NationStates Jolt Archive

It went in the air creating the water cycle. Thats the best answer i have cuz i was not there when it happened.

Shh, God used Bounty Paper Towel!

It went in the air creating the water cycle. Thats the best answer i have cuz i was not there when it happened.
are you one of those people who believe that there was some kind of water zone in the atmosphere that dropped in the great flood and created all of the major bodies of water that exist today?

are you one of those people who believe that there was some kind of water zone in the atmosphere that dropped in the great flood and created all of the major bodies of water that exist today?

Only because that is what the Bible says.

The water that is in the atmosphere is not sufficient to cover the earth five miles deep.
For a vague estimate: air pressure is about 15 pounds per square inch, and only a few percent of the air is water vapor; a pint of water weighs a pound, and fills about 60 cubic inches, that's a column a square inch at the base and five feet high, so five miles of water would be about 5280 pounds per square inch, and for enough air to absorb that much water, let's see, we need an atmosphere hundreds of thousands of times what we have, squishing us flatter than bugs.

It went in the air creating the water cycle.

there is very little water up there comparatively
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

Only because that is what the Bible says.
so its your position that if the bible says it, its true and the problems with scientific evidence are not important?

Humbug. Bah and humbug. I don't know if God(ess)es exist or not. And neither do you.

so its your position that if the bible says it, its true and the problems with scientific evidence are not important?

How is that scientifically incorrect?

How is that scientifically incorrect?

because the chemical makeup of our atmosphere is incapable of containing that much water.

because the chemical makeup of our atmosphere is incapable of containing that much water.

How come no one believes the Bounty theory? :(

Have you climbed up into our atmosphere and studied every single part of it's chemical make-up?

because the chemical makeup of our atmosphere is incapable of containing that much water.

Could have been some good old hyperboles there. :)
Seriously, this thread, if it hasn't already, is going to go down in flames.

How is that scientifically incorrect?
there is both the problem of the atmosphere not being able to hold that kind of water and the lack of an anthropoligical record of such an event. AND the lack of a genetic path that would have humanity originating and spreading out from the middle east.

Have you climbed up into our atmosphere and studied every single part of it's chemical make-up?

um..yeah, they actually know how to do that now.

This would be so much more meaningful if it weren't for people touting that because it says global in the bible, it was a global flood. Mainly young earth creationists and KJV adherents.

Why anyone would adhere to the KJV is beyond me. If there's a more doctored and deliberately slanted, mistranslated version of the bible, I sure as hell would like to see it.

How come no one believes the Bounty theory? :(
god hadnt created bounty yet.

um..yeah, they actually know how to do that now.

Did the scientists at the time of the flood know how to do it too? Because something could have been present in the atmosphere then that isn't anymore.

Did the scientists at the time of the flood know how to do it too? Because something could have been present in the atmosphere then that isn't anymore.

I see.

And where is that water NOW? Where'd it all go? If there was enough water to cover the entire earth, from the depths of Marianas trench to the tip of Mount Everest, where the hell did it all go?

I see.

And where is that water NOW? Where'd it all go? If there was enough water to cover the entire earth, from the depths of Marianas trench to the tip of Mount Everest, where the hell did it all go?
i dont think it could have covered any mountains that are taller than mt ararat

Have you climbed up into our atmosphere and studied every single part of it's chemical make-up?

Those chemical make-ups are easy to discern with ground based observation and a shite-ton of rockets that were sent up in the 70s and 80s in middle-upper atmosphere research to determine such.
For instance, the layer of atomic oxygen occurring ~93km. The layer of Sodium in the mesosphere, etc.
Add to that rarefraction and the thinness of the atmosphere up there, and there simply wouldn't be enough water vapor to fit a global flood.

i dont think it could have covered any mountains that are taller than mt ararat

so our global floods are limited to Turkey now?

I see.

And where is that water NOW? Where'd it all go? If there was enough water to cover the entire earth, from the depths of Marianas trench to the tip of Mount Everest, where the hell did it all go?

Ever heard of the ICE CAPS, or the WATER CYCLE, or even GROUND WATER? You all have to understand that most Bible stories are 50% Scientific and 50% Supernatural.

Ever heard of the ICE CAPS, or the WATER CYCLE, or even GROUND WATER?

If you add up all the water in the subsurface, all the water frozen in caps, and all the water contained in the atmosphere, you wouldn't get enough to cover 100% of the earth's surface. Not even close.

Fail.

Ever heard of the ICE CAPS, or the WATER CYCLE, or even GROUND WATER? You all have to understand that most Bible stories are 50% Scientific and 50% Supernatural.

Again, not enough water in the ice caps, the oceans, and the water cycle to account for it. The ice caps and oceans alone wouldn't do the job, and I've already explained that the known thinning of the atmosphere with elevation and the crazy-low concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere doesn't fit a global flood.

How come no one has ever considered that maybe the flood didn't cover the entire earth, that instead maybe it just covered a vast and wide land?

Moses view of the world is much smaller than our view of what the world is.

Yet u have not proved to me that there wasn't an aquifer in the atmosphere. U kinda changed the subject.

How come no one has ever considered that maybe the flood didn't cover the entire earth, that instead maybe it just covered a vast and wide land?

Moses view of the world is much smaller than our view of what the world is.

Because no one disputes that Mesopotamia, especially between the Tigris and the Euphrates (sp?) could have experienced wide scale flooding.

It's not atheists who put forward the idea of a global flood, it's biblical literalists like Tucker.

And NA: Check your IMs, dag nabbit.

How come no one has ever considered that maybe the flood didn't cover the entire earth, that instead maybe it just covered a vast and wide land?

Moses view of the world is much smaller than our view of what the world is.

because if we accept the bible isn't literally true we have no reason to believe it happened at all.

Yet u have not proved to me that there wasn't an aquifer in the atmosphere. U kinda changed the subject.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on you. You're the one who claim that the great flood covers the entire earth, so you must provide the proof.

so our global floods are limited to Turkey now?
noooooo im just saying that there is no way that the bible authors could have known that the himalayas were sticking up out of the water.

because if we accept the bible isn't literally true we have no reason to believe it happened at all.

You mean, the Bible just can't be a collection of story that tells us how we should live our life? You know, Love thy neighbor, Thou shall not judge, Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Well damn....

Yet u have not proved to me that there wasn't an aquifer in the atmosphere. U kinda changed the subject.

what exactly do you expect me to say, I havne't proved that there wasn't billions upon billions of gallons of water just floating there above ground?

I think I did prove it, our atmosphere couldn't have ever contained that much water. Your presumption of "well maybe our atmosphere was different!" doesn't hold water (hehe). We are able to track these things. We are able to track chemical traces in fossils, tissues, and other things.

There is absolutely no evidence for this ever.

Yet u have not proved to me that there wasn't an aquifer in the atmosphere. U kinda changed the subject.

Well, we can't say definitively say it isn't true, as with pretty much anything else. We can say that based on what we know it is highly unlikely. Generally what we do is place the burden of proof on the person who *is* saying x is true to come up with a scientific theory based on convincing evidence. You haven't provided any.

besides there is still the problem of people living in other areas of the world at the time of the flood who werent wiped out. their civilization continued uninterrupted.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies on you. You're the one who claim that the great flood covers the entire earth, so you must provide the proof.

Okay you don't believe me so take it up with the guy who said it was true. *Points up* He'll give u all the answers. Good nite everyone.

Okay you don't believe me so take it up with the guy who said it was true. *Points up* He'll give u all the answers. Good nite everyone.

He keeps screening my calls. :(

Okay you don't believe me so take it up with the guy who said it was true. *Points up* He'll give u all the answers. Good nite everyone.

That doesn't quite suffice. So rather than justifying your own arguments and substantiating them with a shred of actual scientific evidence, you are instead telling us to consult with an invisible all-knowing being who doesn't respond to requests for information and who we won't meet till we die, if he even exists? Fail.

Okay you don't believe me so take it up with the guy who said it was true. *Points up* He'll give u all the answers. Good nite everyone.

really? I'm home at the moment, why don't you have him give me a call and tell me.

really? I'm home at the moment, why don't you have him give me a call and tell me.

Puny Mortal, Yahweh has no time for your trivial questions! He should smite you for wasting his time!

I'm kidding BTW ;)

That doesn't quite suffice. So rather than justifying your own arguments and substantiating them with a shred of actual scientific evidence, you are instead telling us to consult with an invisible all-knowing being who doesn't respond to requests for information and who we won't meet till we die, if he even exists? Fail.

Okay then dont expect the answers cuz u arent willing to ask the ALL-KNOWING.:p

Okay then dont expect the answers cuz u arent willing to ask the ALL-KNOWING.:p

why would I need to ask the all knowing, seems he'd already know what I was going to ask...

Puny Mortal, Yahweh has no time for your trivial questions! He should smite you for wasting his time!

I'm kidding BTW ;)
oh so when he pointed up he didnt mean ME above him in the thread?

Okay then dont expect the answers cuz u arent willing to ask the ALL-KNOWING.:p

Has he ever talked to you?

Okay then dont expect the answers cuz u arent willing to ask the ALL-KNOWING.:p

I just asked him. He must be very busy, as I've not even got through to his answering machine yet.

really? I'm home at the moment, why don't you have him give me a call and tell me.

Puny Mortal, Yahweh has no time for your trivial questions! He should smite you for wasting his time!

I'm kidding BTW ;)

*elevator muzak* God Co and its subsidiaries value your time and patronage. Please hold on the line while you await customer assistance. *elevator muzak*

2 Aeons later

*elevator muzak* We're sorry, but all of our service representatives are currently occupied. Please continue to hold on the line while you await customer assistance. *elevator muzak*

oh so when he pointed up he didnt mean ME above him in the thread?

If you're Yahweh, then I have a serious questions for you.

1. What the hell were you drinking when you made me....

*elevator muzak* God Co and its subsidiaries value your time and patronage. Please hold on the line while you await customer assistance. *elevator muzak*

2 Aeons later

*elevator muzak* We're sorry, but all of our service representatives are currently occupied. Please continue to hold on the line while you await customer assistance. *elevator muzak*

ROFL! /thread

Has he ever talked to you?

Yea actually i have. Its called PRAYING. U wanna slam me for that one too?:mad:

Yea actually i have. Its called PRAYING. U wanna slam me for that one too?:mad:

I'm talking more like a booming voice kinda deal, or at least a burning bush.

Yea actually i have. Its called PRAYING. U wanna slam me for that one too?:mad:

Thats not quite what the question was. Has he ever talked back as in given a direct response to a question?

If you're Yahweh, then I have a serious questions for you.

1. What the hell were you drinking when you made me....
HE didnt say yahweh, he just pointed up.

YOU are the one who clarified what he meant, much to my embarrassment. i thought he was deferring to my excellent argument.

oops.

HE didnt say yahweh, he just pointed up.

YOU are the one who clarified what he meant, much to my embarrassment. i thought he was deferring to my excellent argument.

oops.

I still want to know what Yahweh was drinking when he made me. :(

Thats not quite what the question was. Has he ever talked back as in given a direct response to a question?

Yes!!!:mad:

Yes!!!:mad:

What was the question, and what was the response?

Yes!!!:mad:

Coooooooongradulations!

Sally, tell him what he's won!

Well, John, Tucker's now the proud owner of "Schizophrenia." Let's give him a round of applause folks!

*lackluster applause*

Coooooooongradulations!

Sally, tell him what he's won!

Well, John, Tucker's now the proud owner of "Schizophrenia." Let's give him a round of applause folks!

*lackluster applause*

Don't people with Schizophrenia usually have voices telling them to kill others or harm themselves though?

What was the question, and what was the response?

Me: What should i say to these idiots on NationStates about u?
God: Just tell them to talk to me.
jkjkjkjk

I asked God how i needed to fix my life and he told me to get rid of the "junk" in my life and pray more often.

Don't people with Schizophrenia usually have voices telling them to kill others or harm themselves though?

You don't find a god that committed genocide on most of the world, burnt whole cities to the ground, and expects to reap a bitter, bloody harvest when he comes back to Earth a bit of a qualifier for "schizoid voice in head"?

I still want to know what Yahweh was drinking when he made me. :(
i could say that other people have been given bigger burdens but that kind of crap never made ME feel better so i wont bother.

its better to know that there is no god who decided to mess you up before you ever had a chance to do anything to deserve it.

Yea actually i have. Its called PRAYING. U wanna slam me for that one too?:mad:

I'm not entirely sure you know how to read.

Me: What should i say to these idiots on NationStates about u?
God: Just tell them to talk to me.
jkjkjkjk

I asked God how i needed to fix my life and he told me to get rid of the "junk" in my life and pray more often.

I meditate from time to time, and I sometimes get vision where I talk to Woden and Freya. I don't even try to force the images, I just relax, slip into a trance and they come to me.

Are my God and Goddess less valid than Yahweh?

i could say that other people have been given bigger burdens but that kind of crap never made ME feel better so i wont bother.

its better to know that there is no god who decided to mess you up before you ever had a chance to do anything to deserve it.

Eh, I don't buy the Christian concept of God anymore anyways. Which is why I'm Pagan now.

You don't find a god that committed genocide on most of the world, burnt whole cities to the ground, and expects to reap a bitter, bloody harvest when he comes back to Earth a bit of a qualifier for "schizoid voice in head"?

Good point

I meditate from time to time, and I sometimes get vision where I talk to Woden and Freya. I don't even try to force the images, I just relax, slip into a trance and they come to me.

Are my God and Goddess less valid than Yahweh?

Ummmmmmmmmmmm....Yea

Ummmmmmmmmmmm....Yea

really? why?

Me: What should i say to these idiots on NationStates about u?
God: Just tell them to talk to me.
jkjkjkjk

I asked God how i needed to fix my life and he told me to get rid of the "junk" in my life and pray more often.

My, that God bloke is on *such* an ego trip.

"How can I improve my life?"

"Get rid of the bad stuff in your life. Oh, and TALK TO ME MORE. I HAVE NEEDS! Hey, stop watching porn while I'm talking! Hang on a second, can you hold? What? I'm busy, I've got millions of other people trying to get through and tell me how awesome I am so that they don't burn for eternity. Give me a second. I've got to go to the gate and refuse entry to some people who didn't worship me enough and despatch them to a land of the worst imaginable pain. HEY, MORTAL? ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?"

really? why?

Because the Bible said that Paganism is wrong and I'm going to Hell.

$5 says that what he'll say.

I'm not entirely sure you know how to read.

Dude, I'm pretty sure Tucker Island is the guy who claimed that curve balls defied physics, therefore science can't explain things and we should turn to God.

Ever heard of the ICE CAPS, or the WATER CYCLE, or even GROUND WATER? You all have to understand that most Bible stories are 50% Scientific and 50% Supernatural.Yes, but we know what the world looks like with that amount of water on it. It looks like... well, like the world does now. It doesn't have the mountains covered in water. That would take, you know, a lot of extra water, like a five-mile high column of it, everywhere, pressing down on us with a force of tons per square inch.

The Big Bang caused the universe, they can still track the energy from it BTW for the YECs they (scientists) believe they found King Soloman's Mines cept they were making copper there in 10,000 BC so the Earth can't be only 6,000 years old

Dude, I'm pretty sure Tucker Island is the guy who claimed that curve balls defied physics, therefore science can't explain things and we should turn to God.That's where I remember him from! That thread was priceless...

Dude, I'm pretty sure Tucker Island is the guy who claimed that curve balls defied physics, therefore science can't explain things and we should turn to God.

Thanks, Jhahannam. I'd forgotten about that.

That's where I remember him from! That thread was priceless...

This one's a fine sequel...did you see above where he's quoted saying the bible is "50% science and 50% supernatural"?

I'm going to miss things like that, because it lampoons his version of Christianity far more effectively than I ever could...and I don't think he knows it.

If he does and its on purpose, he's a genius.

Thanks, Jhahannam. I'd forgotten about that.

Some people had sigged it for a while.

But the boy is no one-hit-wonder, even this thread has some "fundies say the funniest things" worthy shite.

Dude, I'm pretty sure Tucker Island is the guy who claimed that curve balls defied physics, therefore science can't explain things and we should turn to God.Huh.
I'm guessing he never heard of the Magnus effect? :p

I asked God how i needed to fix my life and he told me to get rid of the "junk" in my life and pray more often.

That was me.

I'z in yr hedz, givin u thoughtz.

That was me.

I'z in yr hedz, givin u thoughtz.

Kinky.

Kinky.

Dude... that Jewish bint was like, two thousand years ago. And you know what sucks about nuns, right? That's right - absolutely fucking nothing. I ain't been blown in twenty centuries.

Got to work my kinks out where I can.

Because the Bible said that Paganism is wrong and I'm going to Hell.

$5 says that what he'll say.

As a pagan, I'll add five more to the pool, that he'll say something like that.

Dude... that Jewish bint was like, two thousand years ago. And you know what sucks about nuns, right? That's right - absolutely fucking nothing. I ain't been blown in twenty centuries.

Got to work my kinks out where I can.

I guess this would explain why god invented porn.

As a pagan, I'll add five more to the pool, that he'll say something like that.I'll add another five, as a "filthy heathen". :p

LOL at da sillee aithiests!!!!!! you and your neeche, so silly, lollollolhuhu!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL at da sillee aithiests!!!!!! you and your neeche, so silly, lollollolhuhu!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My neeche?

Are you sure you're not thinking of Harry Potter?

My neeche?

Are you sure you're not thinking of Harry Potter?

What would "Neeche's" favorite spell be?

Deus Mortusi?

LOL at da sillee aithiests!!!!!! you and your neeche, so silly, lollollolhuhu!!!!!!!!!!!!!You, sir, are quite confusing.
Is there some sort of problem? :p

What would "Neeche's" favorite spell be?

Deus Mortusi?

Careful not to point that wand my way. I'm quite enjoying living.

Careful not to point that wand my way. I'm quite enjoying living.

Tell that to "neeche." He seems to think that you're not. :tongue:

Tell that to "neeche." He seems to think that you're not. :tongue:

I tried, but his response bored near to death. We called it a draw in the end.

pacifistic? the crusades and inquisitions beg to differ.

TOEW was talking about the bible not the Church Neo.

And when people say the original bible was a way to control the masses, they are in a sense (not the strange way they are thinking) correct. After all the Old Testament does contain a series of laws and regulations for those of the Jewish faith. Much in the same way that the laws and regulations of countries control the masses.

Well it is, in that sense. It uses a false definition of "world", which makes a literal interpretation incorrect. But the same can be argued about the whole walking on water thing: Was he actually walking on water, or was it a colorful description of the common practice of followers carrying their leader over water?

Well it it uses a different definition of the word world. For example we may say someone lives in their own little world now we don't mean he lives on his own planet but rather his world is closed off to the wider world. A young child's world may only be the family house, where as the world to those living in Europe in the 12th Century did not include The Americas and Australia.

Why is it so easy for many to believe in no gods but one, and yet so hard for those same people to understand that atheists merely believe in one less than they do?

And vice-versa.

LOL at da sillee aithiests!!!!!! you and your neeche, so silly, lollollolhuhu!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Living proof - Christians aren't allowed to spell. Only Pagans are allowed to spell.

Living proof - Christians aren't allowed to spell. Only Pagans are allowed to spell.

Well Yahweh did say to not test him.....

Dude, I'm pretty sure Tucker Island is the guy who claimed that curve balls defied physics, therefore science can't explain things and we should turn to God.

Zito's curveball defies physics, but not as much as Matsuzaka's gyroball.

All of baseball defies physics, haven't you ever listened to the commentators? The ball is always "speeding up" when it hits Astroturf.

Just jumped in but, well, you know...

doesn't this have the problem of all that water being, you know, already here? i mean, ignoring the many many many things that make the story stupid beyond that, you sorta need to get the water above where it is now, no?

God put more on the EARTH!!!!! DuHHHH! It says in the BIBLE.

/sarcasm

I see.

And where is that water NOW? Where'd it all go? If there was enough water to cover the entire earth, from the depths of Marianas trench to the tip of Mount Everest, where the hell did it all go?

GOD took it AWAY!!! DUH!!!11 IT's in the BIBLE!@!

/more sarcasm

I'm really enjoying reading this thread all the way through though.

Well Yahweh did say to not test him.....

Damn why didn't I think of this while I was at school?

I asked God how i needed to fix my life

That's called thinking, or reflection.

and he told me to get rid of the "junk" in my life

That's called problem solving.

and pray more often.

That's doubting your ability to solve your own problems.

But if that's what gets you through the day...

is there no truth of the matter?

Yes there is, but how are we going to go about finding it?

TOEW was talking about the bible not the Church Neo.

And when people say the original bible was a way to control the masses, they are in a sense (not the strange way they are thinking) correct. After all the Old Testament does contain a series of laws and regulations for those of the Jewish faith. Much in the same way that the laws and regulations of countries control the masses.

the original god wasn't all that friendly eh? not all nice and all forgiving and such . . .more the smiting and wrath type if i remember right.

But if that's what gets you through the day...

And if it is why does it matter and what is wrong with it?

the original god wasn't all that friendly eh? not all nice and all forgiving and such . . .more the smiting and wrath type if i remember right.

And? What has that got to do with the Jewish laws?

the original god wasn't all that friendly eh? not all nice and all forgiving and such . . .more the smiting and wrath type if i remember right.

Well you know, before you have a kid, you're all wild and crazy, but after you had a kid, you learn to relax alittle bit more. *nod*

And if it is why does it matter and what is wrong with it?

Hence why I said it;)

Because the Bible said that Paganism is wrong and I'm going to Hell.

$5 says that what he'll say.
I'll take some of that action, too, please. :D

This one's a fine sequel...did you see above where he's quoted saying the bible is "50% science and 50% supernatural"?

I'm going to miss things like that, because it lampoons his version of Christianity far more effectively than I ever could...and I don't think he knows it.

If he does and its on purpose, he's a genius.
This thread is okay, but not as good as the old ones. TI is slipping.

I'll take some of that action, too, please. :D

Wow, I'm running quite a pool here.

Anyone else want in on the action?

Wow, I'm running quite a pool here.

Anyone else want in on the action?
im not interested in the action but i have the proper answer.

Wow, I'm running quite a pool here.

Anyone else want in on the action?

Do you have any more homosexual related bets?

im not interested in the action but i have the proper answer.

Which would be....

Which would be....
that, christianly speaking, there IS only one god so you are wasting your time worshipping gods that dont exist.

or, if one is cranky, that these "gods" that you worship are demons and you are imperilling your eternal soul.

......

did you notice that recently some minister giving a speech/prayer for mccain pleaded with god to have mccain win because there are people around the world who are praying to hindu, buddha, and other gods that obama should win and it would be bad for those people to think that their gods are bigger than "GOD" god?

he is a piss poor christian who seems to believe that many gods exist.

that, christianly speaking, there IS only one god so you are wasting your time worshipping gods that dont exist.

or, if one is cranky, that these "gods" that you worship are demons and you are imperilling your eternal soul.

......

did you notice that recently some minister giving a speech/prayer for mccain pleaded with god to have mccain win because there are people around the world who are praying to hindu, buddha, and other gods that obama should win and it would be bad for those people to think that their gods are bigger than "GOD" god?

he is a piss poor christian who seems to believe that many gods exist.
I remember that one. He specifically informed God that his (God's) reputation was at stake. :D

I remember that one. He specifically informed God that his (God's) reputation was at stake. :D
what an idiot!

he needed to brush up on his theology before he gave a nationally broadcast prayer.

that, christianly speaking, there IS only one god so you are wasting your time worshipping gods that dont exist.

or, if one is cranky, that these "gods" that you worship are demons and you are imperilling your eternal soul.

......

did you notice that recently some minister giving a speech/prayer for mccain pleaded with god to have mccain win because there are people around the world who are praying to hindu, buddha, and other gods that obama should win and it would be bad for those people to think that their gods are bigger than "GOD" god?

he is a piss poor christian who seems to believe that many gods exist.

That is one of the things about Christianity that I don't like.

For the Pagan minded, it is often seen as one god many facets.

that, christianly speaking, there IS only one god so you are wasting your time worshipping gods that dont exist.

or, if one is cranky, that these "gods" that you worship are demons and you are imperilling your eternal soul.

......

did you notice that recently some minister giving a speech/prayer for mccain pleaded with god to have mccain win because there are people around the world who are praying to hindu, buddha, and other gods that obama should win and it would be bad for those people to think that their gods are bigger than "GOD" god?

he is a piss poor christian who seems to believe that many gods exist.

Ha, yea, that was funny.

Eh, the way I figure it, if the portrayal of Yahweh in the Bible is correct, then I'm going to Hell just for being born, and once you realize that, you tend to stop caring about the rules, or the eternal damnation and start doing your own thing.

that, christianly speaking, there IS only one god so you are wasting your time worshipping gods that dont exist.

or, if one is cranky, that these "gods" that you worship are demons and you are imperilling your eternal soul.

......

did you notice that recently some minister giving a speech/prayer for mccain pleaded with god to have mccain win because there are people around the world who are praying to hindu, buddha, and other gods that obama should win and it would be bad for those people to think that their gods are bigger than "GOD" god?

he is a piss poor christian who seems to believe that many gods exist.

Shame there are a lot of other people praying for Obama to win.

Yes there is, but how are we going to go about finding it?

even assuming we don't have access to the final truth of the matter, surely some things can be shown to be false.

What do you all think about Samson?

What do you all think about Samson?

Haircuts are bad.

I gotta say this is one of the funniest non-picture threads I've seen on a forum in a long time....

I remember when I was trying to figure out which religion I should be a part of, I had read a bunch on Atheism, and thought I would see the other side of things by reading the bible. I got 2-3 pages into Genesis, and just thought, wow... what a bunch of crap... Kind of odd that the Bible was one of the main things that turned me towards atheism.

What do you all think about Samson?

One of the sillier parts of the Bible, that story.

Adults with imaginary friends need help.

What do you all think about Samson?

pretty decent audio equipment from what i've seen

What do you all think about Samson?

I think it's a huge set-up for a pretty lame joke. Honey in a lion just isn't that funny.

One of the sillier parts of the Bible, that story.

Yeah, everyone knows we don't have jaw bones in our asses.

What do you all think about Samson?
Why do you ask?

One of the sillier parts of the Bible, that story.
Yeah, but it made for a humdinger of a Victor Mature movie.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513N4RHCD9L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Hollywood magic. ;)

I am a Christian and do not think that science should be ignored. Science is the attempt to explain how the universe was made. Religion is the attempt to explain why it was made.

Nicely-made point, but if the discoveries of science invalidate a religion, isn't that religion false (obviously)?

Religion is the attempt to explain why it was made.

on what grounds do you make this claim?

Nicely-made point, but if the discoveries of science invalidate a religion, isn't that religion false (obviously)?
I know this wasn't directed to me, but if a religion claims that the world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days, that specific claim can be disproven by science. But that does not even remotely address the question of whether the religion's god is a valid concept or whether its moral codes have any value.

If a religion claims that the world exists the way it does because, oh, say, its god wanted to create a way for souls to achieve godliness, or something, then nothing in science can disprove that claim in any way.

I do not believe that factual errors are enough to render a religion false, unless those erroneous factual claims are its sole reason for existing.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but if a religion claims that the world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days, that specific claim can be disproven by science. But that does not even remotely address the question of whether the religion's god is a valid concept or whether its moral codes have any value.

If a religion claims that the world exists the way it does because, oh, say, its god wanted to create a way for souls to achieve godliness, or something, then nothing in science can disprove that claim in any way.

I do not believe that factual errors are enough to render a religion false, unless those erroneous factual claims are its sole reason for existing.

But it somewhat compromises the integrity of it as a source of truth.

After all if someone talks a load of crap that is obviously wrong and sticks by it, then any other stuff they say that isn't immediately provable I am going to take with a considerable pinch of salt - based on the fact they are wrong about lots of other stuff.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

But it somewhat compromises the integrity of it as a source of truth.

After all if someone talks a load of crap that is obviously wrong and sticks by it, then any other stuff they say that isn't immediately provable I am going to take with a considerable pinch of salt - based on the fact they are wrong about lots of other stuff.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.
Define "truth."

If your idea of truth begins and ends with provable factual assertions, then no religion is about truth. But then, the same could probably be said about most social conversations, too.

I do not define "truth" so narrowly. To me, there is room in the universe for truths that are not subject to proof-testing, truths about such things as right and wrong, good and evil, the sense of self, etc.

Also I actually do consider it unreasonable to decide that someone is wrong about EVERYTHING just because they are wrong about SOME THINGS.

I would not assume that a neurosurgeon isn't qualified to operate on my brain just because it turns out he doesn't know jackshit about geology and astrophysics -- even if he did think he knew all about it. I would not be coming to him for a talk on geology and astrophysics, so all I need to concern myself with is, does he know anything about brains and nervous systems? If he does have good understanding of neuroscience, then he can be as stupid as he likes about rocks and black holes, for all I care.

Likewise, I do not go to religion for explanations about how the world was made, so I don't give a crap what any given religion has to say about that. I judge a religion by how it talks about my soul, not my planet.

Why debate? Religion is false, so what's the point?

.....snip.... (defining truth can wait for another day Muravyets ;) ).....snip....


Also I actually do consider it unreasonable to decide that someone is wrong about EVERYTHING just because they are wrong about SOME THINGS.

I would not assume that a neurosurgeon isn't qualified to operate on my brain just because it turns out he doesn't know jackshit about geology and astrophysics -- even if he did think he knew all about it. I would not be coming to him for a talk on geology and astrophysics, so all I need to concern myself with is, does he know anything about brains and nervous systems? If he does have good understanding of neuroscience, then he can be as stupid as he likes about rocks and black holes, for all I care.

Likewise, I do not go to religion for explanations about how the world was made, so I don't give a crap what any given religion has to say about that. I judge a religion by how it talks about my soul, not my planet.

I agree that if they are completely unrelated then you should not generalize.

But in the case of religion (if I may simplify it for the sake of brevity) if someone says "God says be nice to each other, but also God says the world is flat and 6,000 years old" then the second part makes me doubt the veracity of the first part. If a neurosurgeon said he studied neurosurgery and geology, and then talked a load of crap about geology that made no sense, then I would have doubts about his skills as a neurosurgeon.

Define "truth."

If your idea of truth begins and ends with provable factual assertions, then no religion is about truth. But then, the same could probably be said about most social conversations, too.

I do not define "truth" so narrowly. To me, there is room in the universe for truths that are not subject to proof-testing, truths about such things as right and wrong, good and evil, the sense of self, etc.

Also I actually do consider it unreasonable to decide that someone is wrong about EVERYTHING just because they are wrong about SOME THINGS.

I would not assume that a neurosurgeon isn't qualified to operate on my brain just because it turns out he doesn't know jackshit about geology and astrophysics -- even if he did think he knew all about it. I would not be coming to him for a talk on geology and astrophysics, so all I need to concern myself with is, does he know anything about brains and nervous systems? If he does have good understanding of neuroscience, then he can be as stupid as he likes about rocks and black holes, for all I care.

Likewise, I do not go to religion for explanations about how the world was made, so I don't give a crap what any given religion has to say about that. I judge a religion by how it talks about my soul, not my planet.

I think the problem is that many religions seek to explain too much.

If a religion gives you rules for living, or an explanation for the things that cannot be explained... all well and good, if that's your bag.

But, if that religion also claims to have an objective truth, isn't that a problem? Even more so, if the 'objective truth' it has can be conflicted by present data?

And I think that's a problem a lot of people have. I think it's even a problem a lot of religions have with EACH OTHER. They find something that doesn't fit, and they see that it raises questions about the reliability of the source, as a whole.

If you tell me that it's absolutely true that I must not kill, and you also tell me that it's absolutely true that the earth was made by a skilled artisan in only 6 days... how can I TRUST you?

Nicely-made point, but if the discoveries of science invalidate a religion, isn't that religion false (obviously)?

Only the parts that science invalidated. After all while the stories of creation may be invalidated by science what about other aspects of religion that serve as a way to life your life?

I agree that if they are completely unrelated then you should not generalize.

But in the case of religion (if I may simplify it for the sake of brevity) if someone says "God says be nice to each other, but also God says the world is flat and 6,000 years old" then the second part makes me doubt the veracity of the first part. If a neurosurgeon said he studied neurosurgery and geology, and then talked a load of crap about geology that made no sense, then I would have doubts about his skills as a neurosurgeon.
I would think you were being silly if you did that. I would wonder why you didn't consider the "God says be nice to each other" and the "I'm a fully accredited neurosurgeon" claims independently, on their own merits, rather than judge them by the merits of things which have nothing whatever to do with them.

If we follow your reasoning, then we would not be able to take any guidance or teaching at all from most of recorded history, since, for most of recorded history, people who are regarded as brilliantly right about certain things were dead wrong about many other things. Following you, we would have to throw out most of the great philosophies of the world, on the grounds that a person can't be right about ethics if they are wrong about science.

Also:
.....snip.... (defining truth can wait for another day Muravyets ).....snip....
Coward.

Especially considering that your statement is so dependent on your notion of "truth." What's the matter, scaredy-cat? Don't think you can take that beating? :p

Why debate? Religion is false, so what's the point?

Why debate? Atheists are wrong, so what's the point?

I think the problem is that many religions seek to explain too much.

If a religion gives you rules for living, or an explanation for the things that cannot be explained... all well and good, if that's your bag.

But, if that religion also claims to have an objective truth, isn't that a problem? Even more so, if the 'objective truth' it has can be conflicted by present data?
That's what editing is for. Most people have a brain function that I like to call our Inner Editor, which serves a variety of useful functions, especially the extremely important functions of telling us when to shut up, and telling us what is important in what's being said to us and what isn't.

And I think that's a problem a lot of people have. I think it's even a problem a lot of religions have with EACH OTHER. They find something that doesn't fit, and they see that it raises questions about the reliability of the source, as a whole.

If you tell me that it's absolutely true that I must not kill, and you also tell me that it's absolutely true that the earth was made by a skilled artisan in only 6 days... how can I TRUST you?
See my response to HC&S regarding this. In short, my view is that we should judge what is said on its own merits, not on the merits of other things. Also, that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be right about everything all the time -- even when they claim they are.

EDIT: As an example: When Christians or Muslims or whathaveyou's try to talk to me about right and wrong, I ignore them. This is because I already have a system of judging right and wrong that I am fully satisfied with and am not in the market for a different one. It is not because they are wrong about the origins of the world, or because I don't like some of their social customs. I think their moral codes are perfectly valid, despite what I see as their dead-wrongness about those other things.

Why debate? Atheists are wrong, so what's the point?

Prove God exsists.

Prove God exsists.
Prove he doesn't.

This is fun! :D

If you tell me that it's absolutely true that I must not kill, and you also tell me that it's absolutely true that the earth was made by a skilled artisan in only 6 days... how can I TRUST you?

especially because they don't offer an independent argument for the first claim, but make an appeal to authority. the same authority they use for the second.
of course, this doesn't provide us with reason to believe not "must not kill". but we'll need something.

<snip an excellent post on the nature of truth>

I would say, though, that, say, the existence of a deity is a matter of objective truth. Either a deity (or multiple deities) exists (exist), or it does (they do) not.

Simplified: God is, or God is not.

In that matter, it's not like right and wrong, good and evil at all. While some argue that they are objective, it's debatable. While it is possible that a given thing simply is right or wrong, it may well be neither or both.

As to the neurosurgeon:
it depends. If he claims to draw his knowledge about neurosurgery from the same place he draws his knowledge of astrophysics, then I would be concerned about his knowledge unless he otherwise demonstrated that his knowledge of neurosurgery was good.

Prove he doesn't.

This is fun! :D

*shouts at sky*

Oi!! Answer me you bearded cretin!

*listens*



No answer.

That's enough proof to satisfy me.

What proof do you have that he does exsist?

I would think you were being silly if you did that. I would wonder why you didn't consider the "God says be nice to each other" and the "I'm a fully accredited neurosurgeon" claims independently, on their own merits, rather than judge them by the merits of things which have nothing whatever to do with them.

If we follow your reasoning, then we would not be able to take any guidance or teaching at all from most of recorded history, since, for most of recorded history, people who are regarded as brilliantly right about certain things were dead wrong about many other things. Following you, we would have to throw out most of the great philosophies of the world, on the grounds that a person can't be right about ethics if they are wrong about science.


Could you give me some examples? Only the ancient Greeks were really that cross-discipline, and I don't think we really accept anything of what they said anymore apart from some basic mathematics.

Plato's irrational hatred of poets makes me doubt the logic of his Republic. What's wrong with that?


Also:

Coward.

Especially considering that your statement is so dependent on your notion of "truth." What's the matter, scaredy-cat? Don't think you can take that beating? :p

Ha! I don't think you can give that beating! What I'm scared of is a gigantic thread about truth. AGAIN.

PS

*meow*

*shouts at sky*

Oi!! Answer me you bearded cretin!

*listens*

Clean out your ears :p

Maybe he hasn't got a beard that's why he didn't answer. Actually I just picked up that yopu called him a cretin why would anyone respond to insults?

I'm glad there wasn't a bikie around otherwise you might be a bloody pulp by now.

Prove God exsists.

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.

My bicycle exists. This simple fact proves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Define "truth."

If your idea of truth begins and ends with provable factual assertions

does anybody include provability in truth?

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.

We have an explanation for that that does neither requires nor precludes God.

Learn some Science. And not your bullshit Answers in Genesis/Kent Hovind/Jack Chick science. Real science.

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.

Irony factor 10 Captain!:hail:

EDIT: I hope

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.

I have a cheese sandwich. This simple fact disproves the exsistance of god.

This is a fun game.

OK, big shot. Where did the universe come from?

We have an explanation for that that does neither requires nor precludes God.

Learn some Science. And not your bullshit Answers in Genesis/Kent Hovind/Jack Chick science. Real science.

Hang on we have an explanation(s) but it isn't proven to be true it is only theory at the moment.

OK, big shot. Where did the universe come from?

Start here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)

a)Where did the universe come from?

b)If God exists, where did he come from?

If you believe in God, Apply answer to question b) to question a)

a)Where did the universe come from?

b)If God exists, where did he come from?

If you believe in God, Apply answer to question b) to question a)

Wait a minute how does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Apply to the answer from question B, god was created by the big bang?

Hang on we have an explanation(s) but it isn't proven to be true it is only theory at the moment.

"Only a theory" is a phrase that can only ever be uttered by somebody who has absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever.

Start here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)

I already believe that the Big Bang occurred, you idiot.

I mean, where did it come from?

I already believe that the Big Bang occurred, you idiot.

I mean, where did it come from?

Argument from ignorance = fail.

Argument from ignorance = fail.

Actually, it is an ancient tool in dialectic debate. Plato (with the voice of Socrates) uses it in most of his dialogues. Take the Meno, for instance.

"Only a theory" is a phrase that can only ever be uttered by somebody who has absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever.

So the big bang is true then?

There is no question about it that is exactly what happened and that is all we need to know, there is no possible way that something else may have happened?

Actually, it is an ancient tool in dialectic debate. Plato (with the voice of Socrates) uses it in most of his dialogues. Take the Meno, for instance.

No, I'm saying you can't say "You can't prove how this happened, therefore God."

It's a fallacy.

That's what editing is for. Most people have a brain function that I like to call our Inner Editor, which serves a variety of useful functions, especially the extremely important functions of telling us when to shut up, and telling us what is important in what's being said to us and what isn't.


What the Christian might call discernment, and might consider a holy gift.

The problem is - a whole load of people running around with inner editors, isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking for ways to comprehend, rationalise, or choose to discard the things I'm being told as truth.

Internal editors are, obviously, subjective. What does that tell us about objective truth?


See my response to HC&S regarding this. In short, my view is that we should judge what is said on its own merits, not on the merits of other things. Also, that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be right about everything all the time -- even when they claim they are.

EDIT: As an example: When Christians or Muslims or whathaveyou's try to talk to me about right and wrong, I ignore them. This is because I already have a system of judging right and wrong that I am fully satisfied with and am not in the market for a different one. It is not because they are wrong about the origins of the world, or because I don't like some of their social customs. I think their moral codes are perfectly valid, despite what I see as their dead-wrongness about those other things.

I agree it is unreasonable to expect people to be right about everything. However, some people insist on trotting out these EXTRA quantities... like an infallible God. By THEIR definitions of what he's supposed to be - he SHOULD be right about everything.

So - when they present his 'truths' and half of them are horseshit... it's hard to attach much significance to the rest. Infallible is only any good until you fall.

I already believe that the Big Bang occurred, you idiot.

I mean, where did it come from?

I don't know yet. There are various theories to explain it.

What evidence do you have supporting the idea that god did it?*

*Assuming that is what you are claiming.

So the big bang is true then?

There is no question about it that is exactly what happened and that is all we need to know, there is no possible way that something else may have happened?

No, it is not 100% certain.

But it's also possible there's no such thing as gravity.

Dude, learn how science works. You see, nothing in science is 100% certain. Nothing.

No, I'm saying you can't say "You can't prove how this happened, therefore God."

It's a fallacy.

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause. This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.

I already believe that the Big Bang occurred, you idiot.

I mean, where did it come from?

Since we're calling people idiots, lets look at your question, starting with the word "where".

"Where" implies local within a spatial context, much like "when" implies a position in time, yes?

Please describe the manner in which think spatial and temporal positioning relate to the big bang, and how that reflects on your question.

even assuming we don't have access to the final truth of the matter, surely some things can be shown to be false.

like a lot of the information in the bible?
:D

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause. This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.Who says the big bang was the beginning? Why does there have to be a beginning at all?

I already believe that the Big Bang occurred, you idiot.

I mean, where did it come from?

why did it have to come from anywhere?

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause. This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.

If the Universe must have a cause, why mustn't god?

You argue it's because he's 'uncaused'? Cool - what about an 'uncaused' universe?

(A cyclic universe would be 'uncaused', effectively - each iteration born from the collapse of the previous model, from everlasting, to everlasting).

If the 'god' can exist outside of the scope of the universe of time and space... why can't the pre-universe?

Why debate? Religion is false, so what's the point?

All religion?
Care to back that claim up?

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause. This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.

Why?

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.

Not necessarily

What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause.

Why?

Since we're calling people idiots, lets look at your question, starting with the word "where".

"Where" implies local within a spatial context, much like "when" implies a position in time, yes?

Please describe the manner in which think spatial and temporal positioning relate to the big bang, and how that reflects on your question.

Excellent point. Even excellenter (perhaps) would be to express them in terms of just before the big bang. Why 'here'? Why 'now'?

Too many arguments for the necessity of a god balance on the fact that some people can't comprehend something.

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause. This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.

If God can be uncaused, so can the universe. Further, the laws of cause and effect would not have existed before time and matter, which were created with the Big Bang, so no cause is needed.

Further, some posit that our universe is essentially the "spawn" of another, and that universes have always existed, just as you claim for God. I do not know if I buy into the idea, but the fact that it's a possibility means that the existence of the Universe does not require God.

Further, even if we accept the argument, then there is no logical reason to assign to this cause any attributes associated with God. It need not have any sort of consciousness, or indeed be an entity.

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. What I am actually saying is that all things in space and time have a cause, going back all the way to the Big Bang, which must also have a cause.

This cause must exist outside of space and time, but must also be inherent in them, as it created them. We call this Uncaused Cause God.

So, why can this "god" thing have some sort of ontological primacy, but nothing else can?

You say everything in space and time has a cause, except this "god" thing, which you assign the property of having no cause. Well, if you can assign that property to god, why can't it be intrinsic to a universe, a multi-verse, and cycling omni-verse, or any other number of ideas?

In short, you say "god is uncaused", therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncaused. You say God is uncreated, therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncreated. You give no reason why a universe can't be uncaused and uncreated, but the god you want to believe in can be.

Not necessarily

And, even if it IS evidence for a god...

Which one? Why does the existence of a universe confirm the specifics of one faith? Surely it is EQUALLY good evidence... for all of them?

Universe... so, monotheistic god. Universe... so, polytheistic gods.

Universe... so, exclusive and counter-invalidating gods?

I said that all things within the space-time continuum must have a cause.

A cyclical universe implies that time is infinite but this is imposible. If it is infinitely old, then an infinte amount of time would have to have elapsed before today. And so an infinite amount of days would have to have been completed in order to reach todays. But this parallels the problem of an infinite task. If today has been reached all the previous days upon to today has been reached, but, just as an infinite task cannot be completed, this infinite series of steps to reach today cannot reach the present point.

In short, you say "god is uncaused", therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncaused. You say God is uncreated, therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncreated. You give no reason why a universe can't be uncaused and uncreated, but the god you want to believe in can be.

It's simple:

1) everything in the universe has a cause

2) God is outside the universe

ergo god is not inside the universe, thus is not bound by the laws of the universe. Thus god can exist without a cause, but nothing in the universe can.

Of course, this argument conveniently ignores the "the universe didn't exist before it existed, and thus you can't apply the laws of the universe to the conditions that birthed the universe". But let's ignore that.

No, it is not 100% certain.

But it's also possible there's no such thing as gravity.

Dude, learn how science works. You see, nothing in science is 100% certain. Nothing.

Which is exactly my point, the Big bang isn't 100% certain, you say "We have an explanation for that that" my response was that is all it is an explanation, a theory, a model on what happened and that it isn't 100% certain.

In short, you say "god is uncaused", therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncaused. You say God is uncreated, therefore you acknowledge that something can be uncreated. You give no reason why a universe can't be uncaused and uncreated, but the god you want to believe in can be.

All things in space-time must be caused. God does not exist only in space-time.

I said that all things within the space-time continuum must have a cause.

and that which existed before the universe is, by definition, outside "the space-time continuum" thus the creation of that universe is not bound by those rules.

and that which existed before the universe is, by definition, outside "the space-time continuum" thus the creation of that universe is not bound by those rules.

and?

and?

and.....thus the statement of "all things need a cause" doesn't need to apply to the universe?

Duh?

Why?

Not that it needs a cause for it to happen, but going on the model that all the energy in the universe (as it can't be created or destroyed) was compacted to a small area where did this come from?

It's simple:

1) everything in the universe has a cause

2) God is outside the universe

ergo god is not inside the universe, thus is not bound by the laws of the universe. Thus god can exist without a cause, but nothing in the universe can.

Of course, this argument conveniently ignores the "the universe didn't exist before it existed, and thus you can't apply the laws of the universe to the conditions that birthed the universe". But let's ignore that.

You haven't proven either of your postulates. In fact, you try to prove God starting from the premise that God exists and has the properties that you want it to have. You're not proving anything, just restating your claim.

Even if #1 were true, why can't causes be infinitely recursive? That refutes you right there, even if you could prove #1 is true, which you haven't.

As for #2, you haven't proven that anything is or has to be "outside the universe", you've just made more claims, ones that assume that what you're trying to prove is true. You've put the cart before the horse, or more aptly, a cheese grater in front of the bumper from a 1972 Chevelle.

and.....thus the statement of "all things need a cause" doesn't need to apply to the universe?

Duh?

Don't confuse the creation of the universe with the universe itself. One does not use other pianos to create a piano.

All things in space-time must be caused. God does not exist only in space-time.

1) Why? Why must all things be caused? Simply because you say so?

2) God does not exist in time-space. Well, neither did the universe UNTIL there was a universe, because time and space are DEFINED by it.

3) Therefore - god or not-god, both are equally likely in terms of existence outside of time-space.

4) Given that they are equal in those terms, the one that requires LESS assumptions, is porbably true.

5) Therefore, no god.

Don't confuse the creation of the universe with the universe itself. One does not use other pianos to create a piano.

You're missing the point. If the universe DELINEATES the boundaries of time-space... then the moment AFTER the birth of the universe is limited by time-space... but the moment before... is not.

You haven't proven either of your postulates. In fact, you try to prove God starting from the premise that God exists and has the properties that you want it to have. You're not proving anything, just restating your claim.

Even if #1 were true, why can't causes be infinitely recursive? That refutes you right there, even if you could prove #1 is true, which you haven't.

As for #2, you haven't proven that anything is or has to be "outside the universe", you've just made more claims, ones that assume that what you're trying to prove is true. You've put the cart before the horse, or more aptly, a cheese grater in front of the bumper from a 1972 Chevelle.

dude, who do you think you're talking to?

You haven't proven either of your postulates. In fact, you try to prove God starting from the premise that God exists and has the properties that you want it to have. You're not proving anything, just restating your claim.

Even if #1 were true, why can't causes be infinitely recursive? That refutes you right there, even if you could prove #1 is true, which you haven't.

As for #2, you haven't proven that anything is or has to be "outside the universe", you've just made more claims, ones that assume that what you're trying to prove is true. You've put the cart before the horse, or more aptly, a cheese grater in front of the bumper from a 1972 Chevelle.

1. Tell me something in this universe that does not have a cause.
2. If everything in the universe, including the universe itself, requires a cause, then there must be something outside of the universe that does not, in order that it might be the cause for the universe.

All things in space-time must be caused. God does not exist only in space-time.

How do you know the universe itself, or a supraset of the universe, or a set of governing principles outside of it wouldn't explain it just as well, without all the assumptions you're making?

Please understand, for this to be a "proof", it has to be more than just rehashes of your assumptions that lead you to what you want to believe. Your god thing might be real, but your argument doesn't "prove" it real so long as there are so many other equally possible scenarios. That you so easily ignore them in claiming your "proof" says a lot about your real reasons for belief.

Don't confuse the creation of the universe with the universe itself. One does not use other pianos to create a piano.

I'll ask you very simply, why would the universe need a cause? And don't say "because all things need a cause", even if that were true, that's a law of this universe, it need not have any bearing on the creation of the universe.

You're missing the point. If the universe DELINEATES the boundaries of time-space... then the moment AFTER the birth of the universe is limited by time-space... but the moment before... is not.

Time exists as part of the universe. Therefore, you cannot point to any moment before, because there was no time to define moments.

Time exists as part of the universe. Therefore, you cannot point to any moment before, because there was no time to define moments.

Thank you, you have successfully dismantled your argument for us.

How do you know the universe itself, or a supraset of the universe, or a set of governing principles outside of it wouldn't explain it just as well, without all the assumptions you're making?

Please understand, for this to be a "proof", it has to be more than just rehashes of your assumptions that lead you to what you want to believe. Your god thing might be real, but your argument doesn't "prove" it real so long as there are so many other equally possible scenarios. That you so easily ignore them in claiming your "proof" says a lot about your real reasons for belief.

Please give me some of these "equally possible scenarios."

Thank you, you have successfully dismantled your argument for us.

How so?

God does not need time to exist.

1. Tell me something in this universe that does not have a cause.


Potential energy.


2. If everything in the universe, including the universe itself, requires a cause, then there must be something outside of the universe that does not, in order that it might be the cause for the universe.

This isn't logical.

Even if everything in the universe DID require a cause, that doesn't mean the universe ITSELF would. It certainly doesn't mean there MUST be something outside of the universe 'causing' it.



How does 'god did it' explain the universe any BETTER than every universe being born out of the ashes of a collapsing former universe, for all eternity?

1. Tell me something in this universe that does not have a cause.

Why would this be relevant? The universe is not within the universe.


2. If everything in the universe, including the universe itself, requires a cause

An unproven premise. Even if I'm willing to concede "everything in the universe requires a cause", the universe is not in the universe, thus the rules that apply to "things in the universe" need not apply to the universe itself.

Please give me some of these "equally possible scenarios."

the universe began on its own, without cause.

I'll ask you very simply, why would the universe need a cause? And don't say "because all things need a cause", even if that were true, that's a law of this universe, it need not have any bearing on the creation of the universe.

All things (in space-time) do need a cause. This is undisputable. Do dispute it is to prove that you are insane or an idiot. And everything that is a creation inherently has to be created.

How so?

God does not need time to exist.

You have acknowledged that the rules of this universe only exist within this universe.
Thus your criteria of why there must be a cause for the creation of the universe are baseless.

1. Tell me something in this universe that does not have a cause.

And you think if I don't that would prove that everything is caused? I don't think you understand the nature of rigorous proof. Since your claim is about ALL things in the universe, examing any subset of them doesn't prove anything definitely about the total.


2. If everything in the universe, including the universe itself, requires a cause, then there must be something outside of the universe that does not, in order that it might be the cause for the universe.

Again, recursive iteration. What is the most negative negative number?

All things (in space-time) do need a cause.

The universe is not "in space-time". Thus your statement is irrelevant.

Why would this be relevant? The universe is not within the universe.




An unproven premise. Even if I'm willing to concede "everything in the universe requires a cause", the universe is not in the universe, thus the rules that apply to "things in the universe" need not apply to the universe itself.

That is because when we say universe, we are actually referring to a bunch of matter and energy that we need to apply a single term to for ease of usage.

Please give me some of these "equally possible scenarios."

You've been given several, that you've ignored. Recursive iteration, or some other state or dynamic with the ontological primacy that you arbitrarily assign to the god you want to believe in, without understanding that you've given no reason why it can't be assigned to any number of other things.

Time exists as part of the universe. Therefore, you cannot point to any moment before, because there was no time to define moments.

Exactly.

I hadn't expected the lamb to come quite this meekly, to the slaughter, actually.

There was no moment BEFORE the formation of the universe, because the universe delineates it's own time-space limits.

Thus - ANYTHING that existed 'before' the universe, exists outside of time-space. It doesn't require a 'god'... even a pea that existed at that point would exist outside of time-space at THAT point.

You have admitted that the pre-causal entity is not limited by time-space - thus an extra-universal 'god' is not required.

QED.

Eric.

OMFG SECRET ERIC CONSPIRACY LABS!!!!11!!1eleventyonethousandeleventyone!!!1!1!6

That is because when we say universe, we are actually referring to a bunch of matter and energy that we need to apply a single term to for ease of usage.

And as Neo Art illustrates, your usage has contradicted itself.

I think the poster confuses the concept of "the universe" as if it were a thing like a baseball, or a chair. True, those things can't exist (presumably) without the matter/energy having existed before, matter doesn't simply spontaniously create itself, within the universe.

But there was no universe prior to the universe, and the rule "matter can not spontaneously be created" did not exist until there was a universe to contain that rule.

The rule does not exist without a rulebook to place it in.

That is because when we say universe, we are actually referring to a bunch of matter and energy that we need to apply a single term to for ease of usage.

What?!?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

The universe is not "in space-time". Thus your statement is irrelevant.

The universe is space-time, just as gravity is the attractive force of an object due to its mass. What applies to the attractive force of an object due to its mass also applies to gravity. Same with the universe.

I think the poster confuses the concept of "the universe" as if it were a thing like a baseball, or a chair. True, those things can't exist (presumably) without the matter/energy having existed before, matter doesn't simply spontaniously create itself, within the universe.

But there was no universe prior to the universe, and the rule "matter can not spontaneously be created" did not exist until there was a universe to contain that rule.

The rule does not exist without a rulebook to place it in.

That is because when we say universe, we are actually referring to a bunch of matter and energy that we need to apply a single term to for ease of usage.


Bingo.

The universe is space-time, just as gravity is the attractive force of an object due to its mass. What applies to the attractive force of an object due to its mass also applies to gravity. Same with the universe.

No the universe is not "space-time". Nor is it "matter and energy" Nor is it mass.

The universe is the body framework upon which all that rests. Saying that the universe is "space" or "time" or "energy" or "matter" is to confuse the wall of a building with its foundation.

Exactly.

You have admitted that the pre-causal entity is not limited by time-space - thus an extra-universal 'god' is not required.

QED.

This phrase contradicts itself. God is the term we apply to a pre-causal entity.

Exactly.

I hadn't expected the lamb to come quite this meekly, to the slaughter, actually.

There was no moment BEFORE the formation of the universe, because the universe delineates it's own time-space limits.

Thus - ANYTHING that existed 'before' the universe, exists outside of time-space. It doesn't require a 'god'... even a pea that existed at that point would exist outside of time-space at THAT point.

You have admitted that the pre-causal entity is not limited by time-space - thus an extra-universal 'god' is not required.

QED.

There was this one guy, who, using a .308 bolt action, could take out golf balls at 100's of yards.

Until your post, that was the sharpest shooting I'd heard of.

This phrase contradicts itself. God is the term we apply to a pre-causal entity.

conveniently having ignore the requirement to prove a pre causal entity existed.

This phrase contradicts itself. God is the term The Kilogramm applies to a pre-causal entity.

Fixed

No the universe is not "space-time". Nor is it "matter and energy" Nor is it mass.

The universe is the body framework upon which all that rests. Saying that the universe is "space" or "time" or "energy" or "matter" is to confuse the wall of a building with its foundation.

Then please tell me, what is this framework made of? And, in any case, both the wall and the foundation are made of fundamentally the same thing (in that case, atoms).

Then please tell me, what is this framework made of?

It's not "made of" anything. Stop trying to apply terms where they don't belong.

conveniently having ignore the requirement to prove a pre causal entity existed.

I have already done that if you were only paying attention. Go back, take a few minutes and read previous posts.

All things (in space-time) do need a cause.


Then it should be easy to prove. I'll wait.


This is undisputable.


All things (in space-time) do NOT need a cause.

Disputed. Thus, clearly not undisputable.


Do dispute it is to prove that you are insane or an idiot.


An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.


And everything that is a creation inherently has to be created.

Thus, in the greater 'creation' that exists outside of the universe, 'god' - if he exists - must have a creator. By your OWN logic.

This phrase contradicts itself. God is the term we apply to a pre-causal entity.

That you are assuming to exist based on a number of unproven assumptions that themselves assume your conclusion to be correct.

And the only contradiction was when you first claimed (assumed) the universe had to be caused, a premise involving linear time. But then your causer, who you assume to be outside of time (and who you assume to be the only possible concept to have this property) wouldn't be necessary, because the big bang was an explosion of time and space, not in time and space, so by your own premise, the event requires no causer.

Then please tell me, what is this framework made of? And, in any case, both the wall and the foundation are made of fundamentally the same thing (in that case, atoms).

or quarks, or particles within those, and within those...

No wonder you keep ignoring when people say "recursive iteration"...

I have already done that

No, you didn't. You think you did, but your logic train derailed once you started assigning "special" status to something just to justify your belief in its existence.

Fixed

Actually, I am applying the term God to this entity. I could apply the term Blargh and I would mean the same thing. Don't be a nominalist.

Then it should be easy to prove. I'll wait.



All things (in space-time) do NOT need a cause.

Disputed. Thus, clearly not undisputable.



An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.



Thus, in the greater 'creation' that exists outside of the universe, 'god' - if he exists - must have a creator. By your OWN logic.

You're shredding this guy more elegantly than I ever could. I'm going for dinner.

I hate you, GnI.

This phrase contradicts itself. God is the term we apply to a pre-causal entity.

No - god is the term YOU apply to a pre-causal entity.

And, by your own logic, he could be a pea.

Actually, I am applying the term God to this entity.

Which you magic hand-waved into existence by claiming it's special

Actually, I am applying the term God to this entity. I could apply the term Blargh and I would mean the same thing. Don't be a nominalist.

You've never proven that its an entity or needs to be. You've made assumptions, most of which already require what you're trying to prove to be true.

And because it stands repeating, I'll ask you again: How would the rudimentary concept of infinitely recursive iteration bear on your post?

No, you didn't. You think you did, but your logic train derailed once you started assigning "special" status to something just to justify your belief in its existence.

Actually, I have logically justified this existence. And I only said that it existed. No special status there.

There was this one guy, who, using a .308 bolt action, could take out golf balls at 100's of yards.

Until your post, that was the sharpest shooting I'd heard of.

On first read-through, I felt a momentary pang for LG. I couldn't quite work out why he was being targetted so. Apart, obviously, from the lulz inherent in the situation.


*bows*

High praise, when the apprentice is applauded by the master.

Actually, I have logically justified this existence. And I only said that it existed. No special status there.

Do you know what the bolded word means?

You've never proven that its an entity or needs to be. You've made assumptions, most of which already require what you're trying to prove to be true.

And because it stands repeating, I'll ask you again: How would the rudimentary concept of infinitely recursive iteration bear on your post?

Infinitely recursive iteration is equivocal. Please define what you mean by that term.

Actually, I have logically justified this existence.

your definition of logic is...lacking.

Not surprising, really.

Do you know what the bolded word means?

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Then please tell me, what is this framework made of? And, in any case, both the wall and the foundation are made of fundamentally the same thing (in that case, atoms).

The universe isn't made of atoms.

(I mean - super-really-obviously, too - since most of the universe is taken up by NOT-atoms).

But it has atoms IN it.


By your logic, since you often need to defecate, you must be made of shit. I'd argue you're just full of it.

Actually, I am applying the term God to this entity. I could apply the term Blargh and I would mean the same thing. Don't be a nominalist.

There is the key right there...
You are applying the term, we are disputing it, thus we are not applying the term.

Also you seem to be the only one who thinks that a pre-causal entity is required, so fail again.

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Exactly.

The universe isn't made of atoms.

(I mean - super-really-obviously, too - since most of the universe is taken up by NOT-atoms).

But it has atoms IN it.


By your logic, since you often need to defecate, you must be made of shit. I'd argue you're just full of it.

I meant that your metaphorical building was made of atoms (different kinds, but atoms are the largest category in which everything in the building fits into).

Exactly.

I going to go with:
"It means stop arguing with me because I have no idea what I'm talking about"

I meant that your metaphorical building was made of atoms (different kinds, but atoms are the largest category in which everything in the building fits into).

So when you said the universe is made up of atoms, you didn't mean it?

I going to go with:
"It means stop arguing with me because I have no idea what I'm talking about"

stop picking on me!

The universe isn't made of atoms.

(I mean - super-really-obviously, too - since most of the universe is taken up by NOT-atoms).

But it has atoms IN it.


By your logic, since you often need to defecate, you must be made of shit. I'd argue you're just full of it.You are in rare form, sir. Rare form!

stop picking on me!

lol

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
From the OED:
logic (n.) - The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method

the universe began on its own, without cause.

So Neo, everything that comprises of the universe wasn't there where did it come from?

If the universe can't have come from anywhere or being anything before that then it can't have just bgun on its own, the energy had to come from somewhere.

From the OED:
logic (n.) - The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method

And you havent used it once.

So when you said the universe is made up of atoms, you didn't mean it?

Can you actually read, or do you have someone who speaks your language only secondarily translating the screen to you?

So Neo, everything that comprises of the universe wasn't there where did it come from?

If the universe can't have come from anywhere or being anything before that then it can't have just bgun on its own, the energy had to come from somewhere.



*sigh* Than God had to come from somewhere.

So, either God also had a creator, or the something (like the universe) could have aways been.