You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

THIS COMMENT WAS POSTED IN A THREAD BY A THEIST VIA OUR ANONYMOUS POSTING.  IT DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED BUT WAS OFF TOPIC IN THE AREA POSTED.  HAVE AT IT...

 

How about an appeal to reason and common sense?  The fact that life and this universe exists is proof that a Creator exists or else how did we/it get here?  You have no answer for that.  Christianity does.  I have no "article" or "study" that provides "evidence" because you don't need one.  Common sense and logic tells us this is the case.  I pity "devout atheists" because they have eyes but can't see. They are blind.  You believe that there is no such thing as God but your whole life revolves around Him. 

You spend all your time creating websites about Him, writing articles about Him, blasphemeing His name.  You may spend the time saying and writing that He doesn't exist but, nevertheless, your whole life is consumed by God.  How ironic.   Allah does not exist.  That is why I do not bother talking or writing about him.   What for?  He doesn't exist.  Jesus Christ does exist so this is why I talk to Him, pray to Him, talk about Him, read His word, discuss Him with others. 

I suspect the reason you spend all your time trying to refute the God of the Bible and not other "gods" is for the same reason.  You know He exists.  You just don't like it.  Or else you would spend equal amount of time crying out against other "gods".  But you don't.  It is almost exclusively attacks against Christianity and the God of the Bible.     


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Atheist show a marked

Quote:

Atheist show a marked tendency to be deceived by all kinds of irrational arguements and have demonstrated a willingness to go so far as to even question what is nothing to deny the existence of God.

 

Hi Doc. What a limited understanding you possess - you reveal way too many of those limitations here to address singly so I'll simply point out two of the more obvious fallacies you utter since they seem for some reason to be integral to the way you think (or fail to think). The quote above, for example, reveals you at your most vehement and least sensible.

 

I think you'll find (should you examine the case and not just ignorantly misrepresent it) that atheists tend on the contrary to avoid being swayed by any arguments until they see the proof. Their "willingness", for example, to question the physical definition of "nothing" is actually quite an admirable step forward in the development of human intellect. Nor do atheists generally feel any compunction to "disprove" or deny "god". Most atheists - in fact the vast majority - just live free of the delusion, a very different thing. You probably only encounter them vocally when you, as a religionist, are behaving in just the way you attribute to them and attempt through assertion to deny reality. That would explain your skewed view, both of reality and of atheists. But it does not exonerate such ignorance or aggression.

 

You will also find, should you speak to a lawyer, that "slander" is a form of transitory defamation (like comments on an internet forum) whereas "libel" is the publication for broadcast of such slander and the intention thereby to permanently defame. The distinction between "oral" and "written" is a nice one (check out the true meaning of "nice" ) and is not now nor ever has been a definitive distinction. When you find dogmatic interpretation such as yours creeping into such innocuous areas of social intercourse and so readily expressed without thinking the general advice is to bite your tongue - they are invariably obvious proofs of a mind not operating quite at its full potential, or that you are a convicted religionist (the same thing in my book).

 

But the advice I gave above to another person applies equally to you so I'll impart it again before I sign off. Learn physics. It will open your mind, or at least divest it of its more presumptive aspects. A true liberation. You'll enjoy it.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:Ok, so are you

Stosis wrote:

Ok, so are you saying that we need to throw away all of science? even the most basic prinicple? Gravity can't be a fact because even though we have observed its affect on Earth that doesn't mean it works the same way everywhere else. We have tested gravity and can say without a doubt that it works the way we think it does. But wait! We haven't gone to every celestial body to test this. Might as well throw the whole thing out, right? Might as well stop trying to discover the universe.

I have an idea for you. Next time your doctor gives you a prescription, don't take it. Even if it means dieing! Sure the drug might save lives but it hasn't been tested on EVERY HUMAN! Therefore we don't know if it will cure your diasese. Maybe in some humans it causes a slow and painful death. You'd better not try it you wouldn't want that to happen, would you?

Oh me.  Oh my.  You really got me with that one, buddy.  I'm melting!  Help!

Must die... in famous... superhero.... POSE!

......

Okay, in all seriousness, there are a few ways for me to approach this and I'm having a hard time figuring out which. 

Instead of addressing the axiomatic truths of what constitutes a valid categorical syllogism, you want to throw a red herring in regards to the practical use of natural science.  That's fine.  Let's address that.

First of all, even if we assume the false premise that lack of universal knowledge renders natural science useless, you still have not proven false the demonstrable fact that you cannot infer a universal fact from a particular fact.  In predicate logic, a universal generalization cannot be applied to a sentence if the sentence was made free in a line obtained by existential instantiation. 

Read all about it here: 

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch14/univgen.htm

Hence, it does not matter if logic does not coincide with the practical use of natural science.  Whether or not we benefit from the rules of logic is irrelevant. 

Secondly, if you talk to any great scientist, you have to ask yourself: If a scientist recites a law of nature, is this person really claiming to have absolute knowledge?  Is this guy claiming that he knows that the laws of nature are universal?

Or perhaps what is really being said is that given the repeated observation of a particular pattern in nature, there is a high probability that if the situation presents itself again, the same events will occur in the same temporal order of before and after?  And perhaps the admission of a high probability gives us enough confidence and security for going about our business in the natural world-- regardless of the infinitesimal amount of uncertainty that we are forced to admit. 

Thus, you have to then ask yourself, is it really reasonable to say that we should "throw out science" simply because none of the laws are written in stone or that any universal claims are not fully justified on empirical grounds?  Or perhaps you inferring that premise from the demonstrable fact that universals cannot be inferred from particulars is pure non-sequitur?

Lastly, by the very admission that every law of nature is subject to change based on new observations, natural science already precludes the possibility of a scientific claim that's truly universal.  Actual universal claims cannot have a contingent truth value.  Since universal claims have no actual existential import, they are thereby making reference not only to things that exist actually, but also things which exist potentially and in the past.  Hence, with the claim that scientific claims are revisable, you can know that any scientific claim is not a priori and therefore is not true necessarily but contingently.  Even Kant's idea of the synthetic a priori proposition still maintains the idea of necessity, so you could not hang by that thread either. 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous wrote: You know

Anonymous wrote:
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Looks like he's got me. I've only been pretending the last 24 years. I bet God is really mad by now. He's gotta be in a whole new dimension of pissed off. I'd better start repenting...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If a scientist recites

Quote:

If a scientist recites a law of nature, is this person really claiming to have absolute knowledge?  Is this guy claiming that he knows that the laws of nature are universal?

 

No - but the guy can cite proofs which demonstrate that which makes his assertion a natural law. The god believer can do no such thing, simply pile assertion upon assertion as his theory is predicated ultimately on a completely unprovable assertion to begin with.

 

That's the problem with the notion of predicate logic - it does religion no favours at all. By stating that no universal truth can be derived from a potential fiction it more or less sums up the theologian's dilemma - at what point is the admission made that, no matter what extrapolations couched as "laws" are inferred, they have all been derived from nonsense at the core of the theory? The normal trick employed to avoid admitting his error is to state the nonsensical assertion in the same manner as the extrapolation and hope no one notices it for what it is, or simply ignore it altogether.

 

If a scientist employs that approach then his deductions are rightly dismissed as bad science. If he persists then he risks being dismissed as mad or a charlatan, or both. The religionist in the same boat simply calls himself a theologian and demands respect for the same lousy application of logic.

 

It would be funny if it didn't fuel so much misery in the world - living a lie impacts negatively on society as assuredly as it does the individual. Those who promote the lie and who do not take responsibility for their actions are the bigger offender. Most religious people operate from a position of ignorance of this dilemma - the theologian operates from a position of wilful ignorance, the biggest blight on humanity of all.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:1.

Sapient wrote:

1. You neglected to comment on the fact that within the information that Nigel has offered, matter has existed since before the beginning of your universe.

 

Uh, no it hasn't.  And even if it has, the questions still remains: "Who created that matter?" because, as he stated, it "certainly isn't eternal"


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
doc wrote:Nikolaj wrote:What

doc wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

What he said was both of the creation stories in Genesis are as valid as the story that Japan was created by three drops of molten steel in the ocean.

Not true.  The claims of the accounts of Genesis line up with scientific evidence and observation of the world around us.  Japan being created by three drops of molten steel does not.

That is ridiculous - the Sun and the stars existed before the Earth, so light was there before the Earth formed, and the Stars were certainly not an afterthought added later. Light was always there, as was dark, once any opaque matter had formed.

There were no 'waters' at all on Earth in the early stages, it was far too hot. Or 'above the firmament', whatever that is supposed to mean.

There was never 'darkness on the face of the deep', there was always at least the light of the stars.

There was always dry land, when water condensed it never covered the dry land.

Grass appeared relatively late in the development of life, it certainly was not the first vegetation. The first life appeared in the ocean, well before there was any life on dry land, let alone grass.

IOW, it is in violent conflict with everything we have been able to deduce from science.

Quote:

Nikolaj wrote:

As for your claim that God uses natural processes, why add the complexity? The natural processes are amazing enough without needing an omnimax God that you can't even describe (let alone prove).

What is so complex?  It is actually quite simple.  The "complexity" is brought about by those who conjure up things like evolution and eternal matter and the Big Bang.  That is the problem.  Those who are unwilling to to go where the simple logical evidence leads them end up drowning in a drop of water because they have to start developing these complex schemes and theories to try to understand something that requires only simple logic even a child can understand.     

An eternal God is much more complex a concept than eternal matter/energy.

The logic of evolution is demonstrable, there is no logic in the idea of God.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: I think you are

aiia wrote:

 

I think you are dodging your obligation to validate your claim. It does not matter if atheists are not willing to go "there" wherever that might be.

My claims are valid and have been validated.  Whether you choose to recognize this validation is another matter. 

 

aiia wrote:

No one can be ignorant of something of which no knowledge exists. 

Knowledge of God does exist.   This existing knowledge is why approximately 80-90% of the world's population believe in God.  Approximately 80-90% of the world's population has this knowledge.    

 

aiia wrote:

 If you have knowledge of this thing you call god spill it out here for examination.

Knowledge of God is axiomatic.  It is self-evident.  It is like asking for proof that water is wet.  The fact that this universe and everything in it exists is proof that God exists.  That is the proof which you requested.  You, like many others, refuse this as proof.  I am not, at this point, arguing for who that God is.  Only that He exists.   The problem is that many people, because of pride and self-righteousness, stumble over the simplicity of this proof and refuse to accept such a simple logical proof.  They demand more saying, "It can't be that simple".  But it is.  God Himself says that He has chosen the simple to confound the "wise".  Evidence for God does not require nor demand testable, reproduceable, or scientific evidence because it is self-evident.  Although all good scientific evidence confrims this truth.

 

 

aiia wrote:

If you claim this thing you call god is 'truth', you, then must provide proof. If you do not have proof, it cannot be truth.

  

Do you have a wife or a loved one? Please provide proof of your love for that person.  If you cannot provide proof then it cannot be true and you do not love them.      

 

 

aiia wrote:

It is logical that the universe exists without this thing you call god. You have 2 burdens of proof now; prove there is this god and prove it created the universe.

 

No it is not possible for the universe to exist without "this thing you call god" (i.e.- Creator).   Because the UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  The universe CANNOT come into existence on its own. And no amount of science has proved that it can.  That IS NOT logical.  There are no "2 burdens of proof" becasue the creation of the universe proves that God exists. 

 

aiia wrote:

Moral sense appears to have evolutionary roots. Evolution is a known fact, but there is no evidence of this thing you call a god.

Please show me where the chimpanzee judicial system is located. How many chimps did the group of chimpanzees living in Africa arrest for theft, murder, or rape last year?  Evolution is not a "known fact".  Hardly.  It is theory, speculation, and imagination passed off as science.  There is not one shred of evidence that all living things evolved from a single more primitive lifeform.   And as stated above, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God.  

 

aiia wrote:

 So my bet is on biological morality

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:aiia wrote: So my

Doc wrote:

aiia wrote:

 So my bet is on biological morality

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

1. You mean afterlife, and yes that was the point.

2. He already has.  You have as well, you have bet on the afterlife so much so that you're willing to waste the only life we have proof of in order to attain it.  Not a wise move from an evidential standpoint.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:aiia wrote: I

Doc wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

I think you are dodging your obligation to validate your claim. It does not matter if atheists are not willing to go "there" wherever that might be.

My claims are valid and have been validated.  Whether you choose to recognize this validation is another matter. 

 

aiia wrote:

No one can be ignorant of something of which no knowledge exists. 

Knowledge of God does exist.   This existing knowledge is why approximately 80-90% of the world's population believe in God.  Approximately 80-90% of the world's population has this knowledge.    

 

aiia wrote:

 If you have knowledge of this thing you call god spill it out here for examination.

Knowledge of God is axiomatic.  It is self-evident.  It is like asking for proof that water is wet.  The fact that this universe and everything in it exists is proof that God exists.  That is the proof which you requested.  You, like many others, refuse this as proof.  I am not, at this point, arguing for who that God is.  Only that He exists.   The problem is that many people, because of pride and self-righteousness, stumble over the simplicity of this proof and refuse to accept such a simple logical proof.  They demand more saying, "It can't be that simple".  But it is.  God Himself says that He has chosen the simple to confound the "wise".  Evidence for God does not require nor demand testable, reproduceable, or scientific evidence because it is self-evident.  Although all good scientific evidence confrims this truth.

 

 

aiia wrote:

If you claim this thing you call god is 'truth', you, then must provide proof. If you do not have proof, it cannot be truth.

  

Do you have a wife or a loved one? Please provide proof of your love for that person.  If you cannot provide proof then it cannot be true and you do not love them.      

 

 

aiia wrote:

It is logical that the universe exists without this thing you call god. You have 2 burdens of proof now; prove there is this god and prove it created the universe.

 

No it is not possible for the universe to exist without "this thing you call god" (i.e.- Creator).   Because the UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  The universe CANNOT come into existence on its own. And no amount of science has proved that it can.  That IS NOT logical.  There are no "2 burdens of proof" becasue the creation of the universe proves that God exists. 

 

aiia wrote:

Moral sense appears to have evolutionary roots. Evolution is a known fact, but there is no evidence of this thing you call a god.

Please show me where the chimpanzee judicial system is located. How many chimps did the group of chimpanzees living in Africa arrest for theft, murder, or rape last year?  Evolution is not a "known fact".  Hardly.  It is theory, speculation, and imagination passed off as science.  There is not one shred of evidence that all living things evolved from a single more primitive lifeform.   And as stated above, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God.  

 

aiia wrote:

 So my bet is on biological morality

Are you willing to bet your life on it?

 

 

 

1. Looking in the mirror amd saying "I validate your claims" doesn't count.

2. You're missing some vital words "Approximately 80%-90% believe in a god or gods". Belief is not knowledge. Which of these god or gods is the correct one? No one knows - you just place your bet on what you've been indoctrinated to believe.

3. If knowledge of god was axiomatic - you'd be able to relate it. As the universe existed pre-God, the universe is proof that the universe exists. Or did your universe begin when your parents/church told you about God?

4. People who love each other do observable things to show that love - how has your God shown you love that we all can see?

5. So the universe can't have always existed but your magic sky-daddy can? Special plead much? Or was your God created also? Who created him/her/it/them?

6a. the chimpnazee "judicial system" exists in its social behaviors - only humans need a jail to protect society from their own. Only theistic humans create a God that punishes eternally for temporary crimes.

6b. Only if you ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution (which others have shown you) and make up evidence for God.

7. Bet my life on a sure thing? No problem. Are you so sure you have the correct God of all that are out there? After all, most of the people who believe in a god or gods believe in ones that aren't yours.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you have a wife or

Quote:
Do you have a wife or a loved one? Please provide proof of your love for that person.  If you cannot provide proof then it cannot be true and you do not love them.    

I don't currently have a wife or girlfriend so I'll use my parents as an example. I can show my love for them in many ways. This can be anything from shoveling their drive way for them to paying for their retirement home, when the time comes. Both these things use up my time and energy and do not give me any benefit outside the firing of the pleasure centres in my brain. This is love because it is something special I would do only for them and perhaps a few others in my life. I treat them differently and "better" in comparison to my friends, co-workers, strangers, people I dislike and just about everyone else. I think that you are under the assumption that love is somehow magical and other-worldly, when, in fact, what we call love is quite easy to see as an evolved behaviour that ensures we treat common kin and others who benefit us in a special way so as to benefit society as a whole.

Quote:
No it is not possible for the universe to exist without "this thing you call god" (i.e.- Creator).   Because the UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  The universe CANNOT come into existence on its own. And no amount of science has proved that it can.  That IS NOT logical.  There are no "2 burdens of proof" because the creation of the universe proves that God exists.

Yes, but science has not disproved the idea of the universe being able to "create" itself. In fact, physicists are working on theories right now that propose just that. It is clear that two burdens of proof are, indeed, on your shoulders. You must prove that that the universe requires a creator and that this creator must be something a kin to what most people would call "god".
 

Quote:
Please show me where the chimpanzee judicial system is located. How many chimps did the group of chimpanzees living in Africa arrest for theft, murder, or rape last year?  Evolution is not a "known fact".  Hardly.  It is theory, speculation, and imagination passed off as science.  There is not one shred of evidence that all living things evolved from a single more primitive lifeform.   And as stated above, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God. 

The law is not inherently moral and breaking the law is not inherently amoral. It is not, for example, illegal to give chocolate to your bed ridden diabetic mother who has been put on a diet. It is, although, amoral to do so. Helping her to get chocolate or other sweets, despite the fact that this would threaten her life I believe would be one of the worst possible things you could do.

Now that we have that out of the way moral behaviour can be seen as an evolutionary advantage. Say you are a male chimp and all around you are females procreating with other males. You want to reproduce and pass on your genes. Would it not be logical to kill all the other males and therefore ensuring your self a harem of females? It seems like the best solution at first, you would have hundreds of offspring. But what if a bigger male comes along from another group and decides he wants your harem for himself. He kills you and then proceeds to kill all your offspring. This is the worst thing that could happen from an evolutionary point of view. That is why all animals and especially larged brained ones like apes have evolved a set of moral rules. Everyone must follow these rules for the benefit of the group and everyone is free to try to produce as many offspring as they can withing these rules but they are not allowed to break them. The same is true for humans. Look at most industrialized nations. They offer things like free health care for the benefit of the group. You may not be personally benefiting from this because you may not ever become extremely sick but it is still moral to pay your taxes and support those less fortunate.

 

Now, I have a question for you. If god created morals than why do morals differ so much between different human populations and even within the same religion?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Knowledge of God

Doc wrote:

Knowledge of God is axiomatic.  It is self-evident.  It is like asking for proof that water is wet.  The fact that this universe and everything in it exists is proof that God exists.  That is the proof which you requested.  You, like many others, refuse this as proof.  I am not, at this point, arguing for who that God is.  Only that He exists.   The problem is that many people, because of pride and self-righteousness, stumble over the simplicity of this proof and refuse to accept such a simple logical proof.  They demand more saying, "It can't be that simple".  But it is.  God Himself says that He has chosen the simple to confound the "wise".  Evidence for God does not require nor demand testable, reproduceable, or scientific evidence because it is self-evident.  Although all good scientific evidence confrims this truth.

Either knowledge of God is axiomatic, or knowledge of God is logical. An axiom is something used to support a logical argument, and is not itself the result of a logical argument. You'll have to choose which one it is if you intend to employ actual logic.

How is the fact that the universe exists proof that God exists? This is a claim of logic that starts with the axiom, "The universe exists." How do you come to the logical conclusion that God therefore also exists?

Why do you suppose it is pride and self-righteousness that keeps us from knowing the existence of God? What if it is really just logic and rational thinking, as we claim? I admit I am very prideful, but I certainly don't presume to understand the nature of God, which if I believed in God, would be both prideful and self-righteous.

What is the good scientific evidence that confirms the truth of the existence of God? That'd be some great evidence if it existed, and I'm sure we'd all know about it.

It seems your entire "logical proof" of God is simply this: "I believe God exists; therefore, she exists." Or, "I can't imagine the universe can just exist on its own. Therefore God exists." Both of these are subjective arguments, and bear no correlation with reality.

I have a sister-in-law that talks to faeries, angels, and dragons. She swears they are real. Her claims are just as solid as yours, since to her, their existence is "self-evident."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:Knowledge of God

Doc wrote:
Knowledge of God does exist.   This existing knowledge is why approximately 80-90% of the world's population believe in God.  Approximately 80-90% of the world's population has this knowledge.
Ahem.  Excuse me, but you might want to revise that statement or back it up with some proof.  I believe, more accurately, that ~80% of the world's population believes in some god(s) and not specifically in the god that you're intoning by adding that capital letter (which one is that?).  And since it is, in fact, a variety of gods, some mutually exclusive in their conceptions, which are believed in by ~80% of the world's population, I fail to see how that supports your claim that knowledge of God exists.

Further, there is no evidence and there has never been any evidence of any god and except from demonstrating such an entities existence via the scientific method, I fail to see how anyone can have knowledge (as in justified true belief) of any god at all.

Quote:
Knowledge of God is axiomatic.  It is self-evident.  It is like asking for proof that water is wet.
It is not.  That water is wet is something that can be verifiably tested.  That it can be tested simply and that we have a name for that particular property of water, however, is to say nothing about the nature of wetness.  The existence of any god has never been so tested and merely positing, without providing adequate reasoning, that any god is axiomatic is only to make a bald statement.  Do you have any intention of backing that statement up?

Quote:
The fact that this universe and everything in it exists is proof that God exists.
It is?  I thought it was proof that the universe and everything in it exists. 

Quote:
That is the proof which you requested.
It is no such proof. 

Quote:
You, like many others, refuse this as proof.
Rightly so.  You are surmising a conclusion based on on premise.  You do realise how incredibly dull that is of you, right?

P1: The universe exists.
C: God exists. 

Quote:
I am not, at this point, arguing for who that God is.  Only that He exists.
And your argument is severely lacking.  You are merely insisting that an arbitrary entity you term god exists.

Quote:
The problem is that many people, because of pride and self-righteousness, stumble over the simplicity of this proof and refuse to accept such a simple logical proof.
But, it's not logical.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.  No conclusion can follow from the premise except tautologically. 

Quote:
They demand more saying, "It can't be that simple".
It has nothing to do with simplicity.  I don't question the simplicity of your logic, so long as simplicity means poorness.  I demand that you present a logically valid form of reasoning.

Quote:
But it is.  God Himself says that He has chosen the simple to confound the "wise".
You don't know what god is, but you know it's a male and you know that it has said something?  I'm not following.  If you don't know anything about who god is and only that he exists, how do you know that it has said anything?  How do you know that it does anything other than exist?  What god are you talking about?  I get the feeling you know exactly which god and that you are a lier.

Quote:
Evidence for God does not require nor demand testable, reproduceable, or scientific evidence because it is self-evident.  Although all good scientific evidence confrims this truth.
First, it's not a truth.  No science can have ever come from the bald assertion that god exists.  And even something that is self-evident can be tested scientifically.

Quote:
No it is not possible for the universe to exist without "this thing you call god" (i.e.- Creator).   Because the UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  The universe CANNOT come into existence on its own. And no amount of science has proved that it can.  That IS NOT logical.  There are no "2 burdens of proof" becasue the creation of the universe proves that God exists.
God created the universe.  The existence of the universe is proof that god exists.  The universe exists.  Therefor god exists.  Do you know what circular reasoning is?  Are wyou aware it is fallacious?  Are you aware that you have not justified the existence of god merely by insisting that something you know nothing about couldn't have happened and therefor, god-did-it?

Quote:
Please show me where the chimpanzee judicial system is located. How many chimps did the group of chimpanzees living in Africa arrest for theft, murder, or rape last year?  Evolution is not a "known fact".  Hardly.  It is theory, speculation, and imagination passed off as science.  There is not one shred of evidence that all living things evolved from a single more primitive lifeform.   And as stated above, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God.
Evolution happens.  The theory explains, incredibly accurately, the phenomenon of evolution.  It is also known that our practice of 'morality' is not wholly unique to us.  In a very primitive sense, the outcasting, alienation or social downgrading of individuals who have wronged others in chimp societies is a punishment for perceived immorality.  Theft from another member of the group or murder has consequences for the perpetrator.  In fact, chimp socialization is rather more complex than the rudimentary example I have given.

Do you know what a theory is in science?  It is not the same as the word that you use.  Also, you've not presented plenty of evidence.  You presented one tautology (that the universe exists) and called it evidence and the only premise needed to conclude the existence of your god.  You then presented circular reasoning with a number of invented propositions.  You have no justification for any of that.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Exactly.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Exactly. And as soon as you assume an all-powerful God, there is no way to have certain knowledge of anything, as God can meddle in anything, at any time.

This is simply not true.  Of course you can have certain knowledge of some things because of the way God created the physical world.  God is a God of order and, as such, has placed order within His creation by which this physical world is governed. Now, does that mean we can have absolute knowledge of everything?  No, because then we would be God.  Man does not hold all truth and knowledge.  Only God does.  That is why, for as great a benefit to mankind as science and medicine has been, things do not always work as the science dictates.  

nigelTheBold wrote:

You can't even be sure we are actually having this conversation, as the universe might not exist; God may create the universe in her own good time, when she feels like it, and give you the memory of having this discussion, and you'd be none the wiser.

Now your arguement has ventured into the realm of the absurd.  Are you a Buddhist?

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

There's just no way to know. And so, the metaphysical presupposition of an all-powerful God cannot support an epistemology.

What are you talking about?  Of course it can.  "Epistemology, the science of knowing, is closely related to metaphysics, the science of being, as its necessary introduction, and as gradually leading into it. The main epistemological issue cannot be met without stepping almost immediately on metaphysical ground, since the faculty of knowledge cannot be examined apart from its exercise and therefore from the contents of knowledge. Logic in its strict sense is the science of the laws of thought; it is concerned with the form, not the matter of knowledge, and in this it differs from epistemology. Psychology deals with knowledge as a mental fact, apart from its truth or falsity; it endeavours to determine the conditions, not only of cognitive, but of all mental processes and to discover their relations and the laws of their sequence. Thus logic and epistemology complement the work of psychology in two different directions, and epistemology forms a transition from psychology and logic to metaphysics. The importance of epistemology can hardly be overestimated, since it deals with the ground-work of knowledge itself, and therefore of all scientific, philosophical, moral, and religious principles." (from www.history-of-philosophy.com)

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

At best, you can only hope that you correctly guess God's basic attributes; as there is no method of validation, even that endeavour is hopeless.

There is a method of validation to understand God and His attributes.  It is called the Bible.  You don't need to "hope" or "guess".  If you properly study the historicity of scripture, the archeological evidence for scripture, the prophetic events of scripture, the scientific facts described in scripture, the manuscript evidence of scripture, etc. you can validate that the claims of the Bible are true. 

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

God's a ponce. There, I mocked her.

You may think you have mocked Him and think you are getting away with it but unless you repent you will perish.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." (Galatians 6: 7,Cool

     

nigelTheBold wrote:

 

What isn't so clear, though, is how you know this knowledge is correct. We have vast amounts of evidence that humans are great at self-delusion. We also have great evidence that intuition itself is often wrong. We have even greater evidence that humans like explanations, and when lacking explanations, will invent them. All of this points to one simple fact: we cannot trust intuition. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Intution too often leads us astray, down false roads and false knowledge. We can't trust everything that goes on in our heads and in our hearts. So, we validate these things we feel and these things we think against observation. That's all we can do.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement above.  That is why I am not refering to intuition.  We can ALL participate in self-delusion.  Even scientists despite the availability of the scientific method.  There is such things as "bad science".  If the physical world around us is observed with an open mind and honesty it points towards a Creator (i.e.- God).  That is why I do not rely on my own understanding or a "gut feeling" but examine the evidence before me as found in this physical universe.  The Bible is part of this universe.  I draw my understanding from science  and the Bible.  If you only trust science and exclude the Bible then you are limiting your knowledge base and are then more likely to "be led astray" and be led into error.  Why do I include the Bible as a source of knowledge?  Because I have studied its contents and seen how it lined up with the observable world around me and found it to be accurate.             

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

The epistemology that is the foundation of science has proven both effective and reliable.

Helpful and beneficial, yes.  Effective and reliable?  That is why science has been able to solve the problem of death, right?

 

nigelTheBold wrote:
   

As far as the opening my heart to God, or what-have-you: I have tried that. I've never really believed in God, as far as I recall.

How can you say you have "opened your heart" to God and in the next sentence say "I've never really believed in God"?  That is like saying I love chocolate but have never really eaten any.  

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

But I fell in love with a very devout woman, and we married. During the time we dated, and during our marriage, I tried very hard to be the man she wanted me to be. I was unable, because I never once felt a presence. I never once felt there was a God, and never once felt that she took a personal interest in me. I know I never really believed in God, but if I couldn't believe in God for the one I loved, how could I believe in God for... what reason, exactly?

Sorry to hear of your personal difficulties.  I truly am.  But you can't force yourself to believe in God.  It doesn't work that way.  Not for the one you love or anyone else.  You say God never showed a personal interest in you.  On the contrary, He cares for you and for everyone.  You ask for what reason you could believe in God....?  Because He is real and becasue of what He has done for you.  He created you and gave you life.  Yet, you rebelled against Him by your lies, theft, adultery, selfishness, blasphemy, etc.   Even so, the Creator of the universe humbled Himself and created for Himself a body in the God-man Jesus Christ, came off His throne and came down to Earth to suffer and die for the sins that you have committed so that you may avoid eternal punishment and instead have eternal life.  That is how much He loved you that He was willing to do this for you.  Jesus took your place on the cross.  He died so that you may live if you repent and place your trust in the One who would save you.                  

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Also, you ignore the many, many people here who once believed in God, but do so no longer. If God were real, and her presence had such a profound effect, nobody would turn their backs on her and deny her existence. Yet many do. Why is that?

Because they never truly believed.  They never actually KNEW God.  The Bible describes a true believer as one who knows God.  Because you are right, if they truly knew God they would not turn their backs on Him.  That would be foolish.  To provide an analogy, there’s a famous story told about the nineteenth-century French daredevil who went by the name of Charles Blondin. Blondin’s most famous trick was crossing Niagara Falls on a tightrope. He did this not just once, but repeatedly, with many variations—carrying different objects, or pushing a wheelbarrow.

The story goes that one day a crowd watched Blondin cross the tightrope pushing a wheelbarrow. When they roared their applause and approval, the tightrope walker roared back at the crowd, “Do you believe I can do it again?”

“YES!” shouted the crowd.

“Do you believe I could walk this tightrope with a man sitting in the wheelbarrow?” Blondin challenged, and again the crowed roared in agreement.

“Then who will volunteer to come ride in the wheelbarrow?” Blondin shouted back.

The silence was deafening. No one wanted to step forward to be the one who sat in the wheelbarrow. They were all willing to believe he could do it, but to take belief one step farther—to trust Blondin enough to be the one to sit in the wheelbarrow, balanced on that taut rope far above all those gushing torrents of water—no, nobody in the crowd that day had that kind of trust.

In other words, they did not truly believe he could do it.  Thier actions (or lack thereof) gives insight into what they really believed.  The same is true for those professed "believers" who no longer believe.  The fact that they turned away from God only proves they never knew Him nor believed in Him.  If they had they would still believe. They are called false converts. 

 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Finally, if God were real, and God cared about what we thought of her, she would give everyone who believed in her at least similar thoughts about what she is. Instead, we have Buddhists (with no real God, for many of them), Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Deists, Pantheists, Panentheists, and on and on and on, each with a different concept of God. Even within Christianity there are major schisms, with the catholics and protestants going at it once in a while, and the pentacostals scared of Satan at every turn, while universal unitarians think there is no Satan, and so on. And so even those who draw their faith from the same book can't even agree on the most fundamental aspects of God!

God cares enough about us and loves us enough not to make us robots.  We all have the free will to live our lives as we want to.  If that were not so and God forced us all to submit to Him and love Him that would not be very loving but tyrranical.  As for the different religions, religions are man made.  I don't like religion myself for this reason.  They do more harm than good.  The reason there are so many sects and denominations is because when man gets involved he always manages to screw things up.  If we would stick to the truth as revealed to us by God then we would not have this mess.

 

nigelTheBold wrote:
       

This all adds up to one of two inescapable conclusions: either God doesn't exist, or she doesn't really care what people think about her.

It does not "add up" to those two conclusions as I outlined another explanation for why we see what we see when it comes to the things of God.  God doesn't exist is an illogical conclusions based on the evidence of Creation.  Secondly, what people think about Him is irrelevant to what is true.  As I pointed out, it is man's fault, not God's, that we can't keep the truth straight despite all the evidence He has provided.

   

nigelTheBold wrote:

In either case, if everyone is using introspection to determine the qualities of God, it doesn't work, as they keep coming up with different qualities of God. And so: there is no epistemology that can be built on the concept of an all-powerful God, and your knowledge of God has no method of validation.

I agree.  That is why we shouldn't use introspection to determine the qualities of God.  And christians don't.  We can't trust our own judgements.  This is why so many people worship so many idols or false gods.  Because they make up their own gods in their minds or out of wood or metal, or clay, or as a figment of their own imagination, etc.  That is why we can only rely on the source of ultimate authority about God which is God Himself.  We can only know who God is by what He says about Himself through His word as found in the Bible.  And His word is verifiable and holds up to scrutiny and examination.          

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:aiia wrote: I

Doc wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

I think you are dodging your obligation to validate your claim. It does not matter if atheists are not willing to go "there" wherever that might be.

My claims are valid and have been validated.  Whether you choose to recognize this validation is another matter.

I cannot make the choice to recognize it or not because you have not exhibited it. Display this validation or I'll have to conclude your claim is a fantasy. I think its strange that you argue so intently that there is a god but yet you will not present your evidence.

Quote:
aiia wrote:

No one can be ignorant of something of which no knowledge exists.

Knowledge of God does exist.   This existing knowledge is why approximately 80-90% of the world's population believe in God.  Approximately 80-90% of the world's population has this knowledge.

I wait with bated breath for your evidence. But you seem to be confused. Why do people merely believe there is a thing called god? If knowledge of this thing actually existed people would KNOW there was a god. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. If there is knowledge, belief is not needed.

Quote:
aiia wrote:

 If you have knowledge of this thing you call god spill it out here for examination.

Knowledge of God is axiomatic.  It is self-evident.  It is like asking for proof that water is wet.  The fact that this universe and everything in it exists is proof that God exists.  That is the proof which you requested.  You, like many others, refuse this as proof.  I am not, at this point, arguing for who that God is.  Only that He exists.   The problem is that many people, because of pride and self-righteousness, stumble over the simplicity of this proof and refuse to accept such a simple logical proof.  They demand more saying, "It can't be that simple".  But it is.  God Himself says that He has chosen the simple to confound the "wise".  Evidence for God does not require nor demand testable, reproduceable, or scientific evidence because it is self-evident.  Although all good scientific evidence confrims this truth.

A presupposition cannot be axiomatic. Self-evident? I laughed at this obvious contradiction.

 

 

Quote:
aiia wrote:

If you claim this thing you call god is 'truth', you, then must provide proof. If you do not have proof, it cannot be truth.

 

Do you have a wife or a loved one? Please provide proof of your love for that person.  If you cannot provide proof then it cannot be true and you do not love them. 

Love can easily be demonstrated as anyone who has a loved one would know. I believe you are incapable of demonstrating anything about his thing you call god.

 

 

Quote:
aiia wrote:

It is logical that the universe exists without this thing you call god. You have 2 burdens of proof now; prove there is this god and prove it created the universe.

No it is not possible for the universe to exist without "this thing you call god" (i.e.- Creator).   Because the UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  The universe CANNOT come into existence on its own. And no amount of science has proved that it can.  That IS NOT logical.  There are no "2 burdens of proof" becasue the creation of the universe proves that God exists.

You are not making sense. You claim there is this thing that you call god and it "created" the universe, right? So where was the god before god created the universe? Surely you can grasp the absurdity of your claim.

Try to understand reality; the universe always existed.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:You are not

aiia wrote:

You are not making sense. You claim there is this thing that you call god and it "created" the universe, right? So where was the god before god created the universe? Surely you can grasp the absurdity of your claim.

The question that you're asking is loaded.  By asking where God is and what he did before, you are placing God under a category where he does not belong.

Where is God?  God is not anywhere.  He is a spiritual being with no body.  He does not occupy any space. 

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" --John 4:24

What was God doing before he created the universe?  There was no before.  God does not exist in time.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." --Peter 3:8

Therefore, if you want to make a legitimate criticism, the question that you ought to be asking is, "How is it possible for a thing to transcend both space and time?" 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:The

The God of Rock wrote:
The question that you're asking is loaded.  By asking where God is and what he did before, you are placing God under a category where he does not belong.

Where is God?  God is not anywhere.  He is a spiritual being with no body.  He does not occupy any space. 

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" --John 4:24

What was God doing before he created the universe?  There was no before.  God does not exist in time.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." --Peter 3:8

Therefore, if you want to make a legitimate criticism, the question that you ought to be asking is, "How is it possible for a thing to transcend both space and time?" 

 

No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of "nonexistent".

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:No mass, no

JillSwift wrote:

No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of "nonexistent".

Nonexistent - absence of existence

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Nonexistent

 

Existent - having existence, being or occurring in fact or actuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existent

........

The definition does not include mass, energy, or in the case of "actuality", temporality.

 


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote: Not true.  The

Doc wrote:
Not true.  The claims of the accounts of Genesis line up with scientific evidence and observation of the world around us.  Japan being created by three drops of molten steel does not.

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is ridiculous - the Sun and the stars existed before the Earth, so light was there before the Earth formed, and the Stars were certainly not an afterthought added later. Light was always there, as was dark, once any opaque matter had formed.

Actually, Doc is correct here.  The Genesis account does indeed, line up with the scientific evidence we currently possess. 

Genesis supports what you said, that "the Sun and the stars existed before the Earth," except for the "Sun" part.  The names "Sun" and "Moon" come from ancient Near-eastern pagan pantheon deities.  Moses on the other hand simply refers to them as "light."   Anyhow, Old Earth Creationist believe the Genesis account to be a remake, not an account of the immediate processes following the Big Bang.  So then Genesis 1:1 is the Big Bang, but no details.  Just that God caused it, and made the heavens (universe), then the earth.  Genesis 1:2 is billions of years afterwards.  The assumption from Genesis 1:2 and on, is that lights and dark matter already exist, and that God  forms the luminous bodies (makes them into meaningful shapes). 

We hold to the Gap Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory) which asserts that due to the Bible stating in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void, and Isaiah 45:18 stating that God did not create the earth without form and void, that this evidence makes it highly probable that the earth could  be around 5 billion years old, and at one point it had been destroyed, but Genesis 1 gives humans the story of the remake.

Nothing in Genesis suggest that the earth formed before light was created.  Genesis 1:2 says the earth had no form and there was dark matter, while Genesis 1:3 is just the presence of illumination in general, not the creation of light.  Genesis 1:14-18, is not the creation of the sun and moon.  The Hebrew in verse 16 for "Made" is "Asah" which carries the the definitions: Fashioned, re-made, or worked on, while the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 for "Created (Bara)" means to create, shape ,or form.  Genesis 1:16 mentions stellar formation, but again, this is a fashioning, or maybe even meticulous placements.             

BobSpence1 wrote:
There were no 'waters' at all on Earth in the early stages, it was far too hot. Or 'above the firmament', whatever that is supposed to mean.

I agree.  But I wonder why you assumed that God was hovering over waters before CMBR could cool?  If God is the Creator of such a complex system, wouldn't He expand the universe before asserting that He hovered over water?

And firmament=Atmosphere.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There was never 'darkness on the face of the deep', there was always at least the light of the stars.

What is "Darkness on the face of the deep"?  How are you defining it?  Was there no dark matter?  Some scholars suggest the "Darkness on the face of the deep," merely represents a further description of the lack of complete order that the verse initially implied.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Grass appeared relatively late in the development of life, it certainly was not the first vegetation. The first life appeared in the ocean, well before there was any life on dry land, let alone grass.

Come on now, Bob.  Life?  You have absolutely no basis for a Scientific assertion of "life."  Unless you're that one Scientist who has been contributing all that research and "evidence" to abiogenesis.  What are you suggesting here?  That life was seeded on to this planet by a more highly advanced race (I think Dawkins holds to this, is there anyone who could give me more information on this)?  Crystal shavings in the water?  Certainly not amino acids, or a real protein.  

But I don't even see the point of discussing an earth without knowing how it arrived.  Lets prove first that quantum fluctuations are the cause of the Big Bang, then we can move on to all those other things.  Better yet, lets prove first and foremost where the matter and energy came from in the first place, then we can move on to bigger and better discussions.  If Science is ever able to answer these things, I think the Rational Response Squad could then be actually considered "Rational."  

And why does an infinite Being with supernatural power, that transcends time and space, have to abide by the faulty finite laws of Science?  If God is supernatural, the development of grass or any vegatation would not necessarily have to be hinged upon photosynthesis.         

I apologize in advance if I am unable to respond.  I haven't had time for this forum lately.  Maybe Doc will be able to, since he made the original assertion.  Maybe he'll explain it differently.  Who knows.  I don't really care either. 

Cheers                                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of "nonexistent".

Nonexistent - absence of existence

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Nonexistent

 

Existent - having existence, being or occurring in fact or actuality

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existent

........

The definition does not include mass, energy, or in the case of "actuality", temporality.

 

Ooh, go run behind a dictionary?

If something does not have mass, nor energy, nor temporality... then it is nothing. If it is nothing, it does not exist. QED

 

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: You are not

aiia in response to The God of Rock wrote:
You are not making sense. You claim there is this thing that you call god and it "created" the universe, right? So where was the god before god created the universe? Surely you can grasp the absurdity of your claim.

Try to understand reality; the universe always existed.

I'm still grateful for you teaching me how to use the quote function.  But the only one not making sense here is you. 

Your question, "Where was God before God created the universe," has absolutely nothing to do with anything. 

And I always see this "Squad" ridicule the theist for not being on one accord.  How about this Squad?  Some "agnostic atheist" here assert that the universe had a beginning, while you're claiming it is eternal.  That matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed does not explain the orgin of matter and energy.  It explains that there is a law governing it, not how it came into existence. 

So are you against the Scientific data which states the universe is finite?  Are all the Scientist wrong?  It's almost universally accepted that the universe is expanding, meaning at one point it didn't exist.  What Scientific evidence are you posing for a eternal, static, universe?  Where is your proof of Einsteins Field equations of General Relativity, having been falsified? 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:Actually, Doc is

Beatz wrote:
Actually, Doc is correct here.  The Genesis account does indeed, line up with the scientific evidence we currently possess.
Yes, when you bent and interpret it too.

Quote:
Genesis supports what you said, that "the Sun and the stars existed before the Earth," except for the "Sun" part.  The names "Sun" and "Moon" come from ancient Near-eastern pagan pantheon deities.  Moses on the other hand simply refers to them as "light."   Anyhow, Old Earth Creationist believe the Genesis account to be a remake, not an account of the immediate processes following the Big Bang.  So then Genesis 1:1 is the Big Bang, but no details.  Just that God caused it, and made the heavens (universe), then the earth.  Genesis 1:2 is billions of years afterwards.  The assumption from Genesis 1:2 and on, is that lights and dark matter already exist, and that God  forms the luminous bodies (makes them into meaningful shapes).
[Emphasis added]  You merely make assumptions.  There is nothing in the Genesis story of the Bible that lines up in any specific way with what we now know about how the universe was formed or how the Earth was formed.  Making reality vaguely line up with the Bible in retrospect does not make for a convincing argument about its authenticity.  Further, acting on the supposition that the Bible is correct from the first place is to perform a particularly greivous error of logic.  Frankly, it's insulting to have someone suggest that something so inane be taken seriously.  You be be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:
We hold to the Gap Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory) which asserts that due to the Bible stating in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void, and Isaiah 45:18 stating that God did not create the earth without form and void, that this evidence makes it highly probable that the earth could  be around 5 billion years old, and at one point it had been destroyed, but Genesis 1 gives humans the story of the remake.
Here you perform the same errors again.

Quote:
Nothing in Genesis suggest that the earth formed before light was created.  Genesis 1:2 says the earth had no form and there was dark matter, while Genesis 1:3 is just the presence of illumination in general, not the creation of light.  Genesis 1:14-18, is not the creation of the sun and moon.  The Hebrew in verse 16 for "Made" is "Asah" which carries the the definitions: Fashioned, re-made, or worked on, while the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 for "Created (Bara)" means to create, shape ,or form.  Genesis 1:16 mentions stellar formation, but again, this is a fashioning, or maybe even meticulous placements.
And the same errors again.           

Quote:
I agree.  But I wonder why you assumed that God was hovering over waters before CMBR could cool?  If God is the Creator of such a complex system, wouldn't He expand the universe before asserting that He hovered over water?

And firmament=Atmosphere.

Yeah, you do like making presumptuous statements, don't you?  The Bible never mentions cosmic microwave background radiation and it never mentions the universe expanding.

Quote:
What is "Darkness on the face of the deep"?  How are you defining it?  Was there no dark matter?  Some scholars suggest the "Darkness on the face of the deep," merely represents a further description of the lack of complete order that the verse initially implied.
More assumptions.

 

Quote:
Come on now, Bob.  Life?  You have absolutely no basis for a Scientific assertion of "life."  Unless you're that one Scientist who has been contributing all that research and "evidence" to abiogenesis.  What are you suggesting here?  That life was seeded on to this planet by a more highly advanced race (I think Dawkins holds to this, is there anyone who could give me more information on this)?  Crystal shavings in the water?  Certainly not amino acids, or a real protein.  

But I don't even see the point of discussing an earth without knowing how it arrived.  Lets prove first that quantum fluctuations are the cause of the Big Bang, then we can move on to all those other things.  Better yet, lets prove first and foremost where the matter and energy came from in the first place, then we can move on to bigger and better discussions.  If Science is ever able to answer these things, I think the Rational Response Squad could then be actually considered "Rational."

I'm sorry, in the meantime, since there are unanswered questions (or at least your profound ignorance of answers or likely answers) we're supposed to simply presume that god-did-it or that god exists?  How does that answer any question and how is that more rational than admitting ignorance and looking for answers? 

Quote:
And why does an infinite Being with supernatural power, that transcends time and space, have to abide by the faulty finite laws of Science?  If God is supernatural, the development of grass or any vegatation would not necessarily have to be hinged upon photosynthesis.
If god is supposedly infinite and has supernatural powers and transcends time and space, you're going to have to provide a coherent and complete definition for supernatural and you're going to have to show how such a thing that is infinite and transcends time and space (what does that mean) can exist.  And then you're going to have to point to that thing because if, indeed, it does exist, it must exist such that I can test for it.  Indeed, if it created this universe such a thing would be self-evident and inescapably apparent.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:We hold to

Beatz wrote:

We hold to the Gap Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory) which asserts that due to the Bible stating in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void, and Isaiah 45:18 stating that God did not create the earth without form and void, that this evidence makes it highly probable that the earth could  be around 5 billion years old, and at one point it had been destroyed, but Genesis 1 gives humans the story of the remake.

So the way you reconcile the Genesis creation stories with science is to maipulate both the stories and the science? Just move things around to fit, never mind what either actually says?

Interesting...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:And I always see

Beatz wrote:
And I always see this "Squad" ridicule the theist for not being on one accord.  How about this Squad?  Some "agnostic atheist" here assert that the universe had a beginning, while you're claiming it is eternal.  That matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed does not explain the orgin of matter and energy.  It explains that there is a law governing it, not how it came into existence.
Tu quoque.  Or, at least, you're implying the fallacy considering your previous post.  That an explanation has not been provided here does not invalidate the scientific explanations for the existence of the universe.


Quote:
So are you against the Scientific data which states the universe is finite?  Are all the Scientist wrong?  It's almost universally accepted that the universe is expanding, meaning at one point it didn't exist.  What Scientific evidence are you posing for a eternal, static, universe?  Where is your proof of Einsteins Field equations of General Relativity, having been falsified?
I never read in aiia's post a presumption that the universe was 'static' or that general relativity is false.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Doc wrote:There is a method

Doc wrote:

There is a method of validation to understand God and His attributes.  It is called the Bible.  You don't need to "hope" or "guess".  If you properly study the historicity of scripture, the archeological evidence for scripture, the prophetic events of scripture, the scientific facts described in scripture, the manuscript evidence of scripture, etc. you can validate that the claims of the Bible are true. 

Here's the problem: there is no method to validate your knowledge. Period. You claim the Bible validates your knowledge, but how do you know this? What is the logical connection between an all-powerful God and the truth of the Bible?

Suppose you were to demonstrate that an all-powerful God actually exists. You'd still have to provide a deductive or empirical connection between God and the Bible.

The prophecies of the Bible have not come true. In fact, Matthew 10:23 says: "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." This is an absolute prophecy that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of those listening. Here, "you" refers to the disciples, as the entire section refers to the disciples.

This is but one place that refers to the second coming to be within the lifetime of the disciples. And, that is but one prophecy that didn't come true (though admittedly one of the most important).

As for the historical accuracy of the Bible: that's debatable. Some things definitely happened, and there is historical evidence; some things did not happen, and there is historical evidence. Not that it matters, as books written after historical events occur can include those events, without being true themselves. All it proves is that it's a book that was written after some historical events happened.

As for scientific facts: you mean, that bats are birds? That sort  of scientific fact?

As for history: any book written after an event happens can very well include that event. Even works of fiction. This is a speciality of Tim Powers, who wrote about the Islamic invasion of Europe several hundred years ago, and about WWII and the cold war, all while incorporating fantasy and fictional events in with the historic events.

The Bible is about as historically accurate as the Iliad, and yet I don't see many people basing their worldviews on the works of Homer.

Anyway, that's how I see it. I understand you see it differently; I just hope you realize that it's not obvious that the Bible is in any way true. Nor does it provide an epistemic foundation for a belief in God. And, if God exists, it doesn't mean the Bible is true, either.

So, I maintain you have no epistemic foundation for either your faith in the Bible, nor your belief in God.

 

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: You merely

Thomathy wrote:
You merely make assumptions.

And you don't? 

Thomathy wrote:
There is nothing in the Genesis story of the Bible that lines up in any specific way with what we now know about how the universe was formed or how the Earth was formed. 

You do not know how the universe was formed or how the earth was formed.  Gravitational attraction being the cause of the earths formation is an assumption, not Science.  You cannot observe the earth being formed by gravity, 4 billion years ago.  

And if in my answer I had underwent to explain to Bob how the universe was formed and how these particular Scientific assumption lines up with the creation story, then your comment would then be relevant. 

But, I would like you to tell me how the universe was formed and how the earth was formed, and prove that the forming of those things cannot line up with the creation account found in Genesis.

Thomathy wrote:
Making reality vaguely line up with the Bible in retrospect does not make for a convincing argument about its authenticity.

Authenticity?  The premise was that the Genesis account can be either supported by our Scientific data, or not supported, not if the Bible was authentic. 

Thomathy wrote:
Further, acting on the supposition that the Bible is correct from the first place is to perform a particularly grievous error of logic.

I have concluded in my research that the Bible is correct.  Acting on that supposition logically follows.  Do you suppose your Science is absolutely correct?  Do you act upon that supposition?  Is that a grievous error of logic?

Thomathy wrote:
 Frankly, it's insulting to have someone suggest that something so inane be taken seriously.  You be be ashamed of yourself.

I don't care if you find the Bible inane, or do not wish to take it seriously.  And how can it be insignificant if the argument is from the premise of what it claims?  That doesn't even make sense.  When you're ready to discuss your Science, let me know.  Since the Bible is of no importance, there is no need of its mentioning.  You are obviously not responding to me because of something the Bible says, since you have admitted on your own that the Bible is inane in this debate.   

Thomathy wrote:
Here you perform the same errors again.

Here you waste my time with empty statements.

Thomathy wrote:
Yeah, you do like making presumptuous statements, don't you?  The Bible never mentions cosmic microwave background radiation and it never mentions the universe expanding.

So. 

Because Moses doesn't mention every single detail, doesn't falsify the creation story.  The Bible isn't a Science book.  The creation story is a simple story that anyone can understand. 

Also, I never said the Bible mentioned CMBR, or an expanding universe, I asked that if those things are true, and if God is the cause of this complex system, wouldn't He wait for the cooling and expansion.  Never did I assert the Bible said or implied such.  As a matter a fact, I previously asserted that the events that took place immediately after the Big Bang are not spoken of in the creation story.  I clearly asserted that the Bible teaches that Genesis 1:1, and 1:2 are two different time periods.  My question was for Bob, since he assumed the Big Bang was Genesis 1:1, and that 1:2 was immediately afterwards.  He said the earth would've been far too hot for water to be on the earth.  My question for him was, if God created this whole system, why was he assuming that God was asserting that He hovered over water, immediately following the Big Bang?  So, friend Thomathy, I think you're the one making presumptuous statements.

Thomathy wrote:
More assumptions.

Is this what I'm to expect from you?  No disproving of anything, just a bunch of empty responses?  Maybe you'll say there is no point of disproving or there is nothing to be disproved, to which I would reply, there was no point in you replying.

Thomathy wrote:
I'm sorry, in the meantime, since there are unanswered questions (or at least your profound ignorance of answers or likely answers) we're supposed to simply presume that god-did-it or that god exists?

No, you aren’t to presume anything.  I don't care if you believe God exist or not.  Are you really apart of this "Squad" in search for God, or have you came to the conclusion that He doesn't exist, and you are going to devote your life to disproving any form of evidence?  If it is the latter, then again, I don't care if you presume God did anything, or God exists.

And if I am profoundly ignorant of how life came into existence, please enlighten me.  I posed some explanations that some Scientist hold to.  And a question was asked.  Did you miss the question?  What are you suggesting?  That means, in what way are you suggesting life came into being?  And I seriously gave some of the hypothesis of Scientist, which you neither affirmed or disapproved.  Just tell me what you believe so I can research it myself.

Thomathy wrote:
How does that answer any question and how is that more rational than admitting ignorance and looking for answers?

What question did I try to answer about life?  If I did not try to answer any questions pertaining to the origin of life, then there is nothing to be more rational about. 

Thomathy wrote:
If god is supposedly infinite and has supernatural powers and transcends time and space, you're going to have to provide a coherent and complete definition for supernatural and you're going to have to show how such a thing that is infinite and transcends time and space (what does that mean) can exist.  And then you're going to have to point to that thing because if, indeed, it does exist, it must exist such that I can test for it.

Are you in a true search for God?  Do you genuinely want these things explained, or are you just here to treat everything like Science and disprove it?

 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So the way

jcgadfly wrote:
So the way you reconcile the Genesis creation stories with science is to maipulate both the stories and the science? Just move things around to fit, never mind what either actually says?

Show how I manipulated the Genesis creation story.  I undertook the task of reconciling two passages.  If you disagree, state your case.

As for manipulating Science, show how I did that as well.  Since I completely over-looked the Scientific data, show my error.   

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


Beatz
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: Tu quoque. 

Thomathy wrote:
Tu quoque.  Or, at least, you're implying the fallacy considering your previous post.  That an explanation has not been provided here does not invalidate the scientific explanations for the existence of the universe.

But I never argued the existence of the universe.  I argued that there is no evidence as to the source or origin of matter and energy.

Thomathy wrote:
I never read in aiia's post a presumption that the universe was 'static' or that general relativity is false.

aiia asserted that the universe is eternal.  So are you telling me that aiia is asserting that the universe is eternal and expanding?  Or is he arguing that it is eternal and static?  The basis on his or your answer will determine if he is asserting that Einsteins Field Equations are true or false.  If aiia is arguing that the universe is infinite, or eternal, then I ask for proof that the equations are wrong. 

Don't believe in God? I can't fix that.

Reformed Theology Resource: www.monergism.com


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Ooh, go run

JillSwift wrote:

Ooh, go run behind a dictionary?

Someone actually using sources to back up their claims is quite shocking, isn't it?

Quote:
If something does not have mass, nor energy, nor temporality... then it is nothing. If it is nothing, it does not exist. QED

Well, I guess I am not at liberty to question you since you apparently are the ultimate authority on the meanings of words. 


 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:No, you

Beatz wrote:

 

No, you aren’t to presume anything.  I don't care if you believe God exist or not.  Are you really apart of this "Squad" in search for God, or have you came to the conclusion that He doesn't exist, and you are going to devote your life to disproving any form of evidence?  If it is the latter, then again, I don't care if you presume God did anything, or God exists.

That's a false dichotomy.  Many people are here because they don't have a belief in a god.  You can search for god, claim he doesn't exist, or fall somewhere in between.  Many of us don't see a good reason to believe and are reasonably certain that you and other theist counterparts will not present a good reason to do so, however we would be open should you present good evidence/reason.  

Do you get the middle ground there?

 

 

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:jcgadfly wrote:

Beatz wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So the way you reconcile the Genesis creation stories with science is to maipulate both the stories and the science? Just move things around to fit, never mind what either actually says?

Show how I manipulated the Genesis creation story.  I undertook the task of reconciling two passages.  If you disagree, state your case.

As for manipulating Science, show how I did that as well.  Since I completely over-looked the Scientific data, show my error.   

"without form and void" = "oh, that means dark matter"

"God made the heavens" = "oh that's the universe"

Conflict between Gen 1:2 and Is 45:18 = "oh the earth was destroyed and remade"

Do you need any more examples of your trying to shoehorn your belief into things?

You can make anything fit if you try hard enough. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God why tweak it to make it fit with science? Could it be that it just doesn't make any sense as it's written?

 As for monergism, first, you have to define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is instead of what it isn't. Then you have to tell me how preaching from a book written by men will make said spirit "save" me. Then you have to let me know what I'm bwing saved from. Do that and you might have something.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:The Bible isn't

Beatz wrote:
The Bible isn't a Science book.  The creation story is a simple story that anyone can understand.

If it isn't a science book, why do you keep trying to make it so with your ridiculous assertions?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Beatz wrote:And you

Beatz wrote:
And you don't?
Not as far as I can tell that I haven't admitted to. 

Quote:
You do not know how the universe was formed or how the earth was formed.
Presumptuous of you, but not wholly untrue.

Quote:
Gravitational attraction being the cause of the earths formation is an assumption, not Science.
Why does science get a big [S]? 
And extrapolation is certainly science.
Quote:
You cannot observe the earth being formed by gravity, 4 billion years ago.
Obviously not.

I am not a cosmologist, nor do I have a background in the requisite sciences to have an opinion with the weight that such expertise would afford me.  I am, however, capable of reading and of assessing the validity of any scientific theory based on the rigors of the scientific method.  So, yes, I do know how the universe and the Earth formed and I trust the validity of the science that is widely accepted as most accurately detailing those things.  It would not be helpful for me to detail for you the events of the Big Bang or of the interactions that formed this planet.  In fact, it's not necessary that I do.  The science is there and speaks for itself.  If you disagree with the conclusions that the science makes, I hope you are within your epistemic rights to do so.  That is, I hope you are a sufficiently educated cosmologist or physicist and that you submit a paper for peer review detailing the errors of the currently accepted theories (again, the scientific sort) and present one that more accurately lines up with the evidence collected thus far. 

Quote:
And if in my answer I had underwent to explain to Bob how the universe was formed and how these particular Scientific assumption lines up with the creation story, then your comment would then be relevant.
I thought you did do that...
Beatz wrote:
Genesis supports what you said, that "the Sun and the stars existed before the Earth," except for the "Sun" part.  The names "Sun" and "Moon" come from ancient Near-eastern pagan pantheon deities.  Moses on the other hand simply refers to them as "light."   Anyhow, Old Earth Creationist believe the Genesis account to be a remake, not an account of the immediate processes following the Big Bang.  So then Genesis 1:1 is the Big Bang, but no details.  Just that God caused it, and made the heavens (universe), then the earth.  Genesis 1:2 is billions of years afterwards.  The assumption from Genesis 1:2 and on, is that lights and dark matter already exist, and that God  forms the luminous bodies (makes them into meaningful shapes). 

We hold to the Gap Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory) which asserts that due to the Bible stating in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void, and Isaiah 45:18 stating that God did not create the earth without form and void, that this evidence makes it highly probable that the earth could  be around 5 billion years old, and at one point it had been destroyed, but Genesis 1 gives humans the story of the remake.

Nothing in Genesis suggest that the earth formed before light was created.  Genesis 1:2 says the earth had no form and there was dark matter, while Genesis 1:3 is just the presence of illumination in general, not the creation of light.  Genesis 1:14-18, is not the creation of the sun and moon.  The Hebrew in verse 16 for "Made" is "Asah" which carries the the definitions: Fashioned, re-made, or worked on, while the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 for "Created (Bara)" means to create, shape ,or form.  Genesis 1:16 mentions stellar formation, but again, this is a fashioning, or maybe even meticulous placements.

That really looks a lot like you trying to match the bible up to science.  Am I wrong?  Are you just showing how Bob's analysis of the biblical text merely doesn't match an interpretation of the text that rather more strongly agrees with the bible... as in 'Gap Theory' (not to be confused with a theory of the scientific sort)?  If so, you're still matching the bible up to science.

Quote:
But, I would like you to tell me how the universe was formed and how the earth was formed, and prove that the forming of those things cannot line up with the creation account found in Genesis.
Ah.  I see.  That's not going to happen.  If you are interested in the scientific explanations for the formation of the universe and of the Earth, you can go and read the relevant material.  I'm not going to relay two extremely complex phenomenon to you.  I do not have the resources and the material is, literally, enormous.  I could not do it justice.  What I can do is to tell you that the scientific explanations do not line up with the genesis account any more than they line up with any other mythological creation story.  Really, the bible does not contain any information about the formation or creation of the Earth that in any way resembles the science.

Quote:
Authenticity?  The premise was that the Genesis account can be either supported by our Scientific data, or not supported, not if the Bible was authentic.
I meant validity.  Not that it matters.  If we are questioning the validity of the Genesis story as compared to science, it has none.  If we are questioning if the Genesis 'account' can be supported or not by the scientific data, it cannot.  It is so dissimilar in scope and detail that it is mindnumbing to consider the real possibility that someone finds what they believe to be actual parallels to the science.

Quote:
I have concluded in my research that the Bible is correct.  Acting on that supposition logically follows.  Do you suppose your Science is absolutely correct?  Do you act upon that supposition?  Is that a grievous error of logic?
It's sad that you're serious.  If you've concluded, through research, that the bible is correct you are not acting on a supposition.  Further, I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (in the scientific sense) that any particular scientific data is correct to such a percentage that the possibility of it being incorrect is near the realm of impossibility.  It is not possible to know anything absolutely that is not axiomatic and even then there's problems with 'absolute'.  I thus act on no such supposition and do not perform that error.

Quote:
I don't care if you find the Bible inane, or do not wish to take it seriously.  And how can it be insignificant if the argument is from the premise of what it claims?  That doesn't even make sense.  When you're ready to discuss your Science, let me know.  Since the Bible is of no importance, there is no need of its mentioning.  You are obviously not responding to me because of something the Bible says, since you have admitted on your own that the Bible is inane in this debate.
*facepalm* I was not calling the bible inane (though largely it is), but rather I was calling your suggestion that the bible matches up to science inane.

Quote:
Because Moses doesn't mention every single detail, doesn't falsify the creation story.  The Bible isn't a Science book.  The creation story is a simple story that anyone can understand.
If the bible is not a science book (really, why do you put a capital [S] on science?) and the account of genesis is a story why are you concerned with the bible having any scientific validity? 

Quote:
Also, I never said the Bible mentioned CMBR, or an expanding universe, I asked that if those things are true, and if God is the cause of this complex system, wouldn't He wait for the cooling and expansion.  Never did I assert the Bible said or implied such.  As a matter a fact, I previously asserted that the events that took place immediately after the Big Bang are not spoken of in the creation story.  I clearly asserted that the Bible teaches that Genesis 1:1, and 1:2 are two different time periods.  My question was for Bob, since he assumed the Big Bang was Genesis 1:1, and that 1:2 was immediately afterwards.  He said the earth would've been far too hot for water to be on the earth.  My question for him was, if God created this whole system, why was he assuming that God was asserting that He hovered over water, immediately following the Big Bang?  So, friend Thomathy, I think you're the one making presumptuous statements.
Alright, I misread you.  Now, why would you presume Bob would answer a question about the motivation and actions of a being he doesn't believe exists?  It should be very clear to you that he wouldn't be able to answer your question except for a dumbfounded, blank stare.

Quote:
Is this what I'm to expect from you?  No disproving of anything, just a bunch of empty responses?  Maybe you'll say there is no point of disproving or there is nothing to be disproved, to which I would reply, there was no point in you replying.
I'm was merely pointing out your lack of actual argumentation.

Quote:
No, you aren’t to presume anything.  I don't care if you believe God exist or not.  Are you really apart of this "Squad" in search for God, or have you came to the conclusion that He doesn't exist, and you are going to devote your life to disproving any form of evidence?  If it is the latter, then again, I don't care if you presume God did anything, or God exists.
I'm a member of these forums in the most distant sense I'm a member of the Rational Response Squad, I suppose.  I don't believe any atheist is in search of god.  That's contradictory.  No atheist believes there's a god in existence to search for.  You do know what 'atheist' means, right?

Quote:
And if I am profoundly ignorant of how life came into existence, please enlighten me.  I posed some explanations that some Scientist hold to.  And a question was asked.  Did you miss the question?  What are you suggesting?  That means, in what way are you suggesting life came into being?  And I seriously gave some of the hypothesis of Scientist, which you neither affirmed or disapproved.  Just tell me what you believe so I can research it myself.
There are competing theories of abiogenesis.  It is unclear which one is best supported by the science.  Clearly, since there was no divine creator of life on Earth the only explanation is abiogenesis of some sort.  Oh, and Richard Dawkins most certainly does not believe that life was seeded here by aliens.

Quote:
What question did I try to answer about life?  If I did not try to answer any questions pertaining to the origin of life, then there is nothing to be more rational about.
I wasn't referring only to the question of the origin of life.  I meant what I posted literally.  How does presuming god-did-it answer any question?

Quote:
Are you in a true search for God?
I'm not in a search for something that I don't believe exists!  Certainly not for your Christian god, anyway.  Again, do you know what 'atheist' means? 

Quote:
Do you genuinely want these things explained, or are you just here to treat everything like Science and disprove it?
I don't understand you here.  Could you reiterate yourself, please?  (Also, could you tell me why you capitalize 'Science'?)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

Ooh, go run behind a dictionary?

Someone actually using sources to back up their claims is quite shocking, isn't it?

Quote:
If something does not have mass, nor energy, nor temporality... then it is nothing. If it is nothing, it does not exist. QED

Well, I guess I am not at liberty to question you since you apparently are the ultimate authority on the meanings of words.

Perhaps you aren't capable of reading.  The existence of something in this universe is predicated on it being in the universe.  Everything in this universe has either mass, energy or temporality, or a combination of those things.  If something does not have those attributes, it cannot be in existence.

Also, you are aware that the dictionary merely lists common uses of a word?  To define 'existent' as 'having existence or being or actuality' does not denote what existence entails or what attributes something must have to be said to be existing.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The creation story

Quote:

The creation story is a simple story that anyone can understand.

 

But it's not a helpful one if one is trying to understand the origin of either the earth or the life found on it. Its authors were ignorant people and the evidence of that ignorance is in the sequence of creations ascribed to their deity in Genesis which is based completely on how humans of the day regarded the importance of certain physical characteristics of their perceived universe (water, light, land, stuff to eat, themselves). That's why it's simple - so were they in that respect. And that's why it's pure baloney - not even useful as allegory.

 

And that's also where the dishonesty creeps in to theist defences of the Genesis gibberish. They proclaim it to be "symbolic" of what we now know about the physical processes whereby we and the earth came to be in existence. Even a child (one who hasn't been intentionally miseducated, I mean) can see the stupidity of the claim. To compound their dishonesty they then downplay the obviously stupid elements and claim that creation's attribution to god is the only real point of the story anyway - another devious ploy to deflect attention from the obvious deduction that an Iron Age people with minimal understanding wrote the story, and the deity they invented was created from the same ignorant stance. Their god was essentially an ignorant one, equally as ignorant as they were (surprise surprise)

 

Worse - because it was for centuries taught as fact (and is still regarded as factual by a worryingly high number of people) it has acted as yet another retardant from that source to proper inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge about the universe. It's anti-intellectual to willingly ascribe it any importance of any description - brain cells have to be turned off to digest it. So while it may be simple, and while it may be easy to understand (especially as a grossly ignorant set of assertions), it has no intellectual value except as a documentary insight into how a certain primitive culture mistakenly interpreted their environment several thousand years ago. It does not aid understanding of the universe. It actually attempts to cripple it. Those who defend what they lyingly describe as its worth are anti-knowledge, whether they have enough appreciation of the commodity to recognise this fact or not.

 

Stubborn adherence to stupidity invariably creates intellectual dishonesty. Religion therefore produces pathological liars and Genesis, a litany of lies from beginning to end, is a perfect preamble to many more contained in what christians refer to, lyingly, as the "truth". When its authors represented in ignorance the level of intelligence common to most people it had the defence of being "as good as it gets" (though several other equally primitive societies were actually coming up with better, and some even long before the christian guff). For anyone nowadays who calls themselves educated to champion it as meaningful and relevant to understanding where life came from is patently pathetic and totally dishonest.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Many people

Sapient wrote:

 Many people are here because they don't have a belief in a god.  You can search for god, claim he doesn't exist, or fall somewhere in between.  Many of us don't see a good reason to believe and are reasonably certain that you and other theist counterparts will not present a good reason to do so, however we would be open should you present good evidence/reason.  

Do you get the middle ground there?

Thus brings us to the ultimate question of understanding.  It really helps being on the same page.

I've learned after being on this site as long as I have to ask what exactly would you be looking for as "good evidence/reason" that would be relevent to seeking out God? 

So far, a select few have admitted to not knowing what they'd accept or need as evidence for God.  Other few have focused on physical sciences, to which I clarified though there is evidence, you cannot rely solely on physical sciences to find God be it that God is not a physical being. 

 


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Hi Doc. What

Nordmann wrote:

Hi Doc. What a limited understanding you possess...

That is your opinion.  I know many, many people who would say the same thing about you, myself included.    You have eyes but cannot see.  You have ears but do not hear.  You have a mind/brain but lack understanding.  Or at least your understanding is darkened.  

 

Nordmann wrote:

I think you'll find (should you examine the case and not just ignorantly misrepresent it) that atheists tend on the contrary to avoid being swayed by any arguments until they see the proof.

This statement is what I am refering to when I say you are blind.  There is proof all around you.  Over and over and over again you and many on this site fail to grasp what is being said.  You moan and complain that you want proof but when proof is provided you say, "Where is the proof? You have not given me proof".   Let me say this again for the hundreth time: THE EXISTENCE OF THIS UNIVERSE IS PROOF THAT A CREATOR (GOD) EXISTS.   THAT IS THE PROOF. THIS UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A CREATOR.  THE UNIVERSE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.  TO BELIEVE THIS IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.  GOD IS SPIRIT. HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE TESTED FOR IN A SCIENCE LAB. THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE DOESN'T EXIST.  IF ONLY THINGS THAT CAN BE TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY EXIST THEN PLEASE SHOW ME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR LOVE OF YOUR SPOUSE OR MOTHER OR FATHER.  SHOW ME EXPERIMENTS THAT CAN PROVIDE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR LOVE FOR ANYONE. REPRODUCE YOUR LOVE IN A TEST TUBE.  SHOW ME PHYSICAL PROOF. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?  DOES IT HAVE MASS OR VOLUME?  WHAT ARE ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES?  IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THIS THEN YOUR LOVE FOR MOTHER, FATHER, SPOUSE, OR WHOEVER DOES NOT EXIST.  You may say that is absurd.  And, indeed, it is.  Just as absurd as you asking for scientific evidence for God.  He is not bound by science.  He created the science we use to collect information about our physical world.  So, please, stop asking "proof" when it already has been given ad nauseum.  If you want to argue the proof provided that's fine.  But please stop asking for proof as if it were never given.  It gets old.         

 

Nordmann wrote:

Their "willingness", for example, to question the physical definition of "nothing" is actually quite an admirable step forward in the development of human intellect.

Yeah right.

You: "Hey Doc, look inside this empty bucket and tell me what you see"

Me (looking inside an empty bucket):  I don't see anything.  There is nothing there.

You:  "I know.  I don't see anything either.  But what if something is there where there is nothing? What if nothing was made up of something" 

Me: "Then it would no longer be nothing, it would be something"

You: ????

 

Nordmann wrote:

Nor do atheists generally feel any compunction to "disprove" or deny "god".

Yet many spend all their time doing just that, including making websites and writing articles and blogs about something they don't even believe exist.  Does that sound logical?

 

Nordmann wrote:

Most atheists - in fact the vast majority - just live free of the delusion, a very different thing. You probably only encounter them vocally when you, as a religionist, are behaving in just the way you attribute to them and attempt through assertion to deny reality. That would explain your skewed view, both of reality and of atheists. But it does not exonerate such ignorance or aggression.

First of all, I am not a religionist.  I hate religion.   Many times it does a lot of harm to people.  Secondly, I do not deny reality.  On the contrary.  In my opinion, your view of reality is skewed, as is your view of God and His creation.  And on the day of judgement you will be without excuse when you have to face the wrath of a Holy God that you deny.  You will not be able to plead ignorant as it will not help.  Ignorance is no excuse for the Law.  You will not be able to justify yourself.  It may sound harsh but that is the reality.     

 

Nordmann wrote:

But the advice I gave above to another person applies equally to you so I'll impart it again before I sign off. Learn physics. It will open your mind, or at least divest it of its more presumptive aspects. A true liberation. You'll enjoy it.

 

I have.  I have taken several physics courses at the university level.  I enjoyed them very much thank you.  All the things I learned in those courses further enhanced my knowledge that a Creator created this universe in which we live in and I find the works of His hands truly amazing.  

Since we are freely giving out advice my advice to you is learn the truth.  It will set you free.  Study the Bible and Science.  Don't limit yourself to partial knowledge.   Repent of your sins or you will perish.  There is nothing more important.      


Doc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You know god exists, you just don't like it.

Looks like he's got me. I've only been pretending the last 24 years. I bet God is really mad by now. He's gotta be in a whole new dimension of pissed off. I'd better start repenting...

 

You should.  He will still forgive you.  But if you are going to do it, do it right.  With humility and honesty.  Not jokingly and with mockery.  


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:The existence

Thomathy wrote:

The existence of something in this universe is predicated on it being in the universe. 

Except that we were not talking about existence of something in this universe.  We were talking about existence.  

Here's what was said:

"No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of 'nonexistent'."

Nowhere was "nonexistent" qualified with "in this universe".

Quote:
Also, you are aware that the dictionary merely lists common uses of a word?

Actually, a great dictionary will also list the not-so-common uses, as well as slang and archaic uses.  They will also list meanings of the same word being used as an adjective, verb, interjection, noun, idiom, etc. 

It's a very broad and informative text.  You should use it sometime.  The best effort is made to encompass every particular use of a word, even if it occasionally falls short.  But you cannot really blame the lexicographers.  Languages are an arbitrary thing.  What we refer to as a "dog" could easily be referred to as a "four legged monster" if convention calls for it.   Obviously, they haven't quite gotten to yours and Jill's personal definition of "existence" because no matter what dictionary I look at, none of them define "existence" as that which contains mass, energy, and temporality.

If you can get enough people to agree to your definition of "existence", then more power to you.  But then your proposition that God does not exist will only be trivially true because you've changed the criteria under which existence is measured and theists will easily just use another word that you'll have to work against.

Quote:
To define 'existent' as 'having existence or being or actuality' does not denote what existence entails or what attributes something must have to be said to be existing.

"Existence", in the context that is most conventionally agreed upon, is not a predicate of a subject nor is it something that is based on the predicates that a particular subject has.  Therefore, you can only define it in terms of itself or by example.  To say that "God has the quality of existence" would be to say, "God exists, and God has the quality of existence", which is simply repeating the same thing twice in one sentence.  Once you posit A as a subject in a sentence, existence is already contained therein.  This actually defies convention because it proves that the statement "God does not exist" is actually absurd.  To say that posits God as a subject, which would mean that you are saying, "God exists and he has the quality of non-existence".  What you would really have to say is, "There is no God". 

Existence also cannot be based on the particular qualities of a being because those qualities are superseded by existence itself.  Could anything other than an existing being possess any sort of quality?  So in turn, we can only answer the question, "Under what circumstances could you say that there is an A?" in ways that will appear tautologous. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

The existence of something in this universe is predicated on it being in the universe. 

Except that we were not talking about existence of something in this universe.  We were talking about existence.  

Here's what was said:

"No mass, no energy, no temporality... that's the definition of 'nonexistent'."

Nowhere was "nonexistent" qualified with "in this universe".

Quote:
Also, you are aware that the dictionary merely lists common uses of a word?

Actually, a great dictionary will also list the not-so-common uses, as well as slang and archaic uses.  They will also list meanings of the same word being used as an adjective, verb, interjection, noun, idiom, etc. 

It's a very broad and informative text.  You should use it sometime.  The best effort is made to encompass every particular use of a word, even if it occasionally falls short.  But you cannot really blame the lexicographers.  Languages are an arbitrary thing.  What we refer to as a "dog" could easily be referred to as a "four legged monster" if convention calls for it.   Obviously, they haven't quite gotten to yours and Jill's personal definition of "existence" because no matter what dictionary I look at, none of them define "existence" as that which contains mass, energy, and temporality.

If you can get enough people to agree to your definition of "existence", then more power to you.  But then your proposition that God does not exist will only be trivially true because you've changed the criteria under which existence is measured and theists will easily just use another word that you'll have to work against.

Quote:
To define 'existent' as 'having existence or being or actuality' does not denote what existence entails or what attributes something must have to be said to be existing.

"Existence", in the context that is most conventionally agreed upon, is not a predicate of a subject nor is it something that is based on the predicates that a particular subject has.  Therefore, you can only define it in terms of itself or by example.  To say that "God has the quality of existence" would be to say, "God exists, and God has the quality of existence", which is simply repeating the same thing twice in one sentence.  Once you posit A as a subject in a sentence, existence is already contained therein.  This actually defies convention because it proves that the statement "God does not exist" is actually absurd.  To say that posits God as a subject, which would mean that you are saying, "God exists and he has the quality of non-existence".  What you would really have to say is, "There is no God". 

Existence also cannot be based on the particular qualities of a being because those qualities are superseded by existence itself.  Could anything other than an existing being possess any sort of quality?  So in turn, we can only answer the question, "Under what circumstances could you say that there is an A?" in ways that will appear tautologous. 

 

Basically what it comes down to is that everything that exists must exist as something. If God exists, there would be evidence of it. You've provided none while insisting on your God's existence.

Thanks for playing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:
"Existence",

in the context that is most conventionally agreed upon

, is not a predicate of a subject nor is it something that is based on the predicates that a particular subject has.  Therefore, you can only define it in terms of itself or by example.  To say that "God has the quality of existence" would be to say, "God exists, and God has the quality of existence", which is simply repeating the same thing twice in one sentence.  Once you posit A as a subject in a sentence, existence is already contained therein.  This actually defies convention because it proves that the statement "God does not exist" is actually absurd.  To say that posits God as a subject, which would mean that you are saying, "God exists and he has the quality of non-existence".  What you would really have to say is, "There is no God". 

Existence also cannot be based on the particular qualities of a being because those qualities are superseded by existence itself.  Could anything other than an existing being possess any sort of quality?  So in turn, we can only answer the question, "Under what circumstances could you say that there is an A?" in ways that will appear tautologous.

So, instead of making any attempt to grant existance to "god", you launch a semantics argument.

If god has no mass, energy, or temporality... how can you know it exists? I mean in any quantifiable way.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Basically

jcgadfly wrote:

Basically what it comes down to is that everything that exists must exist as something.

Are there people who actually believe that something could exist as nothing?  

Quote:
If God exists, there would be evidence of it.

But not necessarily evidence that you will accept.

Quote:
while insisting on your God's existence.

Actually, I never said any such thing. 


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:So, instead

JillSwift wrote:

So, instead of making any attempt to grant existance to "god", you launch a semantics argument.

You're the one who brought up the definition of "nonexistent".

Quote:
If god has no mass, energy, or temporality... how can you know it exists? I mean in any quantifiable way.

You're asking me that....

... as if there aren't about a hundred other threads, websites, books, doctrines, etc., all dealing with the existence of God. 

Is that not a little mundane at this point?  If you're going to change the subject, why choose that?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

So, instead of making any attempt to grant existance to "god", you launch a semantics argument.

You're the one who brought up the definition of "nonexistent".

Quote:
If god has no mass, energy, or temporality... how can you know it exists? I mean in any quantifiable way.

You're asking me that....

... as if there aren't about a hundred other threads, websites, books, doctrines, etc., all dealing with the existence of God. 

Is that not a little mundane at this point?  If you're going to change the subject, why choose that?

Because it's germane.


  • P1: There is no evidence for a god or gods.
  • P2: Believing in things that do not demonstrate their existence through evidence is pointless.
  • C1: There is no point in believing in god or gods.
  • C2: All other discussions about god/s are moot.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:P1: There is

JillSwift wrote:

  • P1: There is no evidence for a god or gods.

How do you know that?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

  • P1: There is no evidence for a god or gods.

How do you know that?

Because none has ever been presented?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:How do

The God of Rock wrote:

How do you know that?

I've sought it, and found none. No evidence has been presented otherwise.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The God of Rock
TheistTroll
The God of Rock's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-01-05
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Because none has

KSMB wrote:

Because none has ever been presented?

 

P. I have never been presented with any evidence for the existence of God.

C. Therefore, there is no evidence for the existence of God

 

........

 

Okay, then.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock wrote:KSMB

The God of Rock wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Because none has ever been presented?

 

P. I have never been presented with any evidence for the existence of God.

C. Therefore, there is no evidence for the existence of God

 

........

 

Okay, then.

 

You don't have presentable evidence for your god, get over it.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:P. I have never been

Quote:

P. I have never been presented with any evidence for the existence of God.

C. Therefore, there is no evidence for the existence of God

It's so cute when they think they can formulate an argument too.

 

Do you remember when you said that God exists outside of space and time? That means that the deity is undetectable - i.e., collecting evidence for such a deity is impossible.

So, in reality:

P1: Collecting evidence for God is impossible

C1: Therefore, no evidence for God has ever been collected.

C2: Therefore, no evidence for God exists.

 

And you still didn't answer a very pertinent question: If God is undetectable, how can you be sure of his existence at all? If his domain is strictly outside our universe, how could he have brought revelations to people?

How is claiming the legitimacy of God's existence via 'revelation' different from, say, claiming the legitimacy of The Dread C'thulhu via revelation? I have contemporary mythologies surrounding the C'thulhu mythos, central locations around which these mythologies are centered are real places, the mythos itself is comprised of dozens of independent authors, there are mystical texts and artifacts woven into the mythos... and besides, to not believe in the mythos is to walk among the doomed and naive who can't see their impending gruesome fate as it approaches!

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The God of Rock

The God of Rock wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Basically what it comes down to is that everything that exists must exist as something.

Are there people who actually believe that something could exist as nothing?  

Quote:
If God exists, there would be evidence of it.

But not necessarily evidence that you will accept.

Quote:
while insisting on your God's existence.

Actually, I never said any such thing. 

1. You believe that of your God - He exists although he has no properties of existence.

2. You haven't given any so how do you know?

3. If you don't believe your God exists why are you arguing so hard for him?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin