mind that god was never here in that sense, just like a programmer is never in his own simulation.

I think it's clear you don't understand what the word logical really means. You keep tying it to empiricism. (I don't observe god; therefore it's logical to withhold the belief that god exists.) But logic has nothing to do with empiricism. It is a much more powerful form of knowledge than science is.

You demonstrated that by making your false equivalency between religionists and theists. Doing so is illogical, no matter what you've observed, since the words don't mean the same thing. Unless two things are exactly equal, then making decisions on them leads to four outcomes. That is a mathematically demonstrable principle. Your arguments aren't.

So where did the programmer come from

[Blake]

Not true at all. I believe in God and I've never seen him.

Yet we see evolution on a small scale but you don't believe in it on a grand scale.

Lol invisible magic daddy

[Blake]

I think it's pretty telling that I've never met an atheists who wasn't a huge faggot/douche, tbh.

Why did God make gays if he hates them?

[xmas1997]

The programmers location means nothing to the simulation. It can't measure something like that because it is outside itself. That's the point. You think I am arguing that god is/was in the universe and then left. I am more of the mind that god was never here in that sense, just like a programmer is never in his own simulation.

I think it's clear you don't understand what the word logical really means. You keep tying it to empiricism. (I don't observe god; therefore it's logical to withhold the belief that god exists.) But logic has nothing to do with empiricism. It is a much more powerful form of knowledge than science is.

You demonstrated that by making your false equivalency between religionists and theists. Doing so is illogical, no matter what you've observed, since the words don't mean the same thing. Unless two things are exactly equal, then making decisions on them leads to four outcomes. That is a mathematically demonstrable principle. Your arguments aren't.

I agree with you completely and will elaborate shortly what I mean.
But I also tried to get across a few ideas to him and spurraider, yet they were both mired in "absolutes", empiricism, and wanting everything to be "black and white" (cut and dry), which to my way of thinking means "you need to have an open mind" while discussing topics such as these in order to understand where the other person is coming from.
To be closed minded, which they demonstrated to be, is not conducive to having a vibrant open minded discussion, especially when dealing with a topic that contains for the most part hypotheticals and suppositions.
But as you say, and as I also tried to explain to them when I was talking about biblical allegory, if allegory were meant to mean "exactly" the same thing as "fiction" then they would have not need to have two different words.
And just because one is a synonym for the other, this does not make them the same, and especially so for literary writing styles.

I must ask, are you posing the grid that denotes deism (belief in a non-intervening god), atheism (without a belief in god), theism (belief in god or gods), pantheism (the "universe" is a hypothetical god), polytheism (belief in many gods), monotheism (belief in only one God), and agnosticism (not a belief, but an admission that for the most part "I don't know"), or something else entirely?
Granted, theism tends to include deism, pantheism, polytheism, and montheism, whereas atheism ("a" prefix meaning without) does not.
There are others I did not mention such as:
panentheism (god exists in all of nature),
henotheism (belief in one god but not denying the existence of others),
post-theism (belief that we have progressed beyond our need for god),
monolatrism (belief in many gods but only worshiping one),
apartheism (apathy towards god),
non-theism ("disbelief" in god or gods),
and anti-theism ("against" all belief in god or gods) to name a few,
although there are quite a few other classifications that I didn't list including the various subcategories of agnosticism,
and ignosticism (that all other theological positions assumes too much about god),
as well as theological noncognitivism (that religious language is not cognitively meaningful).
So a level playing field is paramount here for any competent discussion IMHO.
It might be helpful to all if we defined the playing field so that it is somewhat level.


EDIT: I should probably mention autotheism too because it is what I most closely identify with.
It postulates that even though God is all around us and everywhere at the same time, God is inherently "within" oneself (within all of us) and that each of us has the duty to become as perfect or divine and as "selflessly" as we possibly can.

[RD2191]

Yet we see evolution on a small scale but you don't believe in it on a grand scale.

Lol invisible magic daddy
The only daddy around here is the dude who was porking your ex wife.

Grand scale is a stretch.

[RD2191]

Why did God make gays if he hates them?
God didn't make gays. It's a choice to receive a wiener in the ass, God has nothing to do with that.

[xmas1997]

God didn't make gays. It's a choice to receive a wiener in the ass, God has nothing to do with that.

God did make blake though, so we have to assume that God is not mistake free.
:lol

[spurraider21]

i like how we're having an actual discussion between DMC and Chinook.... and we have blake/xmas/robdiaz just trolling in the background

[spurraider21]

God didn't make gays. It's a choice to receive a wiener in the ass, God has nothing to do with that.
but why would god create men who enjoy dick and aren't attracted to women?

[RD2191]

God did make blake though, so we have to assume that God is not mistake free.
:lol
:lol

[Blake]

The only daddy around here is the dude who was porking your ex wife.

Grand scale is a stretch.

Oh I bet Jesus lol'ed at det one.

[Blake]

God didn't make gays. It's a choice to receive a wiener in the ass, God has nothing to do with that.

Plenty of gay in the animal kingdom. Do animals choose to be gay?

if you can pull yourself away from Spurstalk, you should pick up a science book some time.

[RD2191]

Plenty of gay in the animal kingdom

if you can pull yourself away from Spurstalk, you should pick up a science book some time.
We aren't animals. Next.

[spurraider21]

Plenty of gay in the animal kingdom

if you can pull yourself away from Spurstalk, you should pick up a science book some time.
god is just testing the penguins' faith

[Blake]

We aren't animals. Next.

Why did God create gay animals, dumbfuck?

[xmas1997]

i like how we're having an actual discussion between DMC and Chinook.... and we have blake/xmas/robdiaz just trolling in the background

You should have added yourself to the troll list if you are adding the others because you are being no different than anyone else here, just more forthcoming with the "false accusations".

You can't seem to accept the fact that some of us may know more about this topic than you do.

If you really want to learn something, then see my post #1812.

Then make your false accusation, if you can.

Or quit making them and discuss like some (except blake of course, who never discusses anything) of the rest of us here.

[RD2191]

Why did God create gay animals, dumbfuck?
Animal is an animal. Not a human, animals don't have laws. Damn son, you really are an idiot.

[Blake]

i like how we're having an actual discussion between DMC and Chinook.... and we have blake/xmas/robdiaz just trolling in the background

but xmas had a post full of lots of important words!

[RD2191]

:lolBlake just come out as a queer already.

[leemajors]

You should have added yourself to the troll list if you are adding the others because you are being no different than anyone else here, just more forthcoming with the "false accusations".
You can't seem to accept the fact that some of us may know more about this topic than you do.

If you know so much, why does it take several posts for you to begin to make a cogent point?

[Blake]

Animal is an animal. Not a human, animals don't have laws. Damn son, you really are an idiot.

That's not an answer.

Again, why did God create gay animals?

[lebomb]

Why did God make gays if he hates them?

Man was given free will, he didnt create faggots, they just chose to be Blake.

[RD2191]

That's not an answer.

Again, why did God create gay animals?
How is that not an answer? Faggot.

[Blake]

:lolBlake just come out as a queer already.

you gonna ask me out on a date if I do?

[Blake]

How is that not an answer? Faggot.

Because you didn't answer "why" dumbass.

[spurraider21]

You should have added yourself to the troll list if you are adding the others because you are being no different than anyone else here, just more forthcoming with the "false accusations".

You can't seem to accept the fact that some of us may know more about this topic than you do.

If you really want to learn something, then see my post #1812.

Then make your false accusation, if you can.

Or quit making them and discuss like some (except blake of course, who never discusses anything) of the rest of us here.
i didn't make a single false accusation

[Blake]

Man was given free will, he didnt create faggots, they just chose to be Blake.

Coming from the dude that licks ass holes.

[StrengthAndHonor]

God didn't make gays. It's a choice to receive a wiener in the ass, God has nothing to do with that.
Biblically speaking, God created gay individuals.

[RD2191]

Biblically speaking, God created gay individuals.
No he didn't.

[xmas1997]

If you know so much, why does it take several posts for you to begin to make a cogent point?

Why?
Because one has to spend so much needless time either defining the playing field, getting through the pointless trivialities and ridiculous generalities, or defending oneself from those spewing their ignorant accusations.
That should be obvious to you.
It is to most of us.

[StrengthAndHonor]

No he didn't.
Do you believe god is the sole creator of everything living?

[RD2191]

Because you didn't answer "why" dumbass.
Animals are not humans. Animals do not know right from wrong. When an animal kills another animal is it considered murder? Fuck man, no wonder your wife was cheating on you. You suck at life in general.

[RD2191]

Do you believe god is the sole creator of everything living?
God created life. God created humans. God doesn't create a new human every time one is born.

[StrengthAndHonor]

God created life. God created humans. God doesn't create a new human every time one is born.
And gays aren't part of his creation? Most gay people are born to be just that...gay. Sure, we have a few flaming homo's who are confused but, I'm in the opinion it's genetic.

[RD2191]

And gays aren't part of his creation? Most gay people are born to be just that...gay. Sure, we have a few flaming homo's who are confused but, I'm in the opinion it's genetic.
The bible doesn't comment on it. It does say that it is wrong though. So if you believe in the Christian God then it is wrong to lay with another man. If you don't then I guess you have nothing to worry about.

[xmas1997]

Post #1816. i like how we're having an actual discussion between DMC and Chinook.... and we have blake/xmas/robdiaz just trolling in the background


i didn't make a single false accusation

You sure as hell did in the quote above in your post #1816.
And now you come with the obvious blatant lie on top of it.
You're being validly called out on it, because you're not doing anything less than any of the rest of us are doing!
:lol

[StrengthAndHonor]

The bible doesn't comment on it. It does say that it is wrong though. So if you believe in the Christian God then it is wrong to lay with another man. If you don't then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
I'm also a christian, and I do find this thread confusing. However, I do have an open mind and wouldn't mind tapping into other people's perspective.

I do believe a man laying with another man is prohibited in the scriptures. That said, it doesn't change the fact that gay people are still created by god. Are they not?

[RD2191]

I'm also a christian, and I do find this thread confusing. However, I do have an open mind and wouldn't mind tapping into other people's perspective.

I do believe a man laying with another man is prohibited in the scriptures. That said, it doesn't change the fact that gay people are still created by god. Are they not?
God created humans, whatever a human chooses to do with their life is their choice. But he/she will eventually have to answer to God for the choices that they make. I do not believe that God created gay people.

[xmas1997]

I'm also a christian, and I do find this thread confusing. However, I do have an open mind and wouldn't mind tapping into other people's perspective.

I do believe a man laying with another man is prohibited in the scriptures. That said, it doesn't change the fact that gay people are still created by god. Are they not?

I reluctantly have to agree with you. I have even had this argument with my father once who was very passionate in his defense that gays are "born" that way, and not from learned behavior of a free choice, which was my feeling about it. I have a half brother with a "flaming" gay alternative lifestyle, And my father took offense when I suggested it was a learned response and free choice, and that the jury was still out as to whether or not this was true.

[RD2191]

I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that a man can't be attracted to another man. I don't know what goes on in another persons mind. Hell, some people are attracted to animals. What I can tell you is if that if you do believe in God you can pray for help to remove impure thoughts from your mind.

Colossians 3:5

5 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/colossians/3/#v51003005) Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry.

[Chinook]

So where did the programmer come from

Dunno. Could even be from this universe in the future like in The Last Question. To suppose I know that is to make an assertion I don't feel comfortable making. All that stuff is irrelevant to the point.

[Chinook]

I agree with you completely and will elaborate shortly what I mean.
But I also tried to get across a few ideas to him and spurraider, yet they were both mired in "absolutes", empiricism, and wanting everything to be "black and white" (cut and dry), which to my way of thinking means "you need to have an open mind" while discussing topics such as these in order to understand where the other person is coming from.
To be closed minded, which they demonstrated to be, is not conducive to having a vibrant open minded discussion, especially when dealing with a topic that contains for the most part hypotheticals and suppositions.
But as you say, and as I also tried to explain to them when I was talking about biblical allegory, if allegory were meant to mean "exactly" the same thing as "fiction" then they would have not need to have two different words.
And just because one is a synonym for the other, this does not make them the same, and especially so for literary writing styles.

You can actually count me among the folks who have a binary way of thinking. I do believe that things are either true or false and that there is no middle ground when you get right down to it. That doesn't prevent me from having an open mind to whether something is true or false. Rather, it does prevent me from accepting that something can be both true for false, or neither true nor false at the most basic level. I have an open mind about outcomes, but not about structure.

As far as the allegory debate went, I'll just say this. A lot of the confusion in the debate was because people didn't proper separate the two dichotomies, similarly to what is holding up my debate with DMC. There are two dichotomies at work: fiction vs non-fiction and symbolic vs direct. That means there are necessarily four logical outcomes: symbolic fiction, direct fiction, symbolic non-fiction and direct non-fiction. Allegory belongs to the first category. Therefore, referring to something as allegorical means referring to it as fictitious as well as symbolic. In logic, this is called an entailment. Something being an allegory means it is literally false but could symbolize something true.



I must ask, are you posing the grid that denotes deism (belief in a non-intervening god), atheism (without a belief in god), theism (belief in god or gods), pantheism (the "universe" is a hypothetical god), polytheism (belief in many gods), monotheism (belief in only one God), and agnosticism (not a belief, but an admission that for the most part "I don't know"), or something else entirely?
Granted, theism tends to include deism, pantheism, polytheism, and montheism, whereas atheism ("a" prefix meaning without) does not.
There are others I did not mention such as:
panentheism (god exists in all of nature),
henotheism (belief in one god but not denying the existence of others),
post-theism (belief that we have progressed beyond our need for god),
monolatrism (belief in many gods but only worshiping one),
apartheism (apathy towards god),
non-theism ("disbelief" in god or gods),
and anti-theism ("against" all belief in god or gods) to name a few,
although there are quite a few other classifications that I didn't list including the various subcategories of agnosticism,
and ignosticism (that all other theological positions assumes too much about god),
as well as theological noncognitivism (that religious language is not cognitively meaningful).
So a level playing field is paramount here for any competent discussion IMHO.
It might be helpful to all if we defined the playing field so that it is somewhat level.


EDIT: I should probably mention autotheism too because it is what I most closely identify with.
It postulates that even though God is all around us and everywhere at the same time, God is inherently "within" oneself (within all of us) and that each of us has the duty to become as perfect or divine and as "selflessly" as we possibly can.

As far as that all goes, there are only four genera to consider: religious theism, non-religious theism, religious atheism and non-religious atheism. The belief systems you list will each fall into one of those categories, depending on the beliefs held by individuals. Atheism doesn't fit into a box, just like agnosticism and theism don't. Those three are on a continuum, just like religious, secular and non-religious are.

[leemajors]

Xmas have you read Demian by Hesse?

[Blake]

Animals are not humans. Animals do not know right from wrong. When an animal kills another animal is it considered murder? Fuck man, no wonder your wife was cheating on you. You suck at life in general.

"why" is apparently a hard word for you.

you went to a public school didn't you

[Aztecfan03]

And gays aren't part of his creation? Most gay people are born to be just that...gay. Sure, we have a few flaming homo's who are confused but, I'm in the opinion it's genetic.
Maybe genetically predisposed.

[Blake]

Dunno. Could even be from this universe in the future like in The Last Question. To suppose I know that is to make an assertion I don't feel comfortable making. All that stuff is irrelevant to the point.

Interesting that you would go that far with an idea of what the creator of this universe might be but stop there.

if I subscribed to your belief, "dunno" wouldn't cut it. The starting point problem would bug the hell out of me.

[Chinook]

Interesting that you would go that far with an idea of what the creator of this universe might be but stop there.

if I subscribed to your belief, "dunno" wouldn't cut it. The starting point problem would bug the hell out of me.

I can't imagine that atheists have an easier time with that. "Dunno" is the only way to answer that question truthfully.

As I said, I don't see it as a big deal to have a mythos to that extent. It's fun to propose theories, but that's about as far as it should go.

[xmas1997]

Xmas have you read Demian by Hesse?

I don't believe so.
Why do you ask?

By the way, my grandmothers' maiden name on my fathers' side was Hesse.
I've often wondered if there is a distant relation, although Hesse is probably a pretty common name in Austria, like Reagan is in Ireland.

[Blake]

I can't imagine that atheists have an easier time with that. "Dunno" is the only way to answer that question truthfully.

As I said, I don't see it as a big deal to have a mythos to that extent. It's fun to propose theories, but that's about as far as it should go.

it's even more fun to propose intelligent design theories, test them philosophically and then watch every single one crumble and end with dunno.

[Chinook]

it's even more fun to propose intelligent design theories, test them philosophically and then watch every single one crumble and end with dunno.

I don't even know what to say to that. What do you think it means to , "test them philosophically"?

[Blake]

I don't even know what to say to that. What do you think it means to , "test them philosophically"?

explain your watch maker belief again

[Chinook]

explain your watch maker belief again

God set up the initial conditions and rules. Then he hit the 'run' button and sat back.

[leemajors]

I don't believe so.
Why do you ask?

By the way, my grandmothers' maiden name on my fathers' side was Hesse.
I've often wondered if there is a distant relation, although Hesse is probably a pretty common name in Austria, like Reagan is in Ireland.

Abraxas.

[spurraider21]

You sure as hell did in the quote above in your post #1816.
And now you come with the obvious blatant lie on top of it.
You're being validly called out on it, because you're not doing anything less than any of the rest of us are doing!
:lol
that wasn't a false accusation. the three of you were just trolling.

[spurraider21]

God set up the initial conditions and rules. Then he hit the 'run' button and sat back.
what is the reasoning or logic behind that assumption?

[Chinook]

what is the reasoning or logic behind that assumption?

Legit question. One is that god doesn't need to intervene if he actually set up the conditions. If the religions are correct in god being omnipotent and omniscient, then there'd be no reason for god to intervene, since the causal chain is calculable by one who has the rules and initial conditions. That's what I've never gotten about religions. If everything is god's will, why would he ever have to show himself or perform miracles?

[Blake]

Legit question. One is that god doesn't need to intervene if he actually set up the conditions. If the religions are correct in god being omnipotent and omniscient, then there'd be no reason for god to intervene, since the causal chain is calculable by one who has the rules and initial conditions. That's what I've never gotten about religions. If everything is god's will, why would he ever have to show himself or perform miracles?

is omnipotent/omniscient your belief or a sidebar?

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPcpvSg1ls

[Chinook]

is omnipotent/omniscient your belief or a sidebar?

Sidebar. I don't see why that would be necessary. Most simulations run until they're over unless the person running them sees an error occurring. So even if god is just some high-school kid trying to get some data for a project, he wouldn't have to be all hands on at this stage.

[Blake]

Sidebar. I don't see why that would be necessary. Most simulations run until they're over unless the person running them sees an error occurring. So even if god is just some high-school kid trying to get some data for a project, he wouldn't have to be all hands on at this stage.

sbm: we're going to call it "he" for typing sake so no need to slobber all over the thread when I refer to it as that.

If he isn't omnipotent/omniscient how much higher on the evolutionary scale do you believe he is?

[spurraider21]

sbm: we're going to call it "he" for typing sake so no need to slobber all over the thread when I refer to it as that.

If he isn't omnipotent/omniscient how much higher on the evolutionary scale do you believe he is?
no such thing. it existed before us.

tbh nothing is really "higher" or "lower" on an evolutionary scale. if you are successful enough to reproduce and survive, you exist. if not, you don't.

[Blake]

Of course if we skip all the way ahead, the question will always come back to: "who created the creator?"

[spurraider21]

Of course if we skip all the way ahead, the question will always come back to: "who created the creator?"
or what was the creator doing before he decided on a whim to create our universe... or the first universe he created

[Chinook]

sbm: we're going to call it "he" for typing sake so no need to slobber all over the thread when I refer to it as that.

If he isn't omnipotent/omniscient how much higher on the evolutionary scale do you believe he is?

To me, that's like asking how much farther down the evolutionary scale are the creatures from Spore compared to us. It doesn't make sense to compare them.

If you just mean how intellectually advanced do I think he is compared to us, I don't think he has to be all that much ahead of us. It's more that he would have a higher capacity than humans, like in "The Last Question." Like we can make a universal simulation on a computer right now, but we don't have the knowledge to make the programming delicate enough nor machines powerful enough to run it. I don't think such knowledge and technology is unknowable, however.

[spurraider21]

it would be foolish to say "humans are higher on the evolutionary tree than sharks"... not every apex predator is "more evolved" per se.

Orcas have no natural predators. does that make them more evolved than other species? or just a more successful branch

[Chinook]

or what was the creator doing before he decided on a whim to create our universe... or the first universe he created

You can argue that the word, 'before' doesn't really make sense if god is outside this universe. Time is a property of this universe, so it's possible than things outside of it don't even have a concept of time.


Of course if we skip all the way ahead, the question will always come back to: "who created the creator?"

Oh good, we've gotten here. You're right that this is the question people have to ask in order to have a real debate on the matter. I'm gonna go ahead and say, "dunno", so we're all clear that I am not trying to assert something here. I'm just going to say a couple of things about it.

Since time is a function of this universe, something outside of this universe isn't necessarily bound by our concept of time. Therefore, it's possible that something outside this universe could have "always" existed. I do consider that the path of least resistance. The idea that god has to have a beginning and ending is an unnecessary attribution. We assign it because we know only of things that begin and eventually end. We'll get back to that when we actually get to the real question later on.

Beyond that, I'll say that I actually don't have the burden of answering that question, even if god did necessarily have a beginning. It's like asking a scientist to tell you what started the Big Bang before you can accept it. Any answer is unnecessary to the issue at hand. If the universe (existence as we know it) was created, then whatever created the creator is irrelevant to us.

[Chinook]

it would be foolish to say "humans are higher on the evolutionary tree than sharks"... not every apex predator is "more evolved" per se.

Orcas have no natural predators. does that make them more evolved than other species? or just a more successful branch

Yes, I agree. This is the primary way Rob's understanding of evolution runs aground. All life as been evolving for the exact same amount of time. We're all cousins to each other. We didn't come from any form of life that still exists today.

[Blake]

To me, that's like asking how much farther down the evolutionary scale are the creatures from Spore compared to us. It doesn't make sense to compare them.

If you just mean how intellectually advanced do I think he is compared to us, I don't think he has to be all that much ahead of us. It's more that he would have a higher capacity than humans, like in "The Last Question." Like we can make a universal simulation on a computer right now, but we don't have the knowledge to make the programming delicate enough nor machines powerful enough to run it. I don't think such knowledge and technology is unknowable, however.

Sure, "intellectually advanced" if it helps.

[Blake]

You can argue that the word, 'before' doesn't really make sense if god is outside this universe. Time is a property of this universe, so it's possible than things outside of it don't even have a concept of time.



Oh good, we've gotten here. You're right that this is the question people have to ask in order to have a real debate on the matter. I'm gonna go ahead and say, "dunno", so we're all clear that I am not trying to assert something here. I'm just going to say a couple of things about it.


Why are you going with a watch maker belief instead of "dunno"?



Since time is a function of this universe, something outside of this universe isn't necessarily bound by our concept of time. Therefore, it's possible that something outside this universe could have "always" existed. I do consider that the path of least resistance. The idea that god has to have a beginning and ending is an unnecessary attribution. We assign it because we know only of things that begin and eventually end. We'll get back to that when we actually get to the real question later on.

Irrational assumption. No reason to go with that fantasy.


Beyond that, I'll say that I actually don't have the burden of answering that question, even if god did necessarily have a beginning. It's like asking a scientist to tell you what started the Big Bang before you can accept it. Any answer is unnecessary to the issue at hand. If the universe (existence as we know it) was created, then whatever created the creator is irrelevant to us.

is the question you're waiting for "purpose?"

[Chinook]

Why are you going with a watch maker belief instead of "dunno"?



Irrational assumption. No reason to go with that fantasy.



is the question you're waiting for "purpose?"

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.

[spurraider21]

Sure, "intellectually advanced" if it helps.
it doesn't "help"... its a different question altogether

[xmas1997]

Abraxas.

I will check it out, thanks.

[spurraider21]

You can argue that the word, 'before' doesn't really make sense if god is outside this universe. Time is a property of this universe, so it's possible than things outside of it don't even have a concept of time.
the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

[DMC]

the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

Without change, there's no one there who would give a shit to know.

[Chinook]

the only thing time really means is change. without time, you can't have change... and if there is no change, then there is no way to determine or "prove" that time exists.

the creation of a universe is change from the previous state of not having a universe

Is that an agreement that time as we know it is dependent on the existence of the universe?

[DMC]

The programmers location means nothing to the simulation. It can't measure something like that because it is outside itself. That's the point. You think I am arguing that god is/was in the universe and then left. I am more of the mind that god was never here in that sense, just like a programmer is never in his own simulation.

Which is equal to saying God never existed, and doesn't exist now. That makes you a non-theist, especially consider that "in that way" is a nebulous concept, a gap, that you're finding convenient.


I think it's clear you don't understand what the word logical really means. You keep tying it to empiricism. (I don't observe god; therefore it's logical to withhold the belief that god exists.) But logic has nothing to do with empiricism. It is a much more powerful form of knowledge than science is.

Show your formal logic that leads to God, or is that more anecdotes?


You demonstrated that by making your false equivalency between religionists and theists. Doing so is illogical, no matter what you've observed, since the words don't mean the same thing. Unless two things are exactly equal, then making decisions on them leads to four outcomes. That is a mathematically demonstrable principle. Your arguments aren't.
You've falsely labeled yourself a theist. You're no more theist than am I. In this same response you've stated you don't believe a god "was ever here, in that sense". I hold that position as well. To say you believe a god exists then to say that god was "never here in that sense" without defining what sense that god was "here" or where else exists other than "here", that's having your cake and eating it too.

You clearly believe in some "other" existence, else all is energy and matter (what I believe). If god the prime mover never existed "here" then you must believe he exists or existed in a some other way. What reasoning do you use to make that leap from physics to the supernatural and why do you say you believe only what science has discovered to be true? Give me an example of how reasoning can lead you to accept that a god exists.

[DMC]

Is that an agreement that time as we know it is dependent on the existence of the universe?

And vice versa.

[DMC]

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.
It's more parsimonious to not apply an unnecessary god.

Aren't you using a god as a placeholder for "I don't know"?

You don't know a god exists, you just put a god in a situation that you feel best solves the puzzle, yet you don't have all the pieces. Does that equate to belief in a god or just an allowance that a god might exist?

[Chinook]

And vice versa.

Sure. But that statement does no work for you.

[Chinook]

It's more parsimonious to not apply an unnecessary god.

Aren't you using a god as a placeholder for "I don't know"?

You don't know a god exists, you just put a god in a situation that you feel best solves the puzzle, yet you don't have all the pieces. Does that equate to belief in a god or just an allowance that a god might exist?

No. It's not parsimonious to argue for a break in the basic rules of causality. You have no reason to believe the universe was not set into motion. You've observed nothing that has that quality.

Of course I don't know god exists. I believe it's the conservative assumption. That's what science is all about.

[Chinook]

Which is equal to saying God never existed, and doesn't exist now. That makes you a non-theist, especially consider that "in that way" is a nebulous concept, a gap, that you're finding convenient.

Show your formal logic that leads to God, or is that more anecdotes?

You've falsely labeled yourself a theist. You're no more theist than am I. In this same response you've stated you don't believe a god "was ever here, in that sense". I hold that position as well. To say you believe a god exists then to say that god was "never here in that sense" without defining what sense that god was "here" or where else exists other than "here", that's having your cake and eating it too.

You clearly believe in some "other" existence, else all is energy and matter (what I believe). If god the prime mover never existed "here" then you must believe he exists or existed in a some other way. What reasoning do you use to make that leap from physics to the supernatural and why do you say you believe only what science has discovered to be true? Give me an example of how reasoning can lead you to accept that a god exists.

No. That's not true. It means us believing in god's existence means nothing. That's the case for everything that exists.

I said I don't believe god was (ever) here in this sense. For Clarification's sake, I mean that I don't see why god has to exists in this universe. I am theist because I believe that some entity set into motion what we consider existence. The rest of your attributions are meaningless. The word means what it means.


Asking how physics leads to god is like asking how history leads to physics. Physics is not the basis of all knowledge. But in the interest of discussion, I'll make an attempt when I get to an actual computer.

[DMC]

No. It's not parsimonious to argue for a break in the basic rules of causality. You have no reason to believe the universe was not set into motion. You've observed nothing that has that quality.

Yet you have a reason to believe that a god was not set into motion even though you've observed nothing that has that quality?


Of course I don't know god exists. I believe it's the conservative assumption. That's what science is all about.
It's not the conservative assumption. "I don't know" is the conservative assumption when you don't know. Magical presence who crosses the gap into reality then vanishes has nothing to do with science, no matter how much you want it be so.

[spurraider21]

Now this is a thought provoking discussion I'm legitimately interesting in having... though I can't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics or relativity. My understanding of "time" is quite basic. Heck, a photon never "experiences" time. Per the theory of relativity, time slows down the faster you travel, and as you approach the speed of light, time approaches a standstill. If we were photons, from the moment we launched to the moment we collided with an object, no matter how far a distance we traveled, to us it would feel instantaneous, as no time passes for something moving at the speed of light.

Perhaps this creator Chinook speaks of is in that same mold... but it just seems like a lot of qualifiers, and thus I find it hard to call that the null.

If we agree that time = change, and we also agree that a universe existing is different than a universe not existing, then the mere existence of the universe (even at the VERY instant the universe "came to be" and no time has passed within) would imply that time has been experienced. And this assuming said creator literally created the universe in an absolute instant, and didn't ponder or plan the creation.

[pgardn]

no such thing. it existed before us.

tbh nothing is really "higher" or "lower" on an evolutionary scale. if you are successful enough to reproduce and survive, you exist. if not, you don't.

This is a very good point from a science point of view.
So the bump. Complexity as judged by humans, is not "higher" to an Evolutionary Biologist.

[Blake]

it doesn't "help"... its a different question altogether

Maybe we'll branch out on it

and maybe since we're getting into fantasy, I had this dude in mind:

http://marvel.com/universe/High_Evolutionary

[spurraider21]

I wonder where we lost robdiaz in this discussion, tbh :lol

[RD2191]

I'm still here, and I understand most of it. At the end of the day evolution takes faith to believe in. So at least we have that in common.

[Blake]

That's about as close to the question as we've gotten.

It's unfounded, but not irrational. It's also parsimonious to not apply unnecessary qualities to god.

It's as rational as spaghetti.


Nope. The question is why would I assert god exists at all. Very short answer is the fact that I believe it is the most reasonable belief. Essentially, I believe it's the null.

I don't care why you believe in a watch maker. Believe what you want.

The question is "is it logical"

ultimate answer is "no".

[Blake]

I'm still here, and I understand most of it. At the end of the day evolution takes faith to believe in. So at least we have that in common.

Here's where someone says "evolution has been seen"

You say "no it hasn't".

I call you stupid.

You take a personal shot like Jesus commands you to

And on.

[Chinook]

Yet you have a reason to believe that a god was not set into motion even though you've observed nothing that has that quality?

Yes. If something is not under our constraints, it doesn't have to follow our rules. In some way or another, "something" has always been there, in some sense. That is the only way we don't keep going down this origin road. To not believe that is to believe in magic. It's not conservative at all.


It's not the conservative assumption. "I don't know" is the conservative assumption when you don't know. Magical presence who crosses the gap into reality then vanishes has nothing to do with science, no matter how much you want it be so.

"I don't know", is not an assumption. It's a statement of fact.

For the second part, I assume we'll get into that by the time you finish your response cycle. I'll wait until then so that we don't have a several parallel back-and-forths on the same subject.

[pgardn]

Now this is a thought provoking discussion I'm legitimately interesting in having... though I can't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics or relativity. My understanding of "time" is quite basic. Heck, a photon never "experiences" time. Per the theory of relativity, time slows down the faster you travel, and as you approach the speed of light, time approaches a standstill. If we were photons, from the moment we launched to the moment we collided with an object, no matter how far a distance we traveled, to us it would feel instantaneous, as no time passes for something moving at the speed of light.

Perhaps this creator Chinook speaks of is in that same mold... but it just seems like a lot of qualifiers, and thus I find it hard to call that the null.

If we agree that time = change, and we also agree that a universe existing is different than a universe not existing, then the mere existence of the universe (even at the VERY instant the universe "came to be" and no time has passed within) would imply that time has been experienced. And this assuming said creator literally created the universe in an absolute instant, and didn't ponder or plan the creation.

Time is a human construct that basically implies that events occur, and they are not simultaneous. If there were never any events, time has no meaning.

And for Chinook or anyone else who believes a creator set things in to motion:

After the program was running (the universe was set into motion), did God already know the outcome of all events?
Sorry if this has already been answered.

Anyone chime in if this answer has already been given by Chinook.

[Chinook]

It's as rational as spaghetti.

Spaghetti is a type of pasta. It has no rationality or irrationality.


I don't care why you believe in a watch maker. Believe what you want.

The question is "is it logical"

ultimate answer is "no".[

Do we have to go through the logical thing again? Logic has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Logic isn't derived from empiricism like you seem to think it is. It is a separate system that is significantly more powerful.

[RD2191]

It hasn't, and never will be. Therefore it takes faith to believe in. No human will ever be able to observe an animal turning into a completely different animal. Since, you know, evolution takes millions of years and what not.

[Chinook]

Time is a human construct that basically implies that events occur, and they are not simultaneous. If there were never any events, time has no meaning.

And for Chinook or anyone else who believes a creator set thing in to motion:

After the program was running (the universe was set into motion), did God already know the outcome of all events?
Sorry if this has already been answered.

Anyone chime in if this answer has already been given by Chinook.

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

[Blake]

Yes. If something is not under our constraints, it doesn't have to follow our rules. In some way or another, "something" has always been there, in some sense. That is the only way we don't keep going down this origin road. To not believe that is to believe in magic. It's not conservative at all.

The "something" was a magic pile of pasta

[DMC]

No. That's not true. It means us believing in god's existence means nothing. That's the case for everything that exists.

But you don't believe in a god's existence "in this universe" (as if there are other known universes). You might be theist in the universe where this god exists, but that's not this one. So in this universe, where you and I exist, you do not believe a god exists. That makes you atheist.


I said I don't believe god was (ever) here in this sense. For Clarification's sake, I mean that I don't see why god has to exists in this universe. I am theist because I believe that some entity set into motion what we consider existence. The rest of your attributions are meaningless. The word means what it means.

Why does that something have to be a god? Theism is the belief in a god. Why are you arbitrarily calling a prime mover "god"? You keep saying the terms are meaningless but the term "theism" somehow appears to have meaning to you. Religion appears to have meaning to you.


Asking how physics leads to god is like asking how history leads to physics. Physics is not the basis of all knowledge. But in the interest of discussion, I'll make an attempt when I get to an actual computer.
You said you only believe what science has discovered to be true (paraphrasing). Science doesn't delve into god discussion. Science is much more concerned with the physics of existence than the cause of existence. You presuppose a cause because, I think, you've presupposed a causer. You seem to be finding a place to put your god belief where it doesn't embarrass you. Why isn't it more parsimonious to not form a belief prior to being compelled to do so by supporting evidence?

Were you ever Catholic?

[Chinook]

Now this is a thought provoking discussion I'm legitimately interesting in having... though I can't pretend to be an expert on quantum physics or relativity. My understanding of "time" is quite basic. Heck, a photon never "experiences" time. Per the theory of relativity, time slows down the faster you travel, and as you approach the speed of light, time approaches a standstill. If we were photons, from the moment we launched to the moment we collided with an object, no matter how far a distance we traveled, to us it would feel instantaneous, as no time passes for something moving at the speed of light.

Perhaps this creator Chinook speaks of is in that same mold... but it just seems like a lot of qualifiers, and thus I find it hard to call that the null.

If we agree that time = change, and we also agree that a universe existing is different than a universe not existing, then the mere existence of the universe (even at the VERY instant the universe "came to be" and no time has passed within) would imply that time has been experienced. And this assuming said creator literally created the universe in an absolute instant, and didn't ponder or plan the creation.

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

[Blake]

Spaghetti is a type of pasta. It has no rationality or irrationality.

but it's what was there before the universe began.


Do we have to go through the logical thing again? Logic has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Logic isn't derived from empiricism like you seem to think it is. It is a separate system that is significantly more powerful.

You asked.

If you want to concur that it's illogical to believe in a watch maker then that's it for me, I'm done discussing your belief system.

[RD2191]

Blake done because he is getting his ass handed to him. :lol

[DMC]

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

It does matter in this discussion. On a cosmological scale, nothing we say matters, however for this discussion it's important to understand why you seem to arbitrarily draw the line at defining the god you believe set things in motion. Things are in motion, and infinite regress is a real bitch to deal with so there has to be a start, and the Big Bang is as far as we've gone back so far. So the mind has to decide that either the Big Bang was uncaused or it was caused. Since we don't know of any uncaused causes, it appears parsimonious to assume it was caused. That implies a causer, and any causer that can exist and act outside of the 1st act is, for all intents and purposes, equal to any god concept that holds any meaning. That's all fine and good, however it only leads to more problems than it solves. How is a prime mover able to escape our need for a cause, if not in reality at least in our explanation? Why can't we allow known things to escape that cause requirement? For example, why can't matter and energy have always existed (always being a time based measurement, meaning you cannot say "before that" with any sensible meaning)? Why is accepting that harder than accepting that a god exists in another realm that had a reason to start a universe? Why would a god start a universe? Why would a god exist without the universe? When did the god's home area come into existence? Is there time between the events of this god? Is this god omnipresent (can't escape that one if he's not confined by time). Is he omnipotent? (can't escape that one if he can create worlds without being affected by them). Is he omniscient? Does he know what loss feels like?

Basically, an unknowable thing is unknowable. How do you know of it?

[Chinook]

But you don't believe in a god's existence "in this universe" (as if there are other known universes). You might be theist in the universe where this god exists, but that's not this one. So in this universe, where you and I exist, you do not believe a god exists. That makes you atheist.

No, it doesn't. That's a poor extension. That's mainly because you have your logic messed up. If I believe god exists in another universe, then I am a theist. It's not like he has to be here for me to believe it. I can't (won't) write the formal logic symbols to express the disconnect, but that is something that I could do even with my limited understanding in the discipline.


Why does that something have to be a god? Theism is the belief in a god. Why are you arbitrarily calling a prime mover "god"? You keep saying the terms are meaningless but the term "theism" somehow appears to have meaning to you. Religion appears to have meaning to you.

I said your attributions to my beliefs are meaningless. I am a theist by syllogism. The only quality that is necessary to attribute to god is being he who set into motion what we know as existence. Everything else is just banter between folks who don't know.


You said you only believe what science has discovered to be true (paraphrasing). Science doesn't delve into god discussion. Science is much more concerned with the physics of existence than the cause of existence. You presuppose a cause because, I think, you've presupposed a causer. You seem to be finding a place to put your god belief where it doesn't embarrass you. Why isn't it more parsimonious to not form a belief prior to being compelled to do so by supporting evidence?

I did not say I only believe what science discovered to be true. I said that the only causal chain I believe in is the only that scientists are trying to create. However, there is a lot of (much stronger) knowledge that does not come from science. This is why I said folks don't really get what science is. It is the weakest form of what we call knowledge. That is because it is a series of beliefs that we hold due to them conforming best with the series of conventions we decided were the best. It has nothing on the basic principles of reason when it comes to power. "Two plus two equals four" is a more powerful assertion than anything science can ever come up with. If you don't understand that, then you do not really get what science is all about.

You have to form a null in order to test anything. You can't just withhold belief altogether. That's not how science works.


Were you ever Catholic?

Lol, no. Actually, my folks are slightly prejudiced toward Catholicism.

[pgardn]

I don't think it matters. I believe anyone who assigns omnipotence and omniscience to god has to believe he knows the outcome and as such has no need to intervene. But even being conservative and not assigning that attribute to god, I don't think it makes a difference.

Interesting.

It does make a difference to me however, as some (not you necessarily), believe we were created in God's image. When I define image, it means we have certain attributes like the creator. So this makes a huge difference to me.

[Chinook]

but it's what was there before the universe began.


You asked.

If you want to concur that it's illogical to believe in a watch maker then that's it for me, I'm done discussing your belief system.

You never had to discuss my belief system. I didn't engaged you. But what I am saying is that people are misusing the word 'logical' to make it an element of empiricist thought. It's not the same thing at all. I don't mind misuses of diction for the most part, but it's sort of important in such a nuanced discussion.

[DMC]

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.

It's not faith to allow that it's possible. You've never observed a god that came from nothing. You seem ok with the concept.

[spurraider21]

My assertion that it's the null essentially comes from the fact that I feel that it's parsimonious to believe the universe was set into motion rather than beginning spontaneously. To argue that something came from nothing (which is where the argument HAS to go eventually) is to supposed that something happened in a way we've never observed before. To me, that's a much bigger leap of faith.
As if we HAVE observed an omnipresent creator outside the boundaries of our universe?

one of the most fascinating aspects of scientific history (to me) is the predictive nature of it. Darwin predicting that some unknown species with certain characteristics MUST exist, which it did. Mendeleev predicting that there were elements with very specific characteristics that we simply hadn't discovered yet, leaving those spots on the periodic table empty, knowing we'd one day find them (iodine and tellerium). The prediction that the unobserved planet Neptune MUST exist based on the orbit of Uranus. The prediction that black holes, previously completely in observable simply must exist...

Einsteins theory of relativity, in relation to the Big Bang, predicted the existence of gravitational waves, which were unheard of and had never been identified... And they were only first observed earlier in 2014. The Big Bang theory was unworkable if these waves didn't exist. Of course it's not definitive proof, but the predictive powers are just incredible. There is evidence that points to a Big Bang from which the universe has expanded. Anything beyond that is an unknown. Assuming the existence of an entity can't be a null

[Chinook]

Interesting.

It does make a difference to me however, as some (not you necessarily), believe we were created in God's image. When I define image, it means we have certain attributes like the creator. So this makes a huge difference to me.

By, "I don't think it matters," I mean that it being true is not a necessary condition. When we run simulations, we don't necessarily know the outcomes we will get. Sometimes we do, but sometimes we don't. I don't believe humans were created in god's image. That doesn't mean I am dismissing that possibility, but I don't think it's necessary to think that.

[pgardn]

No, it doesn't. That's a poor extension. That's mainly because you have your logic messed up. If I believe god exists in another universe, then I am a theist. It's not like he has to be here for me to believe it. I can't (won't) write the formal logic symbols to express the disconnect, but that is something that I could do even with my limited understanding in the discipline.



I said your attributions to my beliefs are meaningless. I am a theist by syllogism. The only quality that is necessary to attribute to god is being he who set into motion what we know as existence. Everything else is just banter between folks who don't know.



I did not say I only believe what science discovered to be true. I said that the only causal chain I believe in is the only that scientists are trying to create. However, there is a lot of (much stronger) knowledge that does not come from science. This is why I said folks don't really get what science is. It is the weakest form of what we call knowledge. That is because it is a series of beliefs that we hold due to them conforming best with the series of conventions we decided were the best. It has nothing on the basic principles of reason when it comes to power. "Two plus two equals four" is a more powerful assertion than anything science can ever come up with. If you don't understand that, then you do not really get what science is all about.

You have to form a null in order to test anything. You can't just withhold belief altogether. That's not how science works.



Lol, no. Actually, my folks are slightly prejudiced toward Catholicism.

Science is much more and less in some cases than you describe.
Humans have decided that predicting the future is a very powerful tool.
What human activity performs this better than science?

Oops, I now see I overwrote Spurraider, apologies.

[Chinook]

It's not faith to allow that it's possible. You've never observed a god that came from nothing. You seem ok with the concept.

It's not an allowance. It's an inevitability.

[DMC]

You never had to discuss my belief system. I didn't engaged you. But what I am saying is that people are misusing the word 'logical' to make it an element of empiricist thought. It's not the same thing at all. I don't mind misuses of diction for the most part, but it's sort of important in such a nuanced discussion.

Instead of "logical", consider "rational" since deism is supposed to be based on that. Do you consider it rational that belief is caused, not chosen? If so, what caused your belief in a non-personal god?

[phyzik]

8tVBtyDqD90

I doubt "believers" will even watch it, but there it is.

He doesn't make shit up, it is all straight out of the bible.... But somehow people who "want" to believe will completely ignore it or wont even watch it at all.

[Chinook]

As if we HAVE observed an omnipresent creator outside the boundaries of our universe?

one of the most fascinating aspects of scientific history (to me) is the predictive nature of it. Darwin predicting that some unknown species with certain characteristics MUST exist, which it did. Mendeleev predicting that there were elements with very specific characteristics that we simply hadn't discovered yet, leaving those spots on the periodic table empty, knowing we'd one day find them (iodine and tellerium). The prediction that the in observed planet Neptune MUST exist based on the orbit of Uranus. The prediction that black holes, previously completely in observable simply must exist...

Einsteins theory of relativity, in relation to the Big Bang, predicted the existence of gravitational waves, which were unheard of and had never been identified... And they were only first observed earlier in 2014. The Big Bang theory was unworkable if these waves didn't exist. Of course it's not definitive proof, but the predictive powers are just incredible.

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different entities. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.

[DMC]

It's not an allowance. It's an inevitability.
If that were the case, anyone who's not deist is in denial or ignorant or just slow.

It's not inevitable that a god must exist. You are using a double standard in implying otherwise. I don't see how this is any different than saying you believe in a personal god who wants you to love his resurrected son Jesus Christ. They are both unfalsifiable, and both are supposedly the inevitable truths.

What's most likely is that all gods do not truly exist. That means we have to decide which ones do or that any do. That leads us to examining the evidence for any of them. What evidence constitutes proof of the existence of a god? If you think the universe is that proof, what other created universe are you using as an example?

[RD2191]

8tVBtyDqD90

I doubt "believers" will even watch it, but there it is.
:lol

[pgardn]

By, "I don't think it matters," I mean that it being true is not a necessary condition. When we run simulations, we don't necessarily know the outcomes we will get. Sometimes we do, but sometimes we don't. I don't believe humans were created in god's image. That doesn't mean I am dismissing that possibility, but I don't think it's necessary to think that.

By matter you mean it has no effect on the phenomena of a series of events?

[DMC]

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different entities. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.

There's a large discrepancy when you equivocate "things" with "gods".

[Chinook]

Instead of "logical", consider "rational" since deism is supposed to be based on that. Do you consider it rational that belief is caused, not chosen? If so, what caused your belief in a non-personal god?

Honestly, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking before I answer. What do you mean by belief being caused or chosen? And what do you mean by non-personal god?

[phyzik]

:lol

case in point... Laughs but didn't even watch even though everything the speaker states is right out of the bible.

Is your faith so fragile that you cant even bear the questioning of it?

[pgardn]

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different entities. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.

No, no.

Math and logic ARE a part of science. They are among the Most important tools.
You have a very narrow definition of science, with all due respect. It uses math, logic, observation, ... to be a powerful way of knowing. Science is not weak because it uses multiple disciplines, it is more useful because it does.

[RD2191]

case in point... Laughs but didn't even watch even though everything the speaker states is right out of the bible.

Is your faith so fragile that you cant even bear the questioning of it?
Is your faith in evolution the same?

[DMC]

Honestly, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking before I answer. What do you mean by belief being caused or chosen? And what do you mean by non-personal god?

Example: Could you chose to believe the Earth does not exist? Probably not. That means you cannot choose to believe it does. People who can choose to believe something that's not obviously true are considered to be delusional. I don't think you're delusional. You probably did not choose to believe in a god, so what evidence forced your hand? With the Earth, well it's so "there" all the time.

Non-personal god: A god that doesn't give a shit about you, didn't create the universe for you or anyone else.

[Chinook]

It's not inevitable that a god must exist.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. It's an inevitability that the causal chain has to start somewhere. If it's not true that it was started by something that has no beginning (and thus is not part of another chain), then it had to have been started by nothing.

It's not an inevitability that god exists. I've said that before.

[Chinook]

No, no.

Math and logic ARE a part of science. They are among the Most important tools.
You have a very narrow definition of science, with all due respect.

No. They are not, at least not in the sense of folks asserting that things have to be falsifiable to be true. If you want to define science as including all three forms of knowledge (empiricism, math and logical relations), then I guess you we can agree. But then this all gets rather pointless.

[DMC]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. It's an inevitability that the causal chain has to start somewhere. If it's not true that it was started by something that has no beginning (and thus is not part of another chain), then it had to have been started by nothing.

It's not an inevitability that god exists. I've said that before.

It didn't have to be started. Why must there be a start? How do you come to that conclusion that there was an "it" to start? Starting something implies there was a time when that something wasn't started. Time before time is nonsensical. Where is the end? Even at entropy there is technically still existence.

[Chinook]

There's a large discrepancy when you equivocate "things" with "gods".

Is there really? Aren't folks arguing against believing in god based on empiricist grounds reifying god?

[DMC]

No. They are not, at least not in the sense of folks asserting that things have to be falsifiable to be true. If you want to define science as including all three forms of knowledge (empiricism, math and logical relations), then I guess you we can agree. But then this all gets rather pointless.
Sorry to cross talk, but not everything has to be falsifiable to be believed. It's been said and bears repeating: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that extraordinary proof has to be in a form that could be debunked if it were not proof.

[DMC]

Is there really? Aren't folks arguing against believing in god reifying god?

No. Am I reifying ghosts to say I don't believe in them? There's the concept of what a god is, else you couldn't claim to be theist, and then there's reification of that concept by the believer, not by the non-believer. We don't give the concept credibility by not believing it.

You cannot rationally equate belief in "things" to belief in "gods". I can believe you when you tell me it's raining in California, never even have to prove it to me. I cannot believe you when you say you can levitate and have OBEs. I'd need proof.

[pgardn]

No. They are not, at least not in the sense of folks asserting that things have to be falsifiable to be true. If you want to define science as including all three forms of knowledge (empiricism, math and logical relations), then I guess you we can agree. But then this all gets rather pointless.

Assertions being false and true are only PART of a way of knowing. Logic is limited. Math is limited. Science IS a way of understanding how our universe functions. The best way I know. It is powerful because it uses powerful tools and applies them to gain and refine knowledge about our universe.

[Chinook]

It didn't have to be started. Why must there be a start? How do you come to that conclusion that there was an "it" to start? Starting something implies there was a time when that something wasn't started. Time before time is nonsensical. Where is the end? Even at entropy there is technically still existence.

The beginning of time is still the beginning. It's still the start.

Once all matter officially goes away by entropy, time stops (since nothing is occupying space anymore). So that does mean time will end.

[pgardn]

No, no.

Math and logic ARE a part of science. They are among the Most important tools.
You have a very narrow definition of science, with all due respect. It uses math, logic, observation, ... to be a powerful way of knowing. Science is not weak because it uses multiple disciplines, it is more useful because it does.

[DMC]

Assertions being false and true are only PART of a way of knowing. Logic is limited. Math is limited. Science IS a way of understanding how our universe functions. The best way I know. It is powerful because it uses powerful tools and applies them to gain and refine knowledge about our universe.

But there is knowledge that isn't provable by anything other than personal experience. For example, you cannot learn to play a guitar by reading about it. You'd have to do it. You cannot know what loss feels like by reading Grapes of Wrath. You'd have to experience loss. That however doesn't work with belief in a non-personal god, because it doesn't communicate with anyone. It has to be a conclusion you've drawn and therein lies the issue.

[phyzik]

Is your faith in evolution the same?

I don't have "Faith" in evolution, I have a belief in it based of testable and verifiable evidence, but for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and call it "faith" to give you a point on your side to begin with.

The "Theory" of evolution has been tested and repeatedly verified for over 100 years. Just because you deny the evidence based on your belief, does not make it untrue. The fact that it is called a "theory" doesn't mean what you probably think it means. Just like the "Theory" of Gravity. The word "Theory" in science does not mean the same thing as a "theory" in a metaphorical sense, like the "theory" of what is going to happen on the next season of The Strain, or the next Avengers movie.

A "theory" in science is something that is CONSTANTLY being tried to be disproven, and the "Theory" of Evolution is one of the longest standing "theories" around, even the "Theory" of Gravity is questioned more and known less about than Evolution at this point.

[RD2191]

I don't have "Faith" in evolution, I have a belief in it based of testable and verifiable evidence, but for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and call it "faith" to give you a point on your side to begin with.

The "Theory" of evolution has been tested and repeatedly verified for over 100 years. The fact that it is called a "theory" doesn't mean what you probably think it means. Just like the "Theory" of Gravity. The word "Theory" in science does not mean the same thing as a "theory" in a metaphorical sense, like the "theory" of what is going to happen on the next season of The Strain, or the next Avengers movie.
How can the theory of evolution be tested when it takes millions of years for a species to evolve? How can a fish evolving to a walking land animal be tested?

[Chinook]

Assertions being false and true are only PART of a way of knowing.

I disagree. I assert that logic and math are the ONLY things we actually know. The rest, we just believe to be true based on evidence.

[DMC]

The beginning of time is still the beginning. It's still the start.

For intents and purposes, there's not a start since to have a start you'd have to have a stop, and a time between stop and start. What is the time between the stop and start of the universe? How long was it stopped?

You're using incompatible concepts. If you're going to use time, you have to live within it, not outside of it as a remote viewer. Your conclusions about god are from within time, yet you somehow think you can understand the start of the universe as if you see it on a timeline. That presents a paradox.


Once all matter officially goes away by entropy, time stops (since nothing is occupying space anymore). So that does mean time will end.
If time stops, time has ended. When there are no events, there is no time. That doesn't mean "oh but later on there's an event" because time is the distance between events, and without the events there is simply no time. So yes, if there are no events, there is no time. You cannot magically put yourself at entropy and say "but if we sit here then time goes by" because you've contaminated the experiment.

[spurraider21]

Science isn't predictive. Don't confuse math with science. They are two completely different entities. Science depends on math to prop it up, like a child looking to a parent for approval. The examples you listed are examples of math telling empiricism that it could shove off.

That's that whole point I'm making about science. It is actually an extremely weak form of knowledge. In reality, we only consider it knowledge because we need some way of expanding our intellect besides doing proofs over and over. If math predicts something has to exist, it doesn't matter that it's never been observed. It's out there somewhere. So anyone who argues they only believe in measurable, falsifiable things is being disingenuous.
Darwin predicting that a species of moth with an infathomably long proboscis wasn't really based on math. Besides the likes between physics and math are pretty blurred so it's sort of foolish to say "oh that's math not science." Sometimes one precedes the other. An equation or calculation can confirm a theory to explain phenomena and other times a theory is needed to explain what appears to be an inconsistency in the math

[DMC]

I disagree. I assert that logic and math are the ONLY things we actually know. The rest, we just believe to be true based on evidence.

I agree with this. That's why I say belief is compelled, not chosen.

[DMC]

How can the theory of evolution be tested when it takes millions of years for a species to evolve? How can a fish evolving to a walking land animal be tested?
By putting it on a taco.

[RD2191]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the fuck you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?

[phyzik]

How can the theory of evolution be tested when it takes millions of years for a species to evolve? How can a fish evolving to a walking land animal be tested?

You are backing yourself into a corner....

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

Besides the fossil record, there is direct observable evidence of evolution in our lifetime.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I know.... Next you are going to try to separate evolution into two separate categories, like Micro and Macro evolution..... Just a hint... they are the same thing, just on different time scales.

[DMC]

I don't have "Faith" in evolution, I have a belief in it based of testable and verifiable evidence, but for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and call it "faith" to give you a point on your side to begin with.

The "Theory" of evolution has been tested and repeatedly verified for over 100 years. Just because you deny the evidence based on your belief, does not make it untrue. The fact that it is called a "theory" doesn't mean what you probably think it means. Just like the "Theory" of Gravity. The word "Theory" in science does not mean the same thing as a "theory" in a metaphorical sense, like the "theory" of what is going to happen on the next season of The Strain, or the next Avengers movie.

A "theory" in science is something that is CONSTANTLY being tried to be disproven, and the "Theory" of Evolution is one of the longest standing "theories" around, even the "Theory" of Gravity is questioned more and known less about than Evolution at this point.
And like Gravity, the ToE only attempts to explain how evolution works. That it works is a fact.

[DMC]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the fuck you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?

Why would you consider it possible without evidence to support it? Sounds more like hope.

[RD2191]

You are backing yourself into a corner....

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

Besides the fossil record, there is direct observable evidence of evolution in our lifetime.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I know.... Next you are going to try to separate evolution into two separate categories, like Micro and Macro evolution..... Just a hint... they are the same thing, just on different time scales.
Did you see it happen? Were you there?

[DMC]

Did you see it happen? Were you there?
Did you see your grass grow?

[Chinook]

Example: Could you chose to believe the Earth does not exist? Probably not. That means you cannot choose to believe it does. People who can choose to believe something that's not obviously true are considered to be delusional. I don't think you're delusional. You probably did not choose to believe in a god, so what evidence forced your hand? With the Earth, well it's so "there" all the time.

Non-personal god: A god that doesn't give a shit about you, didn't create the universe for you or anyone else.

Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, I believe that that is the best (most rational) way to explain the causal chain. Accepting the existence of a "prime mover" as you put it does nothing to disrupt my view of the chain, while not believing disrupts it quite a bit. As a person with an open mind, I can indeed come up with atheistic scenarios to explain the causal chain, but I feel like all that does is add another step on the puzzle instead of ending it. Another turtle, as they say. Like if the universe were really started like it was in "The Last Question," I would still feel like more explanation was needed. Like, "What started this cyclical system in the first place?" Maybe it always was. I just doesn't seem rational to me to think about a truly atheistic system.

[RD2191]

Did you see your grass grow?
No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

[phyzik]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the fuck you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?

Yes, there is a possibility.... It is actually called String theory. Are you trying to imply that "god" exists in another plane of existence? The problem with that is that String Theory does not allow one plane of existence to effect another. If that were the case, we would see all kinds of anomaly's happening day in and day out.... And who is to say one "god" being in one state of existence is any different that another "god" being in another state..... and if they were truelly able to effect our "state" of existence, why not just prove it?

[DMC]

Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, I believe that that is the best (most rational) way to explain the causal chain. Accepting the existence of a "prime mover" as you put it does nothing to disrupt my view of the chain, while not believing disrupts it quite a bit. As a person with an open mind, I can indeed come up with atheistic scenarios to explain the causal chain, but I feel like all that does is add another step on the puzzle instead of ending it. Another turtle, as they say. Like if the universe were really started like it was in "The Last Question," I would still feel like more explanation was needed. Like, "What started this cyclical system in the first place?" Maybe it always was. I just doesn't seem rational to me to think about a truly atheistic system.

But ending the puzzle by forcing a piece into it that doesn't make sense doesn't actually solve anything. Infinite regress isn't solved by creating an entity that can side step it.

[spurraider21]

Talking out of my ass here but don't laws and rules and facts or whatever the fuck you wanna call them only apply to what is in our observable universe? Could it be possible that there is a place somewhere out there where these laws/facts no longer exist or apply?
IMO dinosaurs completely shit on the biblical timeline

[DMC]

No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

A camera records series of stills. It doesn't capture movement. Fossils are a series of stills.

[phyzik]

No, but if I put a camera out there I can see it happen. I can cut it and see it happen again. It doesn't take millions of years for it to grow.

But we can look at "grass" particles buried deep in the ground and see what lead to the current state of your grass....

I have to ask, are you just trolling or do you really not understand this concept? or are you just unwilling to accept it because it shits on what you want to believe?

[Chinook]

Darwin predicting that a species of moth with an infathomably long proboscis wasn't really based on math. Besides the likes between physics and math are pretty blurred so it's sort of foolish to say "oh that's math not science." Sometimes one precedes the other. An equation or calculation can confirm a theory to explain phenomena and other times a theory is needed to explain what appears to be an inconsistency in the math

I mean math as a concept and not as an actual series of equations. Darwin made his prediction without math, that's true. But later on, the system of math was expressed that legitimized his claim. As crazy as it may sound, I believe mathematical truths are only discovered, not created. So while I think people may make mistakes when trying to do math, and that empiricism may help mediate disputes, mathematical truths are indisputable in the face of any empirical evidence.

[RD2191]

Yes, there is a possibility.... It is actually called String theory. Are you trying to imply that "god" exists in another plane of existence? The problem with that is that String Theory does not allow one plane of existence to effect another. If that were the case, we would see all kinds of anomaly's happening day in and day out.... And who is to say one "god" being in one state of existence is any different that another "god" being in another state..... and if they were truelly able to effect our "state" of existence, why not just prove it?
I'm not implying anything. I'm not going anywhere with this. It was just something I was curious about.

[pgardn]

But there is knowledge that isn't provable by anything other than personal experience. For example, you cannot learn to play a guitar by reading about it. You'd have to do it. You cannot know what loss feels like by reading Grapes of Wrath. You'd have to experience loss. That however doesn't work with belief in a non-personal god, because it doesn't communicate with anyone. It has to be a conclusion you've drawn and therein lies the issue.

Playing the guitar, I don't consider that knowledge about the physical universe. I consider understanding simple harmonic motion, wave interference, resonance, etc.. Knowledge about the physical universe; Helping one understand how the guitar works is more knowledge than playing, which is a craft even though we say, I KNOW how to play the guitar. Knowing how to play does not necessarily lead to the fundamental physical rules of how the instrument works. I should really call this an art.

So in this way science is very limited. Science cannot tell you how it feels to experience loss, but it can sure delve into the question of why loss can be so "painful" to the a Human nervous system from an evolutionary perspective. What purpose loss, envy, love, might play from an evolutionary point of view and which part of the brain needs to be excited to illicit the aforementioned responses.

[spurraider21]

Did you see it happen? Were you there?
I didn't see your great great great grandfather give birth to you. How can I know for sure you are of the same lineage?

[Chinook]

But ending the puzzle by forcing a piece into it that doesn't make sense doesn't actually solve anything. Infinite regress isn't solved by creating an entity that can side step it.

We disagree on the extent to which the piece makes sense.

[RD2191]

But we can look at "grass" particles buried deep in the ground and see what lead to the current state of your grass....

I have to ask, are you just trolling or do you really not understand this concept? or are you just unwilling to accept it because it shits on what you want to believe?
If I was trolling would I ever admit it?

[RD2191]

I didn't see your great great great grandfather give birth to you. How can I know for sure you are of the same lineage?
Ancestry.com, you're welcome.

[pgardn]

I disagree. I assert that logic and math are the ONLY things we actually know. The rest, we just believe to be true based on evidence.

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

[phyzik]

I'm not implying anything. I'm not going anywhere with this. It was just something I was curious about.

String Theory is actually quite interesting and mind bending TBH.... If there was any chance of an omnipotent being, that is where it would most likely be found.

[spurraider21]

Ancestry.com, you're welcome.
You know exactly what I mean, tbh

[phyzik]

Ancestry.com, you're welcome.

Not making this up.... Did you know Ancestry.com is founded by/for the Mormon faith? It was created to keep track of people so that when their belief of the end time comes, they could try to save as many people as possible according to their faith?

It is a database for the Mormon faith originally created in Provo, Utah by Paul Allen and Dan Taggart, for the Latter-Day Saints.

Look it up.

[RD2191]

You know exactly what I mean, tbh
:lol

[RD2191]

Not making this up.... Did you know Ancestry.com is founded by the Mormon faith? It was created to keep track of people so that when their belief of the end time comes, they could try to save as many people as possible according to their faith?

It is a database for the Mormon faith originally created in Provo, Utah by Paul Allen and Dan Taggart, for the Latter-Day Saints.

Look it up.
That's very interesting. I don't really use the site. I was just messing with spurraider.

[pgardn]

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

I really don't see how one can gain knowledge of the rules by which the universe functions without measurement and observation. Then throw in the math and reasoning and now we got a very useful set of rules that can be used for predictions.

How can one KNOW anything about the physical universe without observing and then communicating data on measurement via agreed upon standards. We have a very different definition of knowledge. You can't just know something about the universe solely by thinking about it using logic and math. You can't even use the correct math models if you don't have some trend observed that can be described with math.

very different indeed...

[Chinook]

For intents and purposes, there's not a start since to have a start you'd have to have a stop, and a time between stop and start. What is the time between the stop and start of the universe? How long was it stopped?

You're using incompatible concepts. If you're going to use time, you have to live within it, not outside of it as a remote viewer. Your conclusions about god are from within time, yet you somehow think you can understand the start of the universe as if you see it on a timeline. That presents a paradox.

Well, my source Xmas says god is the ultimate parodox...

Kidding about that. What do you mean about my conclusions of god being from within time?


If time stops, time has ended. When there are no events, there is no time. That doesn't mean "oh but later on there's an event" because time is the distance between events, and without the events there is simply no time. So yes, if there are no events, there is no time. You cannot magically put yourself at entropy and say "but if we sit here then time goes by" because you've contaminated the experiment.

But the inverse is true as well. When time ends, it stops. So there's a start that we consider to be 13 Billion years ago, and there's an end we predict will be Billions upon Billions of years in the future. Between the first event of the universe and the last, there is a theoretically measurable gap of time. We can estimate that gap now despite not being able to observe any but a minute fraction of it.

[Chinook]

We have a different working definition of Knowledge.
And that's fine.

Of course it is. :toast

[phyzik]

tell you what Robdiaz... Watch this video and post your counter arguments.

8tVBtyDqD90

Then you can post ANY video you want, and I guarantee I will watch it and critique it as well. I don't care if your video is 3x as long, I will watch it.

Let's make this a true debate if you are up to it.

[Chinook]

I really don't see how one can gain knowledge of the rules by which the universe functions without measurement and observation. Then throw in the math and reasoning and now we got a very useful set of rules that can be used for predictions.

How can one KNOW anything about the physical universe without observing and then communicating data on measurement via agreed upon standards. We have a very different definition of knowledge. You can't just know something about the universe solely by thinking about it using logic and math. You can't even use the correct math models if you don't have some trend observed that can be described with math.

very different indeed...

You can't. You can only form beliefs about it. Some people use the word 'know' to mean 'believe' elliptically. But it's not the same to those of us who are more cautious about our epistemology.

Math is much bigger than the small portion that scientists use for support for their theories. Its truths are self-evident, and therefore we can actually know them and not just believe them.

[spurraider21]

If time is the gap between events, then your belief must be that there was time before our universe. Unless said creator literally did nothing and then at one instant, not a short amount of time, an instant, he set our entire known universe in motion for literally no reason and with no forethought

[RD2191]

http://www.baldeaglegeotec.com/geonotes/RedHill/fish.jpg

[RD2191]

Dat transition and those assumptions. :lol

[RD2191]

tell you what Robdiaz... Watch this video and post your counter arguments.

8tVBtyDqD90

Then you can post ANY video you want, and I guarantee I will watch it and critique it as well. I don't care if your video is 3x as long, I will watch it.

Let's make this a true debate if you are up to it.
With all due respect, I'm not trying to debate you. I really don't care what you believe. I will never renounce my belief in God. If you wanna call me stupid then that is fine.

[Chinook]

If time is the gap between events, then your belief must be that there was time before our universe. Unless said creator literally did nothing and then at one instant, not a short amount of time, an instant, he set our entire known universe in motion for literally no reason and with no forethought

Just asking for confirmation here. Time is the gap of ... what?... between events? Like what is time a measure of? I can understand the idea that time can only be understood when it is the gap between events. But I'm having a hard time (lol) accepting that it only exists in that form.

[spurraider21]

I think close minded/ignorant are more accurate than stupid. AT least in this context

[RD2191]

Transitional though? You mean bone fragments of some fish that scientist assumed had some sort of fingers means it led from a fish to an animal walking on land? If that ain't faith I don't know what is.

[Chinook]

Transitional though? You mean bone fragments of some fish that scientist assumed had some sort of fingers means it led from a fish to an animal walking on land? If that ain't faith I don't know what is.

It is faith, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

[RD2191]

http://waabmicronesia.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/mudskipper-3.jpg

[RD2191]

Ho lee shit. It's a fossil that has come to life! Bet that lil dudes offspring will eventually become a lemur because evolution.

[RD2191]

http://davidhaskell.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mudskippers.jpg?w=640&h=480

[pgardn]

For intents and purposes, there's not a start since to have a start you'd have to have a stop, and a time between stop and start. What is the time between the stop and start of the universe? How long was it stopped?

.

Humans pick their own starting and stopping points.

All of this is a human struggle to understand. We do our best in science to observe, measure, set standards of communication, apply reasoning and math. But even logic and math is fallible.

All of us should try reading Kurt Goedel, or explanations about his ideas on fundamental flaws in math and logic.
Its very humbling. And we build so much off of logic and math. The magic guys can use this to help further their disdain for some very basic human thought.

[pgardn]

You can't. You can only form beliefs about it. Some people use the word 'know' to mean 'believe' elliptically. But it's not the same to those of us who are more cautious about our epistemology.

Math is much bigger than the small portion that scientists use for support for their theories. Its truths are self-evident, and therefore we can actually know them and not just believe them.

Same with math if you read Goedel. Math is fallible. The truths of the very fundamentals of math are not logical or self evident to Goedel.

And the foundations that the beliefs are built upon in science are very stringent compared to other human endeavors. The fact that we can say where the moon will be in 342 hrs. is very powerful and furthers my beliefs that science works very well if used properly to gain knowledge about the universe.

[RD2191]

tell you what Robdiaz... Watch this video and post your counter arguments.

8tVBtyDqD90

Then you can post ANY video you want, and I guarantee I will watch it and critique it as well. I don't care if your video is 3x as long, I will watch it.

Let's make this a true debate if you are up to it.
Much like RG, this guy knows nothing of the Bible. He believes that the Bible says God sends people to hell, that alone tells me he has no real knowledge of the scriptures. And what's the point of his rant? God is evil? How can a God he doesn't believe in be evil?

[Chinook]

Same with math if you read Goedel. Math is fallible. The truths of the very fundamentals of math are not logical or self evident to Goedel.

And the foundations that the beliefs are built upon in science are very stringent compared to other human endeavors. The fact that we can say where the moon will be in 342 hrs. is very powerful and furthers my beliefs that science works very well if used properly to gain knowledge about the universe.

Math is incomplete. It can't explain everything. That's not something anyone's debating. Math isn't stronger than empiricism because it explains everything. It's stronger because what's true in math is true. Full stop. What's true in science is just what works the best. The door is left open for something better to come along. That's not the same for mathematical truths.

We agree that science is useful and great and totally the way we should go to try to figure things out. But that doesn't mean we can safely say we "know" anything that comes from it. That's not a knock on it. That's just not what it's made to do.

[pgardn]

Just asking for confirmation here. Time is the gap of ... what?... between events? Like what is time a measure of? I can understand the idea that time can only be understood when it is the gap between events. But I'm having a hard time (lol) accepting that it only exists in that form.

You can make up your own ideas if you wish.
Time is a human construct that works well.

What other form would you like? You can present a new form and explain it. I think I see what you are trying to say, but measurements and standards are a very fallible human practice. Einstein basically honed our ideas of time and events.
Go for it.

[phyzik]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to debate you. I really don't care what you believe. I will never renounce my belief in God. If you wanna call me stupid then that is fine.

Just so I understand your point of view.... regardless of what evidence is presented.... you will just ignore it because you WANT to believe something different?

You are WAY beyond stupid.

"Stupid" is pretty much ignorance...

What you are claiming is WILLFUL ignorance, and that is FAR worse than stupid.

[spurraider21]

Just asking for confirmation here. Time is the gap of ... what?... between events? Like what is time a measure of? I can understand the idea that time can only be understood when it is the gap between events. But I'm having a hard time (lol) accepting that it only exists in that form.
the way i understand it, change can only occur if time exists. if you go from a state of no universe to a state of universe, that is undoubtedly a change. you can call it a change, you can call it a gap between events. they're essentially the same thing. if said "creator" literally appeared and only in that same instant created our universe, then you can argue that there was no "before"... but it sort of seems silly to think that way

[pgardn]

Math is incomplete. It can't explain everything. That's not something anyone's debating. Math isn't stronger than empiricism because it explains everything. It's stronger because what's true in math is true. Full stop. What's true in science is just what works the best. The door is left open for something better to come along. That's not the same for mathematical truths.

We agree that science is useful and great and totally the way we should go to try to figure things out. But that doesn't mean we can safely say we "know" anything that comes from it. That's not a knock on it. That's just not what it's made to do.

I agree.

Except what's true in math is true. This is NOT believed by a number of mathematicians and logic guys. It's more than incomplete, one has to completely change the context according to adherents of Goedel. To where it might not be useful in the context of this entire discussion. Take a look at it sometime.

im out...

[RD2191]

Just so I understand your point of view.... regardless of what evidence is presented.... you will just ignore it because you WANT to believe something different?

You are WAY beyond stupid.
What evidence have you presented? A YouTube video of some 30/40 year old loser who has no knowledge of the Bible? This guy is supposed to destroy my beliefs?:lol

[phyzik]

What evidence have you presented? A YouTube video of some 30/40 year old loser who has no knowledge of the Bible? This guy is supposed to destroy my beliefs?:lol

He literally points to scripture in the bible... there is no misrepresentation here.... He points them out by scripture.... He was himself a teaching Theologian, far more qualified in the "faith" than you ever will be. What more do you want?

[Blake]

You never had to discuss my belief system. I didn't engaged you. But what I am saying is that people are misusing the word 'logical' to make it an element of empiricist thought. It's not the same thing at all. I don't mind misuses of diction for the most part, but it's sort of important in such a nuanced discussion.

No I didn't have to. Just wanted to.

yes or no: it's illogical to believe in watch maker from another universe.

[RD2191]

He literally points to scripture in the bible... there is no misrepresentation here.... He points them out by scripture.... He was himself a teaching Theologian, far more qualified in the "faith" than you ever will be. What more do you want?
Just because you read a book doesn't mean you understand it. All he's doing is trying to claim God is evil because bad shit happens. Okay, what are atheists doing to help the children starving in Africa? All this dude is doing is telling people that believing in the Bible is stupid. Yeah, he is really helping humanity.

And why are you so angry about what I believe?

[Chinook]

the way i understand it, change can only occur if time exists. if you go from a state of no universe to a state of universe, that is undoubtedly a change. you can call it a change, you can call it a gap between events. they're essentially the same thing. if said "creator" literally appeared and only in that same instant created our universe, then you can argue that there was no "before"... but it sort of seems silly to think that way

No, I get the extension you're making about "before." I just mean in general that I can't really understand how time is dependent on events. Like I get that a second is how long it takes for a cesium atom to revolve a certain number of times or whatever. But I think that that is simply a measurement of time and not the origin of it.

The way I've always understood it, in order for anything to exist, it needs to occupy both space and time. Time is supposedly the fourth dimension because it's necessary for matter.

Maybe that type of time is different than the one we were talking about?