Something did not come from nothing
Offline http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2564
The Invisible Ocean
An Atehist's answer to philosophically based religions, Deists, and Agnostics.
Matter is eternal. The big Bang is the start of measurable time only but not existence.
Face it the world and all life on it was not created in six or seven days by a magical being. People may agree or disagree with this; some may believe in a personal god or conventional god. As for the people who literally believe in magical gardens, my words are lost on you and you need not read any further.
Conventional gods are easily dismissed with a little bit of history or science. After all, Gods come and go from Set and Sin to Zeus and Athena, to Apollo, to Allah, and Yahweh. Religions come, reform, and eventually die. There have been many religions made up through out the world, some are large and popular like Islam, and some are always small like the Tao.
Organized religoins do not go very far with even a drop of skepticism or critical thinking. They must rely heavily on faith because there is no other way to convince people with reason how they could possibly be true. One with an open mind, does not have to look far to see the inconsistencies, tragedies, mistakes, shortcomings, and often laughable absurdities in each.
Most people claim to be a 'such and such', but with a little questioning one discovers that they actually have a personalized god that they reformed from the religion they were brought up to believe. For example a lot of Catholics I know are actually Protestants because they don’t believe in the Pope. They merely call themselves Catholics because that’s what their parents told them they were. Apparently they didn’t give it much thought. Likewise most Protestants can not even tell you what separates their sect from another Protestant sect. Sure some can, but it is still interesting how little investigation goes into religious thought for many.
Some people may reject specific texts but maintain that something IS out there and that religions are all just worshiping the same thing under different titles. A huge hole in this argument is that not all religions have a god(s). Plus, after enough reduction aren't you really a Deist rather than part of a particular creed? This brings us to personalized gods.
What about the personalized gods? These gods or even forces seem to be born out of philosophies or seemingly logical deductions. These gods and their arguments are then too often kidnapped by the conventional religion promoters. These kinds of religions based on philosophy rather than on fear or dogmatism are far more respectable than the more fairytale like fantasies. It is important then to have a discussion to address these more moderate religious beliefs. So let’s look at one of the puzzles that seems to get a lot of people, even the agnostics.
The age old question, “Where did it/we all come from?” People think, that there had to be a beginning to matter and since (they assume) it all had to come from somewhere, and there must be a kind of god that 'Made' everything. So god must be real. For the god-thing it is acceptable to not have a start b/c it is somehow magic and above that rule. I think everyone may have asked and answered this question of themselves when they were a young child. There a few things wrong with this.
Well, "Where did it/we all come from?" (Why would it have to come from anything) Within this question are two assumed truths, that being had to come from something rather than being that something. And that nothingness existed at some point, because anything that is not nothing is something.
Now, why is nothingness assumed as the default setting? Is it because religious texts say 'in the beginning all was void'? Somethingness and nothingness do not have to come from each other. (in fact they logically could not) Each has equal claim to always being. In fact, because one can not come from the other, existence has always been. One can ask, where does nothingness come from? People seem to think that nothingness doesn't have to come from anything, that it just always is. But is it not equally as reasonable to ask how nothingness was made from somethingness, as it is to ask the reverse?
What one can question is the assumption of a nothingness. An old Taoist saying goes, "Fish do not know they are in the water." Humans do not see space as a thing (out side of a fabric for motion and an area for gravity) but it is very possible that nowhere is there nothing. The words on this screen have space between them but there is still the screen. Space is like the grid we are all subject to. The Higgs field particle is on its way if predictions are correct, we are about to discover our own invisible ocean.
For somthingness to come from a previous something, the previous something would be part of the continued existence of existence thus just as nothingness does not come from nothingness, nothingness just is, somethingness does not have to come from something it just is as well. The difference and the confusion lies in that somethingness can change. As a 'new' something comes from a previous something, this is a measure of change we call this time. Existence does not ‘come from’ existence; existence is what is, it is being. Time is a measure of change within the being but not a measure of being itself. All measurements are parts of infinity, like all numbers are parts of a possible infinity. Nothingness simply remains nothing and somethingness, though it can change, always remains not nothing i.e. somethingness. Therefore you either believe in the eternity of nothingness or somethingness or both. Unless you make up a god and say it made either the nothing or the something, but even a god can not have neither. The god idea however is not necessary, at least not for that reason. The only religion around it might be Pantheism which holds that the somethingness is god. But to be realistic my audience is mainly moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
“What about the big bang? What came ‘before’ the big bang?” This is another typical question and a reasonable question too. Again the word before implies time and we know now, in large part because of Einstein, that time is a physical thing, (much like motion is physical-esk. Motion is a movement, but there still must be a thing doing the moving.) Before this physical universe moved, our reality and time were not. (Unless there is a multiverse which is a different can of worms. 
To ask "what came before?" implies again the English languages obsession with location metaphores, 'going to' and 'coming from'. There is no 'Before' until there is time. There is also no coming in the coming before since this in fact would be the start. The start is the start, if you keep gong back you just get a new start, but it is still the start and there is no 'coming' before it, there is not even a 'before'. It was also never nothing. Time does not really Exist. Capital E on exist. Time is a concept of our memories.
The past is not real, that is, it does not exist, only our memories exist. This moment, right now, is all that is actual. The present is eternal in existence. Time does not exist outside of existence. Time is the measure of change in objects from one point in the now to another point in the now. But really, time is some concept out of the memory. Time applies to changes but not to existence. For every action there is a thing doing the act. The action cannot predate the things. There is no time until there is existence. There are no changes until there are things to be changing. So you see there is no such thing as before existence if it has always been. It's like saying what was nothing before it was nothing. The answer is simply still nothing. So the answer what was before the big bang? Well everything was. "What was everything doing?" Is a better question. When you say the word was do you mean what happend i.e. events or what existed i.e. subjects. And there can be no events without subjects. So there is no before existence.
That’s one answer and it does not even require a bigbang. Now, folks in the M-theory camp can give you yet another explanation, the question is, is M-theory even still science or philosophy? Wait, was not science once called natural philosophy? Newton did not call what he did science, but philosophy. Is science not lead by imagination, by science fiction, by philosophies, and then later 'proven' (within a paradigm) by the most current empirical data? The history of our future is a philosophy of the past.
And there was light...
Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.
- Login to post comments
actually the oposit is the case. And since your dishonesty has become obvious, and so your bad will, i will not take our dialogue any further.
I meant intellectual dishonesty, of course.
That would probably be because you are so deeply committed to a belief-system you have built your world-view around, that you cannot let yourself admit even the possibility that it may be not well-founded, which is a common human condition.
You could argue that I am in a similar position, but that would only be true if you acknowledge that my core position is that I 'believe' that purely intuitive assumptions are not necessarily true, and - well, its in my sig. And I should always be prepared to re-examine and possibly 'tweak' or conceivably completely replace all assumptions, even the core ones, if some other assumptions can be shown to be more consistent with reality. I am well aware of the uncomfortable feeling when hearing or reading something which does challenge my core assumptions, and will continually try to resolve it one way or the other. Suppressing that feeling would be contrary to my values.
The alternatives are that you are genuinely deluded or intellectually impaired, in which case we really shouldn't be arguing with you.
I did acknowledge some areas of genuine uncertainty as to origins and 'evolvability', and would have been happy to discuss those.
But since it is clear you have exhausted your arguments - that is clear when you fall back on Bible references - and have nothing else to offer to back up your position, I'm fine with you ending this discussion.
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
Lol. Sexism, +1.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
You need to get a dictionary.
Addressing someone's comments, and falsifying them, are 2 completely different things.
You're simply attempting to cast the aspersion that you have falsified his explanations, when in fact, you did not even touch them.
Don't claim, you did.
You did not.
If you did, there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for you. So, stop posturing. Nobody's buying it.
Literally...
The best defense is a strong offense, huh?
I gave you a simple explanation to unequivocally demonstrate to you, in laymans terms, how events (however unlikely to have been possible/probable) that have already happened, had a 1 in 1 chance (IOW, no other possible way) of happening.
In this sense, they are 'perfect', due to 'The Butterfly Effect'.
If you were able to reverse engineer them, you could recreate the exact same outcome, under the exact same conditions.
We can do this, on small scales, with many less 'controls', and see our predictions 'realized' with 100% accuracy, in blind, double blind, and triple blind meta analysis.
Your response to me, was a copy/paste response of the most patently stupid argument that I've ever heard, to try and rebuke what is my (personally worded) 100% unfalsifiable explanation, on the logical fallacy of 'impossible odds'.
Your 'argument' boils down to
- 'Accidents are God's work'= God exists
- 'A hole in 1 is God's work'= God exists
- everything (a)=God's work=God exists
And you people think those theories are Nobel Prize category?
Therefore, god exists?
Does god make diamonds, or is it evolution?
Some disambiguation is necessary.
The accurate objective scientific terminology for 'parts', would be 'molecular chains/forces/interactions/systems/mechanics/chemistry/physics/biology/et al' *
Some further disambiguation is necessary.
The accurate objective scientific terminology for 'must be assembled correctly' , is 'occur'**
Some further disambiguation is necessary.
The accurate objective scientific terminology for 'to produce', is 'in'***
So, let's rephrase from a purely objective perspective the original 'subjective philosophical perspective' of the phrase "These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell"
In scientific terms, it translates like this: This pattern of 'molecular chains/forces/interactions/systems/mechanics/chemistry/physics/biology/et al' */ 'occur'**/'in'***/a living cell".
There ya go.
All fixed up for ya.
That's what we observe (know for 100% sure).
The rest is theory. Based on other hard sciences, and empirical data, we see numerous robust theories, that could lead to explanations on how these patterns evolved from the singularity.
Excellent point, that further reinforces the Darwinian model.
Whaaaaaa?????
Get real.
Do some homework....
Whaaaaaa?????
Get real.
Do some homework....
Ever seen a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
Ever heard of the rapid 'revolutionary' development of a new branch of Italian Wall Lizard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard
Flounders at birth swim upright, and have one eye on each side of their brain, and quickly mature to flatfish, and one eye migrates from underneath, to the topside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flounder
These rapid biological 'revolutions' are called Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
Not in laboratories.
Only in churches...
Nothing.
I understand completely that it's pure bullshit.
I know the origins of this complete bullshit. The strawman begins with William Dempsky's: The Design Inference
His 2 'must have' criteria for an Intelligent Design inference being the 'best' possible explanations for 'biological complexity' are:
1- The event to be explained is extraordinarily improbable.
2-The event corresponds to an independently given pattern.
Point #1 has been easily debunked, and elaborated on, not only at a layman's level, but at a high academic level.
Point #2 is a logical fallacy, as it's a naked assertion.
Then you must suck, because there are plenty of women that would have you for breakfast.
But women may divorce your sorry asses, and start fucking a man who doesn't think she's beneath him..... because she's actually on top, and loves watching her get off on it.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I just read this whole thread in one sitting, I want my hour back, I got ripped off. Good points Bob and TG, and it exemplifies yet again the paradigm difference we were discussing in a related thread.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/a-reasonable-argument-for_b_831185.html
I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between Science and the Supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism ... for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
Well, I guess if you assert it, then it must be true.
Yes, I know; you like using God of the Gaps. "My unjustified, Occam'z Razor failing explanation is automatically right if you can't prove that yours is." I know. I know.
Yes, I know. Truth that comes from the gut, right? I strongly feel that it's true; ergo, it is.
I.e. I love committing argumentum ad ignorantiam, and I'm not going to stop no matter how many times you tell me that it's a basic logical fallacy.
Appeal to authority. Jolly.
Nice quote mine, btw.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." - Richard Lewontin
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I notice you keep ignoring it when your theories are completely dismantled and trashed.
I've also noticed, that you people are just gluttons for humiliation.
Funny that...
No.
It's not actually.
It's stupid.
Patently stupid.
There's no undeniable established precedent.
Theism attempts to 'establish' a fantasy, as a robust theory.
That's foolishness.
That's a bold faced lie.
Patently false.
There are only repeating patterns, and chains of patterns that are absolute.
Appearances are 'subjective'.
Bold faced lie.
Patently false.
Supernatural claims, are merely personal 'beliefs'.
Beliefs are 'subjective'.
What kind of mentally disturbed propaganda is this?
Science hasn't fulfilled it's promises of health and life?
WTF?
Science isn't a religion.
It's a method.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
that is wishful thinking, aehm, based on what, exactly, do you take your mouth that full ?
you have ABSOLUTELY nothing on hand.... nothing....
you make me just laugh at such absurdity.....
Just jumpin in here cause I thought the post looked interesting. The Big Bang and Evolution are both theories that are pitting themselves against a law. The Law of Entropy to be exact. This states that, without an outside force to maintain it, the state of things will degenerate. In order to believe the Big Bang theory and the Evolutionary theory, the opposite, that the universe will become orderly over time, must be assumed. Therefore, neither of them are supported by the laws of science.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in an isolated system. Differences in temperature etc. will become equal.
So, can you explain how this contradicts evolution and the Big Bang?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Just for you TG.
.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Have you ever heard of gravity? do you know what the second law of TD actually states (hint, read butter's post ) . The universe is not more orderly then at a singularity... how is this an argument? You use poorly understood concepts to draw conclusions. As far as evolution is concerned... WTF does the 2nd law of TD have to do with anything? Explain to us as if we were ignoramuses how in a closed system such as the universe (or just use our galaxy to simplify it a little ) entropy increasing with time contradicts evolution.
Your use of the word theory after the Big Band and Evolution serves to point out the fact that they are theories. I'm not sure you understand what the word theory means in this context.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
hehe I like
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
You can't fix stoopid.
It's genetic.
The only hope the human species had was natural selection. But, instead of letting the stoopid get eaten by the sabre tooth tigers, we saved them, and they weren't eliminated from the gene pool, like natural selection would have it.
George Carlin had it figured out.
I think George was God, trying to communicate with us. Minus the fanfare...
" Whatever happened to natural selection; survival of the fittest? The kid who swallowed too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple as that. Nature knows best. We're saving entirely too many lives in this country of all ages. Nature should be allowed to do its job of killing off the weak and sickly and ignorant people without interference from airbags and bating helmets. Just think of it as passive eugenics. " : George Carlin
So, now we have mental midgets like Amelio here, and Fonzie, lecturing us on their bass akwards 'logic', and their 'scientific theories' of the mechanics of the fucking universe.
Don't worry though. At some point, we'll figure it out, and start keeping files on everyone born, and 'stoopid' people will all develop sudden terminal illnesses after their annual checkup at the doctor.......and the 'stoopid' gene will become more or less eliminated from the gene pool.......except for the odd random mutation.
You didn't think George wasn't a prophet trying to plant a revolutionary seed, did you...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You won't touch my rebuttal of your stupid copy/paste argument.
Click back a few pages asshole, and you know......read.
But, if you really think you've got game, do like the other 2 big dicks, and agree to debate me 1 on 1, and lets see which one of you thumpers will be the first to back your claims of being brainiacs that are incapable of losing to atheist.
Come on, limp dick. Stop pissing around.
Man up.
Will you debate me 1 on 1?
Yes= You think you've got game.
No= You know I'll eat you for breakfast.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
NOTHING can 'point to' a supernatural explanation.
Lack of a current satisfactory explanation in terms of known properties of matter and organisms, physical laws, etc, only justifies the statement "We don't currently know". The history of previously unexplainable phenomena being explained as scientific knowledge progressed should give any honest Theist pause before claiming GodDidIt.
Once you allow the 'supernatural', there are an infinite number of 'possible' explanations, since you are no longer constrained by any physical laws, and you have no way to decide between any proposed 'supernatural explanations', so it really is an empty proposition.
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
Well, technically....
Jeebus is the sound a Christian makes when his brains hurt too much.
That's how it all started....
Well...
You can't start a cult with the intention of world dominance, with 'I don't know much', as a campaign slogan, to get people to be submissive to you...
Honest theist.
You said 'honest' theist...
Agreed.
Even though they assume it's an airtight theory, it's not.
There are inherent 'limitations' and 'constraints' in the story. Despite their best attempts to try and cover all the bases.
The problem is........they talk too much. Everytime you 'add' something, there's a hidden implication or attribute that goes along with it, as well.
A little bit of 'lateral thinking', and the lie starts to unravel.
You don't even need to 'test' to see if the 'circuit' will work as claimed.
You KNOW, it CANNOT do what it claims to do.
These myths really aren't that difficult to bust completely wide open.
They're complete equivocations, and fallacies.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
pic thieves!
I explain below, due to the total lack of knowledge of what is 'possible' or not once you are speculating in a supernatural context - it is totally open-ended, nothing can be ruled in or out, so you cannot really go from the nature of the mystery to any specific supernatural 'explanation'.
But I just explained that what you are describing only applies within an empirical context, where we do indeed progressively refine our understanding, and things are shown to behave according to uncoverable and coherent natural laws.
A 'Supreme intelligence' is a totally unjustified speculation. As we discover more about the Universe, what we find is a combination of chaotic and virtuality random distribution of galaxies, stars, planets etc, superimposed on a broadly orderly structure.
For example, while there is some approximate regularity in the distribution and shape of the planetary orbits in our Solar System - Bode's Law, roughly circular orbits - and we have quite plausible theories why this follows from purely natural physical interactions. But none of the orbits are actually circular, the spacing is not actually that neat, including one distance from the Sun containing just fragments ( the Asteroid Belt).
The progress of science continues to eliminate things which suggested to people the action of a conscious designer.
The evidence of increase in complexity itself represents increased understanding, encompassed by ever more subtle theories. Yes, it does point to more things yet to be explained, but we really do have increased understanding, with massively increased predictive power of our theories as strong evidence for that.
Do you really think the medieval philosophers, the scientists of the 19th century, had enough understanding to build a super-computer, or launch a space-craft that could navigate to the outer planets? How does that not represent a massive increase in knowledge and understanding??
There is no explosion of odds, because 'supernatural' is really just one empty speculation. It is a problem for anyone seriously proposing a supernatural explanation, not science.
What we have, in order to explain what, in many cases, especially in Physics and Cosmology, are ever smaller deviations from current theories, only detectable by our increasingly accurate instruments, are a range of hypotheses, extrapolated from and consistent with current understanding, to suggest what observations and experiments may allow us to decide between them.
'Supernatural' is a label on what is not known - if we actually knew enough about it to identify some event as the effect of some specific 'supernatural', t would be part of natural science, just as lightning is now not attributed to Thor.
A Creator hypothesis, which cannot explain the existence of the Creator itself, or why it has certain attributes, is a total fail as an explanation at all. Again you are claiming superior understanding to the top Physicists and Cosmologists, including Stephen Hawking. It is the epitome of a dumb and useless hypothesis.
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
That's not much of a rebuttal, you know.
Because only people have been pointing to supernatural explanations. Not the things that we've been studying.
Like I explained earlier, the mechanics of fluid dynamics were impossible to predict, a priori. Even with the understanding and experience we have today, it's almost impossible to predict how a new aerodynamics profile will behave under varying conditions.
There hasn't been a plane built yet, without it's varying components having been extensively tested to see how they behave in simulated reality, before they build a prototype, much less strap a pilot into one.
All of nature, was at one point, one big question mark for humans. Everything they didn't understand, would simply be things they didn't understand.
Supernatural ideas were panacea for ignorance, and intellectual laziness.
Nothing moves in the direction of supernatural. It's just certain humans who run out of ideas, or who have an agenda, that push for the 'magical supernatural'.
To an ignorant moron, a lump of coal could never become a diamond, naturally. And a lump of coal, is simply the complicated (what you morons call ID) molecules of decomposed plant and organic life that turn into carbon graphite, by entirely natural processes over millions of years, and then after millions of years more, and only under very rare and specific circumstances transform into diamond.
However 'absurd', and super fantastically improbable you think it is, is irrelevant to the fact that the odds of a bunch of dead plants and animals mixed together underground, by natural selection became diamonds.
Nature's 'Hole in 1'.
No.
Our 'intuitions' are based on past knowledge. Our 'intuitions' are by their very definition, severely limiting. T
That's called 'Thinking inside a box'.
Only superstitious fools think 'It must be Magic', when they run out of ideas.
Science would never have progressed to it's current point, if all humans used that kind of patently stupid form of 'reasoning'.
Sez you.
Sez others.
But saying something not currently understood fully and completely, 'reasonably', or 'intuitively' points to 'supernatural' is patently stupid, and patently lazy.
Again, by your definition, every unpredictable outcome in fluid dynamics, could be classified as 'pointing to supernatural complexity'
Calculating odds of possiblity/probablity of something that HAS happened, is the most patently stupid thing a scientist can do. It's navel gazing.
I'll explain it once again, and maybe you're sober this time, and will be able to understand this.
If it already HAS happened, it could NOT have happened any other way, due to the Butterfly Effect.
The odds are a perfect 1 in 1.
No, that's patently stupid navel gazing, AGAIN.
The inverse in true.
You people are certifiably insane.
For thousand of years, you've been putting up your hands and saying 'God did it', and have been wrong everytime.
And you're still doing it...
So, do you accept my challenge for a 1 on 1 debate with me?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
today i went with my family, and a family friend of ours ( his name is Carlão, he is a prophet) , to visit a big plot of agriculture land i bought recently. I have employd some land workers there, which are cleaning my orange trees.I have written about some things Carlão has forseen , already. When we met the land workers, Carlão said to one of them( which he never met before ): I see God has freed you in 2002 from being killed through a accident, since the devil tried to kill you. But God has saved your life, since he has a plan for your life. His sister was on my side. I saw here reaction, she was shocked : She sad: At that year Ed suffered a big car accident, his stomach was all open, from one side to the other, and he almost died. How could he know that ? If it would not be true, he would just make himself ridiculous. Carlão went the last 3 days to Salvador de Bahia. He met there a young guy, which invited him to sleep at his house. Its too much to explain here how he met him. Carlão told to the guy : listen, God is revealing me, you are a drug dealer. You have 8 places on the street, where you sell BBQ. But in reality you sell there as main business drugs. If you don't stop the business, soon you will go to jail. The federal police is investigating you. There is a hidden camera installed near your house, where the Fed's are recording all the ongoing movement . Carlão went outside his house, and were able to show him the hidden camera. It was there, near his house. Nobody could discover it, unless knowing about the cam. Neither could someone else outside his gang know about his criminal activity. Even less a stranger as Carlão, coming from a other city, without never meet the guy before. The guy accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, immediately stopped his criminal activity, and prepared further steps to change his life. You can tell, these is just a fantasy story, but they are not. I saw Carlão do many similar things. God uses him. So has he in my life as well. God uses who he wants, and does miracles, still today. Check the web, and you will find thousands of testimonies of people which experienced Gods power in a special way.
Do you accept my challenge for a 1 on 1 debate with me?
WTF? lol what was the point of that story? Your god told your friend to save a drug dealer? how is that even fair? what about all the people said drug dealer killed or hurt to get to where he was. Or was this a nice drug dealer that got his business by petting bunnies and taking care of birds with broken wings.... Your story is silly at best, and criminal at worst. Even if every single thing happened exactly as you said, which by the way, I doubt very much, wtf does that have to do with anything?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
He's a troll. He's not typing this sh1t himself.
He's spamming the site with copy/paste BS. It's not even formatted properly. There's no word wrap.
You don't debate at all.
You are a plagiarising other peoples' work, and copy/pasting.
I challenge you to a 1 on 1 debate.
You will not be able to use 'canned' answers, because I will attack the problems from a different angle.
You will have to think for yourself, and come up with your own responses.
Will you accept my challenge?
2 other theists have accepted, and have engaged me, in separate threads.
Are you as confident about your 'strength' as they are?????
Bring it...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I have zero tolerance for liars, cowards, terrorists, tyrranists, delusions and stupidity.
Why should I?
I'm a pacifist...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
yes , sure. if you pay us$ 1000,00 at my paypal account. want the account number ?
At least the other 2 guys had the balls to man up.
You couldn't even pick up their cups, much less have the goods to fill one...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Why would he, his debate is to simply ignore all information contrary to his beliefs and say that he has won the debate, that his arguments are so superior that no one can defeat them....and when someone points out the obvious problems with his arugments he ignores it completely or just posts some ridiculous website that simply conforms to his views without actually discrediting anything. Yup...he wouldn't debate you at all. He would ignore you which he has.
Surely, my posts are not scarier to respond to than BobSpence's?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
you take your mouth full without reason. your arguments are that weak, that you need to hide behind personal attacks.
Argue with fools like you is a waste of time.
Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
A true fool is someone who can ignore the logical fallacy of circularity by attempting to justify accepting the existence of a God by using a quote from the book claiming to 'reveal' his existence, that asserts that anyone who doesn't accept this book is a fool.
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
You seem to be dependent upon a website and its author's unchecked and unsupported rhetoric. I'd like to hear what you have to say without all your arrogance and your gunshot approach to splattering data or alleged information somewhere about or near the topic.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I don't need reason, you dicksmack.
I have 'proof' of everything I tell you.
I provide 'truth'.
I bring you 'truth'.
I do not accept that which is not unequivocal.
I am a product of absolute truth.
I will not lie to myself, or my brothers.
I speak truth.
You are not my brother, but my enemy, yet I still bring you truth.
Yet, you would crucify me, though I gift you with absolute truth
You believe and have faith in false prophets.
Your false prophets have deceived you. Used your ignorance to twist you away from the truth.
Your prophet believes that the 'odds' are too great, for enormously improbable things to happen without 'divine intervention'?????
Fuck your prophets are incredibly stoopid, and blind.
'Miracles' (sic) don't happen by nature?
Here's a fucking 'miracle' that millions watched unfold LIVE on TV in REAL TIME, that should strip your mathematician of his degree, and put him where he can't damage any minds (like a drive through window at a McDonalds) with his 'preconceived notions' of 'Intelligent Design' inferences that he CLEARLY sees, since he concludes that unlikely events 'point' to an Intellegence that trancends the 'laws of nature'.
The most UNLIKELY event occured in 1997, at the European Grand Prix in Jerez, Spain, on October 26, 1997, during qualifying, where, the EXACT same lap time of 1:21.072, was recorded 3 different times, in rapid succession.
What exponentially decreased the the possibility/probability odds of such an event ever occuring, was that the different times, were posted not in successive laps, but at intervals, under varying car conditions (tire temperature, tire pressure, brake temperature, fuel load, engine temperature, engine horsepower, barometric pressure, atmospheric pressure, ambient air temperature, track surface temperature), from LAP to LAP.
What compounds the problem exponentially further, is that the driver was different each time.
What compounds the problem exponentially further, is that each different driver was in a different car, each different time (under conditions that deviated even further from the 1st car to post the time around the circuit), and 2 of the 3 drivers drove different cars, prepared by the same team, but with different managers, mechanics and engineers on each car, and with different settings on each individual car, none of which were similar to the 3rd driver/car combination, from another team, with different designers, managers, mechanics and engineers, who ran a different fuel from the other 3 drivers.
There were 'exclamations' at the time of this occurrence that ONLY a miracle could make something like this happen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_European_Grand_Prix
There's your EXTRAORDINARY proof of an EXTRAORDINARY "Hole in 1"
3 different people scored the exact same lottery number within 23 minutes despite the universal odds of seemingly infinite proportions.
Tell your mathematician 'conspiracy theist theorist' that he's been EXPOSED as a FALSE PROPHET, by an atheist, for abusing his knowledge of 'maths', to knowingly mislead people into the den of 'disinformation', and 'ignorance', with FALSE POSITIVE conclusions based on his 'laws of improbabilty' theories.
I'm not hiding, motherfucker.
I've called you out into the ring, and your dick went limp.
You're too stoopid
to realize that the more you assert 
there is a great gulf of difference in intelligence between us, the more of a compliment you are paying me. 
You are the perfect posterchild for 'insanity'.
You've keep looking for the answers in the natural world all around you, in the same 2000 yr old book of compilations from a bunch of ignorant, dust sucking, camel fucking, sexually repressed, homophobic, women fearing, racist, facist, limp dicked, mental midgets.
WTF would I care what these people would think of a happening dude like me?
How stoopid are you fucking people?
Now STFU, before we have to start putting you people to sleep, permanently, k?
You're perpetually obnoxious, and keep getting in the way of progress...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
When I wrote the past does not exist, that means it doesn't exist in the now. I was saying it does not presently exist, it existed, now it is something else. And yet it is only something else in terms of how we have measured the changes in existence based on our memories. The stuff that is out there is still out there as much now as before, thus when speaking about existence, there is no past only an everlasting presence. It's didn't used to exist and then change, it always exist, and it changes only in terms of placements not in terms of existing.
Thus if a crinkle a sheet of paper into a ball and then flatten it out again then fold it into a plane, then ball it up agin then make it into a hat, the paper, the same paper has always existed through all the changes, thus its existence is the same now as in the past. I could say well now it is a hat but before it was a ball and before that a plane and before that a different ball and before that flat and before that.... I can attribute a past only to the changes made in the paper, not to the existence of the paper. Existence is eternal, no past no 'befores', it is always being. Time is a human construct to measure physical changes within the existing stuff, not OF the existence itself. And the past, meaning the measure of changes, is real in that those changes happened, and that things have indeed moved around, but they don't tangibly exist. It's a description of what changes occurred. We apply time to changes. It's wrong to apply time to the eternal. It's like asking what nothingness comes from. It doesn't "come from" previous nothingness, it just remains nothing. Same with being. There is no when to it. Its a delusion to apply "time" to being.
To some other things. I don't understand what this has to do with Christianity or some of the other mess that has been brought up. Christianity is not Deism. It is much more specific. It is a man made set of myths borrowed from different culture areas. It can be historically shown when and where these myths were created, furthermore all one has to do is read the bible to see the plain ignorance and insanity of it. As for Deism, it is hard to argue with people who absent of knowing an answer retreat to just saying "god did it" as an answer to anything they don't know. It's not that much better than the organized religions who say god did it AND it gave us this text and set of rules. It has no explanitory power and it's really a meaningless statement. If you just want to say things had a start and it was from this eternal magical thing called god, that just created stuff for unknown reasons, but it doesn't do anything now, then it may as well not exist as if it does nothing now and wont do anything later then it is doing the same thing as nothingness. And assuming a thing that is not part of existence is illogical. Assuming a thing that is not a thing, created many new things out of nothing, is also illogical. Of course you can SAY wll this god thing gets to break the rules it can create things out of nothing because its god and god is magical and can do anything. Then fine, but your no better than kids on a play ground playing a game and making up rules as they go along to make an excuse for whatever is needed. I shot you now I had my invisible armor on, well I had armor piercing bullets, well under my armor was also a force field, well but your standing in a no force field zone that I made last night, well the field was on because when my armor is touched in makes an anti anti force field blocker pulse... it can go on forever when you at liberty to just make shit up and claim all powerful magic that can do any thing as a retreat. I mean if you REALLY believed that then why even talk about it. I think the real reason is religious types want to make an argument for a deist type of god concept and then try to bleed that into their more personal gods.